Thread: The lid is OFF 9/11/01!!!

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Pinestraw, you appear to be confusing my premise.

First, I didn't mean to indicate that you see the evil hand of government in everything. Again, I was responding generically to the multitude of comments made by those who believe that the government planned 9/11.

Whether I see it or not, I've never said it.

Next, I am saying that the wings of the plane that hit the Pentagon first folded back and then disintegrated. The explanation provided in that Snopes link did a better job of explaining it than I am likely to do. As I mentioned, I have actually seen a crash site of a large aircraft (F-4) firsthand and was myself shocked at how completely some parts of the plane disintegrated. The debris from the wings would have been among that scattered on the lawn, while larger pieces would have floded and then followed the other wreckage into the impact area. Remember also that the wings were full of fuel which would have exploded, casting fragments over a large area under normal circumstances but, given the velocity of the aircraft at impact, in this case shattering them inside the breached building.

But there were no fragments to speak of, CG, all you have to do is look at the film to know that, and you just got done telling me they never entered the building to begin with because of it's 'Cold War' re-enforcements. I did notice that the impact area just happened to be the one side out of 5 that they had just reinforced.

In response to the fuel comment, I was merely answering your question as to whether it would have all burned with the initial explosion. It would not have even come close. I also addressed the fact that the temperature would not have had to reach the melting point of steel in order to compromise the structure and cause collapse. I have to deal with metal fatigue issues on a daily basis. Tolerances are not based upon melting point. They are based upon maximum likely temperatures. That's why even in a building unlikely to see temperatures approachong the melting point of steel still coats the supports with flame retardant insulation.

I realize that all the fuel didn't explode on impact, that's why I followed with a couple of caveats. My point is that the stuff could have poured in a river all the way to the sub-basement and NEVER burned hot enough to harm that steel.

As for "no steel framed structure ever collapsing due to fire," you are quite simply wrong. As a matter of fact, there was a series of warehouse fires in the late 1980s and early 1990s in which steel members not only failed but in some cases vaporized. Arson investigators hypothesized that some sort of accelerant had been used with jet fuel, but no trace of said accelerant was ever discovered and in fact arson was never proven in any of the cases. The fires burned so hot that water being sprayed by firefighters hydrolyzed and burned.

SOURCE?

That said, I have explained repeatedly that I have no problem accepting that the administration may have made an executive decision to demolish the buildings before one or another toppled and caused more collateral damage. I have explained in detail why I believe this to be the case and what I believe the charges to have been.

I'm glad you're willing to admit that the administration dropped the towers. All that's left is to explain is 'why'?

As for whether or not you were engaging in spin, I will simply quote you:

[quote:r6u9o0kk]What was it he was afraid the physicians would find, more cocaine?

[/quote:r6u9o0kk]

Ghost, if YOU were a pilot in the NG, what could POSSIBLY force you to NOT take a routine physical? That's not spin, my friend, that's REASONABLE suspicion. Cops get warrants on MUCH less than that EVERY DAY!

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by Neese

I am surprised that so many people were upset about the President's reaction. Would everyone be satisfied if he screamed and cried in front of a bunch of little children? When you are in the public, you need to get your thoughts together. If anything, his reaction seemed unplanned to me. If it was planned, I am sure that he would have acted more heroic.

Think about it for a minute, Neese. The second plane has hit, there's at least 2 MORE that are unaccounted for, and EVERYBODY knows where he is. The Secret Service should have been hustling his azz out of there ON WHEELS!!!

In your opinion, what was the motive for this tragedy?

My opinion is reserved and skeptical. [quote:1qho93ou]I will be the first to admit that our government is troubled, but I think that they could have made their point on a much smaller scale, if indeed it was planned.

As to making a point, I don't believe that had anything to do with it, at least not to us 'little people'.[quote:1qho93ou]My other concern is that if our citizens truly believe that our government could do something like this, how can they live here? I do believe that skepticism is healthy but this seems so extreme to me.

