you@somehost.somedomain.aus (Your Name Here=Harvey) wrote:

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?

Engineering analyses are not "stories."  The rational approach is to 
forget all the stories and read the professionals' studies.

It is only with an impartial recounting of the events, that we
can get an accurate picture of what did take place?

Yeah...as I mentioned above.

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? 

Huh?

The official commission into 9-11 could have put to rest any
alternate conspiracy theories, 

Thanks for that...it's a totally hilarious goofy remark.  If the zombies 
had included narrators and camera crews in their flight crews and kept us 
all informed continuously up the the last second, you buffoons would still 
be advancing off-the-wall "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. 

I wouldn't believe any "official story" even if I could find such a thing.  
The analyses published by professional engineers are far more interesting, 
and however frenetically the nutcases pursue their idiotic "theories," 
none of them have even begun to erode any of those essays.

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? 

That gobble probably makes sense to someone, somewhere, considering that 
it has been said that whatever foolishness anyone can contrive will be 
blindly accepted by some small percent of humans.