In article <xOGpg.11231$v4.10349@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, manic_mandy@hotmail.com says...

In news:Xns97F34EB95CBAthathillbillyyahooco@130.133.1.4,
John Griffin <thathillbilly@yahooie.com> typed:

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

In news:fmcba25ckk27d498jhqb60mv4a3412me3u@4ax.com,
Bookman <thebookman@kc.rr.comNULL> typed:

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 18:58:34 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
<manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

In news:aZdpg.285$wP7.215@fe06.lga,
H. Bosch <hbosch@charter.net> typed:

Amanda you should give it up.  You get more ridiculous
with every post.  You think you know things but you
don't know squat.

Then you are obviosly delusional.

No, he was quite correct; you far overvalue your limited
expertise, and make a habit of rejecting superior analysis
and outright factual information for the sole reason that it
interferes with your belief system.

As I have said before I don't have a belief system. You are
trying to debunk something that doesn't exist. Which simply
indicates a blind acceptance of official dogma and no facility
for independent thought and a fear of intellectual analysis.
Which is sad in a way, but thankfully not my problem.

It is spectacularly obvious that it is in fact your problem.

You're recycling the shallowest versions of long-since
discredited nonsense.  You make vague references to scientific
and engineering concepts, erroneously believing that they support
you, while others give you specific results derived from
familiarity with those principles.  For just one little example,
you were blown away by the very idea of an airplane carrying 100
thousand pounds of fuel. You actually thought it would take an
oceangoing ship to carry that much, which wouldn't even be a good
puddle in its bunkers. That was a definitive display of ignorance
and it puts all the rest of your yapping into perspective.

Idiot
-- 
Amanda

Emotional comments don't even enter into the argument over the facts.

If one were to list all the information in the official story of the
events, that took place, and then it is listed with all the strange
coincidences that just 'happened' with the anomalies listed alongside -
which story do you believe in?

It is only with an impartial recounting of the events, that we can get
an accurate picture of what did take place?
One must remember that 9-11 has become a political event, and as such the
US administration has milked it for all it was worth, pushing through
policies, which before would have not gone through without great struggle.
Did it in fact have part in the fabrication of 9-11?
There are too coincidences and failures in stopping 9-11 beforehand and
while it took place, to suggest that the US was taken down, off guard?

The official commission into 9-11 could have put to rest any alternate
conspiracy theories, had it been impartial and thorough, but that 
investigation or lack thereof, has simple been a whitewash, in which it
merely repeated the official version of events which did not take place.
It merely served to reinforce the opinion that 9-11 was hijacked for
political reasons at the highest level.
And that is why there has been unofficial independent conferences held,
which highlight the many reasons not to believe the official story.
The speakers of these conferences are not kooks who have done little
investigation, far from it.

Why did 3 planes crash at their targets at all? Oh, Norad doesn't track
commercial airplanes who are off course, and don't respond to radio
communication queries... They'd rather track what is in the upper atmosphere,
which is hardly anything at all, after all they are there only to prevent
ICBMs only from entering US air space...
And so what crap do you accept as being believable, and that which does
not make any sense?

Harvey