You make it seem that anyone who questions the 'official' story should just pack up and get the hell out! Whether I believe it or not, just where the hell would you suggest I move to? And why the hell would you suggest I leave? I'm insulted by your sanctimonious attitude.[/quote:1qho93ou]

I didn't see Neese tell anyone to "get the hell out." I saw her asking a question, which is how anyone who believes that things are this bad can remain here. If I was convinced that the government had planned this attack from the git-go, I can tell you that I would sure as hell leave for greener pastures. There are several places that I would be welcome. For my part, I believe that there is a narrow chance that we can striaghten out the problems that exist in this country, but my fears that they will not be corrected do not arise from fear that the government and the forces behind its subversion are invulnerable, but rather that my fellow citizens are not up the task of undertaking the little changes in their lifestyles and expectations required to affect the needed change.[/quote:1qho93ou]I think "if our citizens truly believe that our government could do something like this, how can they live here?" Sounds close enough to "If you believe our government could do this, get the hell out.", and my response to you is still the same, where the hell would you suggest that a 50-year-old landscaper emigrate to? Australia and Canada would be my best options, but I don't think they have a need for lawn maintenance personnel. They don't need carpenters and sheetrockers, either. I guess all MY skills left me vulnerable to the NWO.

Gawddamn I'm sorry, I didn't get the memo that MY class of people was being outsourced faster than all you edumacated folks. Forgive my sarcasm, but right now y'all can kiss MY grits!

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Pinestraw, you appear to be confusing my premise.

First, I didn't mean to indicate that you see the evil hand of government in everything. Again, I was responding generically to the multitude of comments made by those who believe that the government planned 9/11.

Whether I see it or not, I've never said it.

Nor did I say you did.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Next, I am saying that the wings of the plane that hit the Pentagon first folded back and then disintegrated. The explanation provided in that Snopes link did a better job of explaining it than I am likely to do. As I mentioned, I have actually seen a crash site of a large aircraft (F-4) firsthand and was myself shocked at how completely some parts of the plane disintegrated. The debris from the wings would have been among that scattered on the lawn, while larger pieces would have floded and then followed the other wreckage into the impact area. Remember also that the wings were full of fuel which would have exploded, casting fragments over a large area under normal circumstances but, given the velocity of the aircraft at impact, in this case shattering them inside the breached building.

But there were no fragments to speak of, CG, all you have to do is look at the film to know that, and you just got done telling me they never entered the building to begin with because of it's 'Cold War' re-enforcements. I did notice that the impact area just happened to be the one side out of 5 that they had just reinforced.

Yes, there were fragments. I don't know where you are getting your information. Most of the fragments were inside the building but many were scattered across the lawn.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

In response to the fuel comment, I was merely answering your question as to whether it would have all burned with the initial explosion. It would not have even come close. I also addressed the fact that the temperature would not have had to reach the melting point of steel in order to compromise the structure and cause collapse. I have to deal with metal fatigue issues on a daily basis. Tolerances are not based upon melting point. They are based upon maximum likely temperatures. That's why even in a building unlikely to see temperatures approachong the melting point of steel still coats the supports with flame retardant insulation.

I realize that all the fuel didn't explode on impact, that's why I followed with a couple of caveats. My point is that the stuff could have poured in a river all the way to the sub-basement and NEVER burned hot enough to harm that steel.

Again, that statement is fallacious. It was not hot enough to MELT the steel. You don't need to melt steel to damage it, particularly under load. All that was necessary was for the fuel to burn hot enough to distort the fasteners that held the members together. That said, I have plainly stated my problems with the manner in which the lower floors failed. I have problems with the copious amounts of molten slag at the base of the debris, which was NOT where the fuel was burning. I have stated that I believe that the buildings whose collapse was most likely to cause collateral damage were taken out by military demolition, and I have explained why and how this was possible in the brief timeframe between the attacks and the collapses.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

As for "no steel framed structure ever collapsing due to fire," you are quite simply wrong. As a matter of fact, there was a series of warehouse fires in the late 1980s and early 1990s in which steel members not only failed but in some cases vaporized. Arson investigators hypothesized that some sort of accelerant had been used with jet fuel, but no trace of said accelerant was ever discovered and in fact arson was never proven in any of the cases. The fires burned so hot that water being sprayed by firefighters hydrolyzed and burned.

SOURCE?

Charles Lovell, a local arson investigator I happen to know, clued me in to the series of suspected arsons. There were newspaper articles at the time detailing the mystery.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

That said, I have explained repeatedly that I have no problem accepting that the administration may have made an executive decision to demolish the buildings before one or another toppled and caused more collateral damage. I have explained in detail why I believe this to be the case and what I believe the charges to have been.

I'm glad you're willing to admit that the administration dropped the towers. All that's left is to explain is 'why'?

