Rick Reuben wrote:

Unblinking Eye wrote:A

How stupid do you have to be to believe that the US government would convict itself of mass murder if that's what the evidence showed?

Duff!

Unblinking Eye wrote:

Skronk wrote:You're a real fucking nuisance, Unthinking Ass. Do you have anything worthwhile to add?

Sure Skronk.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to ignore any and all studies performed by the only people acedemically qualified to perform them (ACTUAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS), in spite of the fact that they routinely submit them to qualified jornals for peer review?

How fucking stupid do you have to be to instead believe the theories of far less qualified people (INTERNET CONSPIRACY THEORISTS) who refuse to submit any of their papers to qualified journals for peer review?

A scale of 1-10 is fine.

HOW FUCKING STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO DISREGARD ALL OF THE LOOSE ENDS?

HOW STUPID MUST YOU BE TO NOT REALIZE GOVERNMENTS KILL THEIR OWN PEOPLE?

HOW FUCKING STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO NOT SEE THE OFFICIAL STORY IS HORSESHIT?

HOW FUCKING STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO BELIEVE 19 MEN WITH BOXCUTTERS CAN DO SO MANY THINGS RIGHT?

A retarded, indecipherable answer is fine. But I know you won't answer any my questions, you'll just keep trying to bait Bob. As long as it makes you feel warm and toasty, right?

Ya know, I just noticed this: I joined this forum on Sept. 11th, 2006, exactly 5 years after 9-11 happened. I'm not a mathematician, but I think that means something.

These are pretty simple questions. Simple relevant questions. By your refusal to answer them, I (along with everyone else here, will assume that you don't have a good answer. So much for having something worthwhile to add.

Unblinking Eye wrote:

Skronk wrote:You're a real fucking nuisance, Unthinking Ass. Do you have anything worthwhile to add?

Sure Skronk.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to ignore any and all studies performed by the only people acedemically qualified to perform them (ACTUAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS), in spite of the fact that they routinely submit them to qualified jornals for peer review?

How fucking stupid do you have to be to instead believe the theories of far less qualified people (INTERNET CONSPIRACY THEORISTS) who refuse to submit any of their papers to qualified journals for peer review?

A scale of 1-10 is fine.

Unblinking Eye wrote:These are pretty simple questions. Simple relevant questions. By your refusal to answer them, I (along with everyone else here, will assume that you don't have a good answer. So much for having something worthwhile to add.

I couldn't care less about what you assume. You really like to get off on the fact that out of thirty posts, I'd say most of them have been to laughably oust Clocker as an anti-semite.

So again, who's not adding anything worthwhile to the thread?

Since you're aching for my response, and not actively questioning anything to do with the events of 9/11, or probably anything else, I'll answer your pointless questions.

Unblinking Eye wrote:How fucking stupid do you have to be to ignore any and all studies performed by the only people acedemically qualified to perform them (ACTUAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS), in spite of the fact that they routinely submit them to qualified jornals for peer review?

I do not ignore or dismiss any of the studies before reading them, but not one that I've read satisfies my mind. The official story is full of holes, inconsistencies, and out right bullshit like:

NIST wrote:The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse.

Unblinking Eye wrote:How fucking stupid do you have to be to instead believe the theories of far less qualified people (INTERNET CONSPIRACY THEORISTS) who refuse to submit any of their papers to qualified journals for peer review?

This is a retarded question, but seeing where it's from, it makes sense. If you would actually take the time to read, yes read, the theories of "far less qualified" people, like say Steven E. Jones, you would see that they indeed hold water. But of course, you won't. You're satisfied with the official version.

Now, it's your turn. Answer my questions, if you can think beyond what the government has given you.

The first question I wrote:How fucking stupid do you have to be to disregard all of the loose ends?

The second question I wrote:How stupid must you be to not realize Governments kill their own people?

The third question I wrote:How fucking stupid do you have to be to not see the official story is horseshit?

The fourth and final question I wrote:How fucking stupid do you have to be to believe 19 men with boxcutters can do so many things right?

No need for a scale. Just answers.

You people quit talking about your flaming balls.

kerble wrote:put on your special edition 911 polarized glasses (available at the counter of every 711) and watch it again.

