"See now, if you actually DID watch those "documentaries" like you SAID you did, you would have seen this."
Show me a quote, in its entire context, from a demolitions expert that agrees with the conspiracy theory. The only thing I know of that's even close is a Dutch guy who was shown WT7 without being told what it was, who replied that it looked like it could have been a controlled demolition. When the guy saw it from different angles and heard what he was actually looking at, he thought it was ridiculous. This has been verified and debunked over and over.
"That's bullshit, the reason they didn't "endorse" it is for the same reason Fox News doesn't endorse it, because they are stupid."
No, not bullshit, I don't think you understand how the academic world works. Things are reviewed by other experts over and over to look for errors - and many, many errors were found with his work on the matter. He eventually lost his job because the research was so poor. No engineers, materials, experts, physicists, etc, have signed on that the paper's conclusions are properly arrived at or supported. Once again, and I'm honestly not trying to be a dick, but you really just don't know what you're talking about. What has Fox News got to do with anything? Just because they're conservative doesn't mean they're in on the conspiracy my man.
"Show me the link where Jones says admits this."
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm -Read Away
Just one quote since his voluntary retirment rather than have his work's standards face peer review by qualified engineers:
"I can be proven wrong," Jones said. "I accept that. But whoever does it will have to explain this molten metal to me, and especially all the barium found."
If you're curious about how he's wrong on the barrium, just read some critiques of the reserearch made by people that actually know what they're talking about, most of which can be accessed through the above link. Basically, his reserach contained so many mistakes that were so easily pointed out, that even a university like BYU became embarassed by the amateurish and biased approach that he was taking - not to mention that he was using univeristy time and resources to study something completely out of his field.
"You sound exactly like them..it's creepy.. and if you actually WATCHED the documentaries once again, you would know, there were no GAS kitchens and etc."
Who is them exactly? I said kitchen appliances, and there are some gas fixtures and lines conected in buildings like that. My brother is a commercial developer, I asked. Your comments do absolutly nothing to address the poin that many, many things could be creating explosions in the towers that day, and that none of the explosions were consistent with those found in controlled demolitions. If you care to actually address my point with your comments, I'll leave it open for you.
"Watch the william rodriguez video, and stop judging people based on fucking age, job, social status, etc, you moron."
I've seen the video - it's in the Loose Change film. As I said, a guy down in the basement would not have lived if here party to any controlled demoliton explosions. A controlled demolition must go off in sequence and rapidly - starting with a massive explosion in the basement fixtures - to work properly. William Rodriqez would be dead if he heard explosions from a controlled demolition. I have no doubt he heard some explosions, just as many other people did, in and outside of the towers. This really doesn't mean anything.
How am I judging him? I point out that he's a janitor because that means he's not a firefighter or anybody else with some experience in that type of situation who would have a better idea of what was happening.
You know who morons are: people who throw insults and swear a lot when they can't wage a decent argument to support their statements.
"What the fuck?
Obviously, because in a controlled demolition they put big ass explosives in there, they don't need to cover up anything, so it's obvious to see why it would look different with the WTC buildings."
What the fuck indeed - what are you saying here? The Trade Centers would easily be the largest buildings in history to come down with a controlled demolition, and so the process would need to be precise and elaborate to pull it off. There's no way to "cover up" the massive dynamite shatter charges in a controlled demolition - watch the "Screw Loose Change" video to see what a controlled demolition actually looks like. The charges are rapid, in sequence, and designed to work together ti initiate global collapse. The basement explosion is massive and starts the reaction - so it's a good thing old Willam Rodriguez was wrong.
"Obviously they couldn't make it come down EXACTLY like a controlled demolition, think about it.. and he did almost die and there were people who did die when the bombs went off in the basement, even minutes BEFORE any plane hit."
Huh, why would they be so dumb as to start blowing things up before the planes hit? Why were there no 911 calls or police calls if there were explosions going off in the buildings before hand? Do you think that's a mundane occurrance in 100 story skyscrapers? Once again, critical thinking is lacking in your comments. So far as it not coming down exactly like a controlled demolition, are you saying there's another way to do it? And who are these people that died from the basement explosion (which by the way, is clearly visible in any controlled demolition, but not in any of the WTC collapses, which all three start falling apart at the top, not the bottom of the building as per controlled demolition). I am starting to believe you are just fabricating some statements here - so once again, who are these people that died from explosions in the basements as the towers were collapsing? How do you know this?
"If you've seen hundreds of conspiracy videos, you must really have a problem retaining knowledge because everything tells me otherwise."
I've watched dozens of the conspiracy clips, as well as the big daddy of them all, Loose Change. You keep claiming I don't "understand" or "don't know," but in fact we just disagree. It doesn't seem like you're reading my comments very closely and are then replying without much thought.
Also, you clearly haven't read the dozens of other posts between Reber and myself, where we have already covered pretty much everything you have brought up. I'm wondering if you just really, really don't like reading perhaps? But I don't mind repeating myself, it's all in good sport.
"I have seen it."
And you don't find the multitude of errors they point out in the conspiracy as well as the truly manipulative and dishonest nature of the video to in any way inform upon the larger conspiracy and the other videos? Well, then I'd say you want this stuff to be true so bad that your eyes and ears are shut. How do feel about all the gross oversights, incorrect statements, and poor journalistic techniques they use in the film? Doesn't bother you at all that they got so much wrong?
"Why? Because you see my age on my profile and feel like I can't possibly be able to formulate an educated opinion on the subject??
I understand how it must feel to debate this shit with a 19yr old punk kid, but the truth is universal, it wouldn't make any difference if I was 90 or 9 years old."
I don't know your age - I just assumed that somebody who lives at home with their mom hasn't had a lot of experience in the world yet. I'm not actually that old, so you hardly seem a punk kid, nor do I mind debating a younger person, but I will be honest in saying that your unfamiliarity with many of the basic concepts we're discussing here is obvious.
I believe you are capable of forming an educated opinion - anybody is capable of that. You, however, don't seem interested in doing this. I believe that the only information you look at on these subjects comes from pro-conspiracy websites, which basically form your opinion for you.
The basis of an educated opinion is a broad understanding of tertiary issues and all the facts involved - not a pre-made conspiracy viewpoint that you've adopted wholesale from some internet sites.
"Your assumptions are tiring.. you know NOTHING of the amount of critical thinking I've done on the subject and I can ASSURE you it's far more than any average 30-40 year old american."
How could you possibly assure me that? How much critical thinking does the average 30-40 old American do exactly? That statement contains a complete lack of any critical thinking as it's an unverfiable guarantee.
Sorry, coudln't reisist. Like I said, I don't think you're dumb for believing what you do, but I'm also not terribly impressed with the fact that you are so taken with what you've read on the internet that at 19, that you have decided that you understand enough about government, economics, history, sociology, etc that you can say without a hint of doubt that ALL of these conspiracy theories are legit. I don't think you use any real burden of proof or critical thinking, and I think you approach these things as a person ready and willing to be convinced with the slightest of arguments, not as a person looking for hard evidence and solid analysis. I chalk that up to youth, it's not uncommon and at one point in my life I might have found the ideas mroe credible as well.