I have been "admitting" that from the git-go. I have also explained the probable "why" of the matter.

As for whether or not you were engaging in spin, I will simply quote you:

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

[quote:nmpxbzb7]What was it he was afraid the physicians would find, more cocaine?

Ghost, if YOU were a pilot in the NG, what could POSSIBLY force you to NOT take a routine physical? That's not spin, my friend, that's REASONABLE suspicion. Cops get warrants on MUCH less than that EVERY DAY![/quote:nmpxbzb7]

There is a difference between asking a question that could have numerous answers and making a specific accusation based on unsubstantiated rumor. One is probative, the other is spin.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by Neese

I am surprised that so many people were upset about the President's reaction. Would everyone be satisfied if he screamed and cried in front of a bunch of little children? When you are in the public, you need to get your thoughts together. If anything, his reaction seemed unplanned to me. If it was planned, I am sure that he would have acted more heroic.

Think about it for a minute, Neese. The second plane has hit, there's at least 2 MORE that are unaccounted for, and EVERYBODY knows where he is. The Secret Service should have been hustling his azz out of there ON WHEELS!!!

In your opinion, what was the motive for this tragedy?

My opinion is reserved and skeptical. [quote:3w4vvkyw]I will be the first to admit that our government is troubled, but I think that they could have made their point on a much smaller scale, if indeed it was planned.

As to making a point, I don't believe that had anything to do with it, at least not to us 'little people'.[quote:3w4vvkyw]My other concern is that if our citizens truly believe that our government could do something like this, how can they live here? I do believe that skepticism is healthy but this seems so extreme to me.

You make it seem that anyone who questions the 'official' story should just pack up and get the hell out! Whether I believe it or not, just where the hell would you suggest I move to? And why the hell would you suggest I leave? I'm insulted by your sanctimonious attitude.

I didn't see Neese tell anyone to "get the hell out." I saw her asking a question, which is how anyone who believes that things are this bad can remain here. If I was convinced that the government had planned this attack from the git-go, I can tell you that I would sure as hell leave for greener pastures. There are several places that I would be welcome. For my part, I believe that there is a narrow chance that we can striaghten out the problems that exist in this country, but my fears that they will not be corrected do not arise from fear that the government and the forces behind its subversion are invulnerable, but rather that my fellow citizens are not up the task of undertaking the little changes in their lifestyles and expectations required to affect the needed change.[/quote:3w4vvkyw]I think "if our citizens truly believe that our government could do something like this, how can they live here?" Sounds close enough to "If you believe our government could do this, get the hell out.", and my response to you is still the same, where the hell would you suggest that a 50-year-old landscaper emigrate to? Australia and Canada would be my best options, but I don't think they have a need for lawn maintenance personnel. They don't need carpenters and sheetrockers, either. I guess all MY skills left me vulnerable to the NWO.

Gawddamn I'm sorry, I didn't get the memo that MY class of people was being outsourced faster than all you edumacated folks. Forgive my sarcasm, but right now y'all can kiss MY grits![/quote:3w4vvkyw]

You appear to be taking personal unbrage at comments not meant to be personal in nature. Perhaps it would be best to leave off this discussion if we cannot confine it to a dispassionate debate of the facts.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Yes, there were fragments. I don't know where you are getting your information. Most of the fragments were inside the building but many were scattered across the lawn.

One simple question...

How could FRAGMENTS of the wings enter a building that repelled the WHOLE wing on impact?

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

[quote:jyloepni]
In response to the fuel comment, I was merely answering your question as to whether it would have all burned with the initial explosion. It would not have even come close. I also addressed the fact that the temperature would not have had to reach the melting point of steel in order to compromise the structure and cause collapse. I have to deal with metal fatigue issues on a daily basis. Tolerances are not based upon melting point. They are based upon maximum likely temperatures. That's why even in a building unlikely to see temperatures approachong the melting point of steel still coats the supports with flame retardant insulation.

I realize that all the fuel didn't explode on impact, that's why I followed with a couple of caveats. My point is that the stuff could have poured in a river all the way to the sub-basement and NEVER burned hot enough to harm that steel.

Again, that statement is fallacious. It was not hot enough to MELT the steel. You don't need to melt steel to damage it, particularly under load. All that was necessary was for the fuel to burn hot enough to distort the fasteners that held the members together. [/quote:jyloepni] That may be all that was necessary, but it doesn't mean that's what happened. You'll have to show me PROOF that the fasteners(rivets, welds and the like) were more susceptible to distortion from heat.