Comes complete with Jew-thermite filter.

caix wrote:Ya know, I just noticed this: I joined this forum on Sept. 11th, 2006, exactly 5 years after 9-11 happened. I'm not a mathematician, but I think that means something.

Are you a Jew?

Skronk wrote:
Now, it's your turn. Answer my questions, if you can think beyond what the government has given you.

The first question I wrote:How fucking stupid do you have to be to disregard all of the loose ends?

The second question I wrote:How stupid must you be to not realize Governments kill their own people?

The third question I wrote:How fucking stupid do you have to be to not see the official story is horseshit?

The fourth and final question I wrote:How fucking stupid do you have to be to believe 19 men with boxcutters can do so many things right?

No need for a scale. Just answers.

I can answer all these questions with 1 answer dipshit. It is the same fucking answer that just about any rational person could come up with. It is the same answer that would cause most people to conclude that only a complete fucking idiot could find fault in its logic. It is as simple as can be. If you want me to believe your theories on the loose ends, the killers in the government, alternatives to the official theory or alternatives to 19 men with boxcutters, you need to prove them.

If you want me to believe just about anything that I don't currently believe, you have to prove it. If I am not qualified to judge the evidence (based on, lets say, a lack of expertise in a particular subject), I would be inclined to seek out the opinions of others. If you were trying to convince a skeptical audience to believe your theories, I would asume you would want to make the most credible argument possible. An easy way to do this is to present your theories, with evidence, to those best qualified to interpret it. If you do, and they agree with your findings, I would probably be inclined to agree too.

Take an argument about how a building might fall down, for example. I realize that I do not have any expertise in this field. I would think that experts in the field of structural engineering would be the most qualified to determine how this might or might not happen. If you were to present your evidence to a team of experts in structural engineering and they agreed with your findings, I would be inclined to believe it too. If you consistently declined to present this evidence to a team of experts in structural engineering, I would logically conclude that it is because you have no confidence that they would agree with your findings. Therefore, I would be less inclined to believe it.

Notice that the government doesn't come into play in this philosophy. There are plenty of qualified experts to judge the evidence. Scientists, acedemics, experts in their field.

Does it not even occur to you why the conspiracy crowd refuses to submit their findings to credible scientific journals for peer review?

My questions are simple. Instead of casually bypassing them, you could have answered.

First off, I did not come up with these theories. In my posts, I practically fed you the obvious. I don't know how Clocker does it, day in day, facing you and people with the inability to grasp there is something seriously fucked in the land of nod. I am not here to change your way of life, and couldn't care less about what you believe.

All I asked of you, is to answer my four questions, and you couldn't do that. You either can't see or won't admit to yourself that the Government isn't here to help, and our leaders are in it for themselves. Hell, it's not even about that. You could be shown all the information available to the western world, but if you don't like the messenger, out goes the message.

I asked how you can believe in the official version of events, and all you could say is that other people are more qualified to answer that, so I don't have to. Aren't you qualified to make up your mind about anything?

This has nothing to with consensus opinion, but rather, your opinion. But judging from your post, I doubt you would diverge from the party line.

Skronk wrote:My questions are simple. Instead of casually bypassing them, you could have answered.

First off, I did not come up with these theories. In my posts, I practically fed you the obvious. I don't know how Clocker does it, day in day, facing you and people with the inability to grasp there is something seriously fucked in the land of nod. I am not here to change your way of life, and couldn't care less about what you believe.

All I asked of you, is to answer my four questions, and you couldn't do that. You either can't see or won't admit to yourself that the Government isn't here to help, and our leaders are in it for themselves. Hell, it's not even about that. You could be shown all the information available to the western world, but if you don't like the messenger, out goes the message.

I asked how you can believe in the official version of events, and all you could say is that other people are more qualified to answer that, so I don't have to. Aren't you qualified to make up your mind about anything?

This has nothing to with consensus opinion, but rather, your opinion. But judging from your post, I doubt you would diverge from the party line.

This entire post could just as well be an argument for intelligent design.
[url=http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/petition.html]
In the recent skirmishes over evolution, advocates who have pushed to dilute its teaching have regularly pointed to a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers.[/url]

As Unblinking Eye suggests as well in his last post, I don't mind what you two guys are advocating as much as how you are going about making your case. There is a reason why judges and structural engineers don't call anyone pussies when making their argument, and it has nothing to do with tact.