Two things, LeftBehind,
But the terrorist conspiracy is the one that is supported by evidence.
I'd like to know what exactly this evidence is. I'm sure you can find plenty of
circumstantial evidence, but last I heard, there's no meat
to the governments claims
at all.
And...
I can't let bad science be accepted as truth.
You've never quite explained to me what bad science is being used. I know you posted once, trying to blow off the loss of angular momentum by saying
there was no possible way the tops of the buildings could have fallen off sideways
in full (which is a ridiculous attempt at rebuttal anyway),
but you have not offered any serious scientific rebuttals to any of these such
facts. I have pressed a professor of structural physics on the
matter of the loss angular momentum and
he could not explain it, so what makes you think that your naively simplistic answer has absolutely any
relevance to what I'm even addressing? No one has properly addressed such an issue, because there's nothing to rebutt: the buildings leaned, and
then stopped; they also fell symmetrically, they seemed to lose no momentum despite the vast amounts of energy that would have been used, etc. But
please stop calling these things "bad science" when you yourself, aside from not being able to properly rebutt these things, support crackpot ideas
like air being rocketed down collapsing buildings almost triple the speed of the actual falling floors to cause the squibs.
Just because you are utterly convinced of the facts of an issue
does not mean you are correct in your thinking, or that any "science" you put
forth to support is right - that is
WRONG. And before you unthinkingly spout the same thing back to me like a smart-aleck child, try to
remember who it is between us that actually references scientific laws, and explains in detail
why things are not possible, and does not just
imagine up why he thinks something must be so and post it as if it has any credibility simply because he thought it, and
without posting
references. I'll give you a hint: it isn't you. And neither have you ever explained
why you think the laws I reference are "bad."