That said, I have plainly stated my problems with the manner in which the lower floors failed. I have problems with the copious amounts of molten slag at the base of the debris, which was NOT where the fuel was burning. I have stated that I believe that the buildings whose collapse was most likely to cause collateral damage were taken out by military demolition, and I have explained why and how this was possible in the brief timeframe between the attacks and the collapses.

If that were indeed the case, why is this administration so STUPID as to cover it up?

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

[quote:jyloepni]As for "no steel framed structure ever collapsing due to fire," you are quite simply wrong. As a matter of fact, there was a series of warehouse fires in the late 1980s and early 1990s in which steel members not only failed but in some cases vaporized. Arson investigators hypothesized that some sort of accelerant had been used with jet fuel, but no trace of said accelerant was ever discovered and in fact arson was never proven in any of the cases. The fires burned so hot that water being sprayed by firefighters hydrolyzed and burned.

SOURCE?

Charles Lovell, a local arson investigator who clued me in to the series of suspected arsons. There were newspaper articles at the time detailing the mystery.[/quote:jyloepni] Not a very verifiable source. Got a link or 2?

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

[quote:jyloepni]That said, I have explained repeatedly that I have no problem accepting that the administration may have made an executive decision to demolish the buildings before one or another toppled and caused more collateral damage. I have explained in detail why I believe this to be the case and what I believe the charges to have been.

I'm glad you're willing to admit that the administration dropped the towers. All that's left is to explain is 'why'?

I have been "admitting" that from the git-go. I have also explained the probable "why" of the matter.[/quote:jyloepni]I'm not sure what the probable 'why' is, but I'm fairly sure it's NOT something I want to hear.

[quote:jyloepni]
As for whether or not you were engaging in spin, I will simply quote you:

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

[quote:jyloepni]What was it he was afraid the physicians would find, more cocaine?

Ghost, if YOU were a pilot in the NG, what could POSSIBLY force you to NOT take a routine physical? That's not spin, my friend, that's REASONABLE suspicion. Cops get warrants on MUCH less than that EVERY DAY![/quote:jyloepni]

There is a difference between asking a question that could have numerous answers and making a specific accusation based on unsubstantiated rumor. One is probative, the other is spin.[/quote:jyloepni] The fact of GWB's drug and alcohol abuse is NOT in question. The only question is did his alcohol and drug abuse cause him to lose his flight status? A reasonable person would have to admit to that possibility.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Yes, there were fragments. I don't know where you are getting your information. Most of the fragments were inside the building but many were scattered across the lawn.

One simple question...

How could FRAGMENTS of the wings enter a building that repelled the WHOLE wing on impact?

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

[quote:379d42e4]
In response to the fuel comment, I was merely answering your question as to whether it would have all burned with the initial explosion. It would not have even come close. I also addressed the fact that the temperature would not have had to reach the melting point of steel in order to compromise the structure and cause collapse. I have to deal with metal fatigue issues on a daily basis. Tolerances are not based upon melting point. They are based upon maximum likely temperatures. That's why even in a building unlikely to see temperatures approachong the melting point of steel still coats the supports with flame retardant insulation.

I realize that all the fuel didn't explode on impact, that's why I followed with a couple of caveats. My point is that the stuff could have poured in a river all the way to the sub-basement and NEVER burned hot enough to harm that steel.

Again, that statement is fallacious. It was not hot enough to MELT the steel. You don't need to melt steel to damage it, particularly under load. All that was necessary was for the fuel to burn hot enough to distort the fasteners that held the members together.

That may be all that was necessary, but it doesn't mean that's what happened. You'll have to show me PROOF that the fasteners(rivets, welds and the like) were more susceptible to distortion from heat.

That said, I have plainly stated my problems with the manner in which the lower floors failed. I have problems with the copious amounts of molten slag at the base of the debris, which was NOT where the fuel was burning. I have stated that I believe that the buildings whose collapse was most likely to cause collateral damage were taken out by military demolition, and I have explained why and how this was possible in the brief timeframe between the attacks and the collapses.

If that were indeed the case, why is this administration so STUPID as to cover it up?

