Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by mmiichael
OK, let's forget about all the points covered a million times and the scientific data forwarded and ignored by those not wanting to hear
I haven't seen it all a million times already. All I've seen is you weaseling out of lots of different things. That's all I have to say. You
never did respond to the only even remotely related question I kept asking you. You think this is all so hard to accomplish and yet it just happened
on its own. Doesn't work both ways, sorry.
OK, let's get our facts straight. I am replying to your comments, insulting and demeaning often, out of choice. This not my profession or even a
I can stay on this thread and put you on Ignore. Or just not respond to what you say. I don't even have to go to an ATS 9/11 thread.
I certainly don't have to answer ever question you raise, just as you choose not to answer most of mine.
I am not as technically versed in the half dozen interrelated fields involved in understanding how and why a building hit directly or secondarily by
an airplane collapses. So I read as much as I can and further commentary from credible sources. Then I get the opinions of those with deeper
understanding of aspects I only know of in broad terms.
I've seen hundred of posts from knowledgeable people on these matters here on ATS, but do not keep a catalogue of them. You have the option of
reviewing old threads and reading them yourself if you are in a 'need to know' mode.
I prefer to take the cumulative understanding of what I have absorbed and go further into the logistics of how and why things happened the way they
did. On the way I can recognize fallacies and misinterpretations of data.
Sometimes I try to point them out. But not every instance. I am not engaged in a peer review process.
I just do my best in the areas where I have certain strengths and understanding, and readily admit reliance on others for what I haven't studied in
Take it or leave it.
[edit on 7-6-2009 by mmiichael]