Bulletdodger - 17 May 2011 04:07 PM

Accipiter, if you do not work for the Government, you should.  If you had spent as much time reading the facts of the case as you have spent blathering on this forum you might be a wiser man for it.

Ummm. . .if you’d bothered to read any of that

I see by your 60,000 posts you have a lot of time on your hands.  Question authority and examine both sides of an issue before posting tripe.

Yeah, because doing my own research and carefully studying all sorts of books and videos and websites and articles written by those who I disagree with is obviously me simply accepting a story and not looking at what others have to say!

Bulletdodger - 17 May 2011 07:57 PM

UB, I apologize somewhat for my bluntness.  I am new on this forum but I take very seriously my oath when I joined the USAF to protect my country from enemies both foreign and domestic.  In doing my research on 9/11 I have come up with enough valid points to completely reject the official story.

Care to name some?  What points you’ve already raised haven’t been all that great.

Anyone who ignores the facts and accepts the official story is guilty of only ignorance.

What about those who ignore the facts and accept the Truther story?

Incidentally, I don’t accept the official story.  I accept the story that I came up with due to looking at the evidence myself.

When you actually get up and defend the story

If you’d bothered to look at what I’d written, you’d see that I haven’t been defending any particular story.  What I’ve been doing is pointing out the errors in various stories.

in the face of mounting evidence against it you become a defender of injustice and become an accessory to the lie.

So. . .we’ve seen that you’ve chosen to get up and defend the (Truther) story, in the face of mounting evidence against it. . .and that what evidence you’ve given in support of it so far isn’t any good. . .

If you don’t know the problems with the official story and don’t mistrust authority than you are not doing what our founding fathers charged us with; to keep the Republic from harm.

Heh, yeah, because the people who set up the original government clearly said that you shouldn’t trust them!

Also:  tend to parochialism much?  Believe it or not, there is a world outside of the USA.

Even the most trusting of people when confronted with the plethora of problems with the official story must admit there are things that need to be looked at more deeply.

Oh, absolutely.  I’ve never argued that there isn’t much that still needs to be examined.  I have, however, pointed out how many of these

Bulletdodger - 27 May 2011 04:32 PM

Most of the information I based my conclusions on came from the book “The New Pearl Harbour”.

Right.  So let’s look at this:  I got my information from dozens of different books (many of which I have referenced here) written by pro-Truther (including several written by David Ray Griffin) and anti-Truther and totally nonaffiliated sources, watching a number of documentaries by both pro- and anti-Truther groups, reading hundreds of websites and articles (many of which I have also referenced here) supporting either side or neither side of the debate, performing my own experiments and observations, and various other sources.  And according to you, I need to spend

I do not purport to be an expert of any type, but I have taken the time to learn about the demolition of buildings and also learned through my associations with Fire Marshalls, (experts on structure fires), that no steel building has ever collapsed, even one that burned for over 24 hours in Brazil.

Umm. . .totally false.  Many, many, many steel structures have collapsed over the years.  I suspect that what you’re trying to say is the usual Truther mantra that

BD: Apparently you *haven’t* been paying much attention.

This isn’t a forum full of folks with their heads in the sand. This is a forum full of sceptics, doubters, and scrutinizers. We HAVE looked at the evidence, multiple times, and come to our OWN conclusions based on that.

You want to go around calling folks names and getting into arguments, that’s fine. But if you do it here, you damn well better be able to SUPPORT YOUR OWN CLAIMS, or we WILL laugh at you.

Also, way to go, chosing Accipiter as someone to pick on. The rest of us won’t bother with obvious trolling, but Acci will tear your position apart point. by. point. Your arguments are worthless, and frankly I think you KNOW your arguments are worthless. Unless you have something a bit more substantial to offer, I suggest you apologize to Acci.

Bulletdodger - 27 May 2011 04:32 PM

  Feotu, is this what you stand for, questioning someones patriotism because they dare to question authority? I hope not…

No, read what the posts actually say.

Your post stated:

I am new on this forum but I take very seriously my oath when I joined the USAF to protect my country from enemies both foreign and domestic.

And my response to this statement was:

Which ( if a true statement) means you are a patriot, not that you have any expertise in the areas covered by the official story.

I did not question your patriotism, I merely pointed out that being patriotic( in and of itself ) doesn’t give your opinion on the 9/11 issue any special value.

I

It’s funny that there is no clear picture of Neil Armstrong on the moon. That’s kind of weird.

anthonyhscott - 29 May 2011 01:54 AM

It’s funny that there is no clear picture of Neil Armstrong on the moon. That’s kind of weird.

There are pictures of him on the Moon. He was wearing a space suit at the time.

anthonyhscott - 29 May 2011 01:54 AM

It’s funny that there is no clear picture of Neil Armstrong on the moon. That’s kind of weird.

... not sure what that has to do with the 9/11 story, but:

Photos Neil Armstrong on the Moon

There are famously no good photos of Neil Armstrong on the Moon. This was because for the majority of the Apollo 11 EVA, Armstrong had the camera, and so most of the historic photographs taken during the Apollo 11 mission, show Buzz Aldrin. The only high quality 70mm photo of Neil shows his back in a panorama, and the only other images were from the grainy TV and film footage.

There are some pictures & other information at the site.

Peter - 29 May 2011 02:49 AM

anthonyhscott - 29 May 2011 01:54 AM

It’s funny that there is no clear picture of Neil Armstrong on the moon. That’s kind of weird.

There are pictures of him on the Moon. He was wearing a space suit at the time.

It’s sad that you have to explain that to someone living in the 21st century.  Yes, it’s sad, but I can’t help from laughing.