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

[quote:379d42e4]As for "no steel framed structure ever collapsing due to fire," you are quite simply wrong. As a matter of fact, there was a series of warehouse fires in the late 1980s and early 1990s in which steel members not only failed but in some cases vaporized. Arson investigators hypothesized that some sort of accelerant had been used with jet fuel, but no trace of said accelerant was ever discovered and in fact arson was never proven in any of the cases. The fires burned so hot that water being sprayed by firefighters hydrolyzed and burned.

SOURCE?

Charles Lovell, a local arson investigator who clued me in to the series of suspected arsons. There were newspaper articles at the time detailing the mystery.[/quote:379d42e4] Not a very verifiable source. Got a link or 2?

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

[quote:379d42e4]That said, I have explained repeatedly that I have no problem accepting that the administration may have made an executive decision to demolish the buildings before one or another toppled and caused more collateral damage. I have explained in detail why I believe this to be the case and what I believe the charges to have been.

I'm glad you're willing to admit that the administration dropped the towers. All that's left is to explain is 'why'?

I have been "admitting" that from the git-go. I have also explained the probable "why" of the matter.[/quote:379d42e4]I'm not sure what the probable 'why' is, but I'm fairly sure it's NOT something I want to hear.

[quote:379d42e4]
As for whether or not you were engaging in spin, I will simply quote you:

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

[quote:379d42e4]What was it he was afraid the physicians would find, more cocaine?

Ghost, if YOU were a pilot in the NG, what could POSSIBLY force you to NOT take a routine physical? That's not spin, my friend, that's REASONABLE suspicion. Cops get warrants on MUCH less than that EVERY DAY![/quote:379d42e4]

There is a difference between asking a question that could have numerous answers and making a specific accusation based on unsubstantiated rumor. One is probative, the other is spin.[/quote:379d42e4] The fact of GWB's drug and alcohol abuse is NOT in question. The only question is did his alcohol and drug abuse cause him to lose his flight status? A reasonable person would have to admit to that possibility.[/quote:379d42e4]

The wings were not "repelled." They folded and were carried into the breach. The wing root would have pulled the wings along with the airframe. At those velocities and with those forces, the aluminum would react the same way it would react if you folded up a little plane out of aluminum foil and pulled it through a keyhole. The explosion of the fuel would have kicked some of the material back out of the breach, which would account for the debris on the lawn.

As for the fasteners, I don't have to "show" you anything. It's simple physics. The small components such as fasteners are less capable of dissipating heat by conduction. The relevant portion of the fastener is the thread. While a beam must distort to the point that it either places critical forces on other members or else must actually fail itself, all that must fail on a fastener are the relatively small threads. Furthermore, the manner in which threads are cut creates natural stress points susceptible to shear forces. If you don't like my explanation, go ask another engineer.

As for the arson thing, I don't give a rat's arse whether you like my sources or not, and I'm not going to try to dig up an obscure series of articles from fifteen years ago, before the internet was being used as a primary news source. I resent your impugning my integrity, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Look, you are a self-described landscaper, while I am an engineer with a physics background. I have a better handle on the properties of metals under heat and stress than you do, and I am not inclined to attempt to prove to you something when you seem to demonstrating a resistance to anything that counters your premise. For example, not only have I described how the effects at the Pentagon crash site would have occurred, someone else has posted an article that pretty much said the exact same thing. Rather than accept expert opinions, you keep offering trying to find sematic workarounds to invalidate the existing facts.

Pinestrawguys...I am not suggesting that you or anyone else leave. I am saying that I find it hard to believe that our own government would actually murder our own citizens on purpose. I feel that we live in the best country in the world, that's all...and yes...where would we go? Mwah!!Consider your grits kissed .

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

The wings were not "repelled." They folded and were carried into the breach. The wing root would have pulled the wings along with the airframe. At those velocities and with those forces, the aluminum would react the same way it would react if you folded up a little plane out of aluminum foil and pulled it through a keyhole. The explosion of the fuel would have kicked some of the material back out of the breach, which would account for the debris on the lawn.

I'm sorry Crocket, as much as I respect your intelligence I'm having a VERY hard time swallowing this.

As for the fasteners, I don't have to "show" you anything. It's simple physics. The small components such as fasteners are less capable of dissipating heat by conduction. The relevant portion of the fastener is the thread. While a beam must distort to the point that it either places critical forces on other members or else must actually fail itself, all that must fail on a fastener are the relatively small threads. Furthermore, the manner in which threads are cut creates natural stress points susceptible to shear forces. If you don't like my explanation, go ask another engineer.

