Amanda Angelika wrote:

That is true. But when people simply make out one is stupid for seeing
problems in the official story

Sure, but if someone comes along and claims that:

  - in the transcontinental 767's, "at most we are talking a
    couple of thousand gallons" of fuel;

  - for fire to trigger the collapse would require melting steel
    for the whole height of the towers;

  - flying into a skyscraper requires as much preparation and
    precision as landing on an airport runway;

  - WTC7 collapsed simply as a result of fire;

  - even highly experienced commercial pilots would have
    difficulty finding Lower Manhattan and flying into the WTC
    towers;

  - the melting point of the steel in the WTC was about 3000C
    (holding the position even after an explanation giving more
    reasonable figures in both Celsius and Fahrenheit);

  - the WTC towers were built to withstand impact from a 747;

  - that mild steel tends to harden when subjected to heat such
    as a gas stove flame;

  - the only explanation for the collapses that makes sense is
    anti-mater devices.


Can we make that person out as stupid?