In article <Mk0qg.17366$1g.13995@newsfe1-win.ntli.net>, manic_mandy@hotmail.com says...

In news:2_Ipg.149$Ym2.39@trndny05,
Justin Case <NoFuckin'Way@UgottaBkidding.net> typed:

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xOGpg.11231$v4.10349@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...

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

Instead of sinking down to the level of name calling, which is one of
the debunkers favorite tactics,
which derails any thread into a course of mindless drivel, lets
examine the facts.

That is true. But when people simply make out one is stupid for seeing
problems in the official story you come to realise they aren't really
interested in examining anything in an unbiased fashion, they are simply
interesting in debunking rather than serious discussion. Of course any idiot
can do that, and at the end of the day it's all rather pointless. If people
want to believe in the official story why should I care? Maybe it's a
simpler and happier existence for them to believe everything their
Government tell them with complete trust and innocent naivety. I wasn't
going to come back and discuss it any more people can believe what they feel
happy with, what ever turns them on basically.

Interesting post BTW I shall read it properly when I get a chance. There are
may very highly intelligent people that see flaws in the official account of
9/11. I think in the beginning it was such a shocking event that it was easy
to take the official version on board without question. But when you analyse
what happened over time the official story becomes less credible, even
simple commonsense tells you that buildings don't normally fall like that.
it was shocking in it incredibility and remains so to this day.
-- 
Amanda

With the matter of arguing the case, it is interesting to note
Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski as to what goes on within the Pentagon, when
she comments personally about the leadership present there.
How with the Neocons, who are behind G W Bush's policy decisions - that
although they are regarded as being highly intelligent people - these
people never served in the military or seen service (G W Bush is not
counted because he was never in active service in a wartime environment) and
are not team players, have not functioned within a team environment.
She makes the point that anyone who has played 'team' sports or served
in the military, in active service --- that it is OK to express yourself
honestly when you have messed up. When you make bad decisions and have to
clean up afterwards - because you don't want to keep on making the same
mistakes all the time.
Whereas the Neocons are in complete denial of any policy decisions they
have made. Like the Iraq mess the US is currently embroiled in.
The military ends up having to clean up the messy situation in Iraq, which
was never workable to begin with.
Bush goes in with guns blazing - only that he never was there in the
first place, it is the US troops who have to face the disaster that is
Iraq.
Of course the US government puts up a front, of doing no wrong, and never
ever admitting to anything done wrong - of course government departments
are not competing against each other, or messing each other up...

Only that we see nothing quite right, as in 9-11.

Harvey