While I don't have a degree in engineering, it doesn't take one to know that rivets and welds have NO THREADS to weaken, and conductive heat is passed through to any abutting surface, allowing it's temperature to rise NO HIGHER than the surrounding metal. A good engineer will also tell you that pound for pound, rivets and welds hold MORE tensile strength than the materials they join together.

As for the arson thing, I don't give a rat's arse whether you like my sources or not, and I'm not going to try to dig up an obscure series of articles from fifteen years ago, before the internet was being used as a primary news source. I resent your impugning my integrity, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Look, you are a self-described landscaper, while I am an engineer with a physics background. I have a better handle on the properties of metals under heat and stress than you do, and I am not inclined to attempt to prove to you something when you seem to demonstrating a resistance to anything that counters your premise.

Crocket, you've never had a problem providing a source for your arguments before. You've never had a problem requesting sources from others. For you to 'take umbrage' at my request for sources seems a little bit disingenuous. You may be 'an engineer with a physics background' as opposed to a 'self-described landscaper', but your supposed intellectual superiority must be demonstrated before it can be assumed. Don't think because I'm a Pinestraw Guy that I didn't attend and enjoy college, or that I'm at some sort of intellectual disadvantage when addressing you. You're beginning to sound like Neese.

For example, not only have I described how the effects at the Pentagon crash site would have occurred, someone else has posted an article that pretty much said the exact same thing. Rather than accept expert opinions, you keep offering trying to find sematic workarounds to invalidate the existing facts.

Now your claiming to be an 'expert', and injecting your opinions as 'facts'. I never wanted to start a fight with this thread, but it's starting to look like we're going to have one. Your theory of 'suitcase nukes' seems to me to be another false flag run up the pole to see if anyone salutes.

It's like the PTB(Powers That Be) realize that all their double-shuffle bullchit of the last 5 years ain't gettin' bought, and the spinmeisters are looking for something that will jibe with the known facts and still somehow make the administration look good, or at least not quite so culpable. You yourself brought up that possibility a page or so ago.

Crocket, I've got a lot of respect for you, and have always enjoyed reading what you've had to say. I don't know why I've ended up on your hit list, but can only assume that I've come down on the wrong side of a subject you're passionate about. What bewilders me is that I've not accused anyone of anything in this thread, GWB included. I've simply asked some questions that certain people would prefer didn't get asked.

I'm beginning to think you might work for those people.

Pinestrawsguys quote:

Crocket, you've never had a problem providing a source for your arguments before. You've never had a problem requesting sources from others. For you to 'take umbrage' at my request for sources seems a little bit disingenuous. You may be 'an engineer with a physics background' as opposed to a 'self-described landscaper', but your supposed intellectual superiority must be demonstrated before it can be assumed. Don't think because I'm a Pinestraw Guy that I didn't attend and enjoy college, or that I'm at some sort of intellectual disadvantage when addressing you. You're beginning to sound like Neese.

What in the heck does this mean? I honestly do not understand why you are always at odds with me. I have no assumptions or disregard for your education or lack thereof. Perhaps, you are judging me? Why?

Originally Posted by Neese

Pinestrawsguys quote:

Crocket, you've never had a problem providing a source for your arguments before. You've never had a problem requesting sources from others. For you to 'take umbrage' at my request for sources seems a little bit disingenuous. You may be 'an engineer with a physics background' as opposed to a 'self-described landscaper', but your supposed intellectual superiority must be demonstrated before it can be assumed. Don't think because I'm a Pinestraw Guy that I didn't attend and enjoy college, or that I'm at some sort of intellectual disadvantage when addressing you. You're beginning to sound like Neese.

What in the heck does this mean? I honestly do not understand why you are always at odds with me. I have no assumptions or disregard for your education or lack thereof. Perhaps, you are judging me? Why?

I'm sorry, I'm still upset at your comment from earlier, asking why anyone would stay here if they thought their government could do such a thing as this. What you need to know Neese, is that our government has been doing this kind of thing ALL ALONG.

The Maine in Havana harbor, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, Operations Northwoods and Garden Plot, the list is quite impressive. To ascribe benevolent motives to a malevolent entity is suicide. To preach that false benevolence to those who know no better is homicide.

I'd rather be an alarmist than an accomplice.