So the consensus is that 100% of this group acknowledges that 9/11 WAS
an inside job, which is what all the other polls show.

This does NOT include the obvious spOOks, such as Borsch here, who
already admitted he has ties to various intel. agencies, and other
obvious shills.

It is almost embarrassing to see how weak their debunking efforts have
fallen to.  Building 7 collapsed they say because "it was MEANT to
be." Huh?

The air-force stand-down at the Pentagon happened because "they were
out to lunch at that time?"  Sad.

Debunking used to be an honorable profession for spOOks, but they
don't even try anymore.  And yet, like Borsch here, they still draw a
paycheck to come up with that nonsense.


H. Bosch wrote:

"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

Yes you are!

H.