On May 19, 10:35*am, John Smith wrote:
On 5/19/2011 10:28 AM, dmaster wrote:









On Thursday, May 19, 2011 9:19:06 AM UTC-5, John Smith wrote:
On 5/19/2011 7:15 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
...
I honestly don't think meds are going to help you as much as the foil..
Remember- shiny side out.
Obviously, you are not responding to this post:

Government employees, public servants, etc.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/officials...mmissionreport

Academics:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

Media manipulations:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/massmedia

Regards,
JS
As usual it doesn't look like you bothered to actually read through the links you quote, JS, but that doesn't surprise me anymore. *Look at your first reference. *If you click through the links supplied to the original articles in the media, you will see that the quotes used in your "source" are taken wildly out of context and in no way support the silly idea that our own government caused the destruction of the WTC on 9/11. *What is really being questioned is whether the government could have better used what intelligence they had to prevent the attack on the TWC by an outside terrorist agency.

The second link is the usual "you can't dismiss these people" claim, which then goes on to include mostly people who have either no expertise an certainly no direct knowledge of the events on 9/11. *Of course, this page has nothing but self reinforcing links to similar sites, but no links to anything outside. *Why am I not surprised? *Please tell me why these sites never concern themselves with the statistical probability of "radical thinkers", as you call them, or "kooks" as others might call them, in every occupational field? *The fact that a few (1400, I believe) of all the "architects and engineers" (assuming those who signed are architects or engineers in other than their own minds - did anyone actually vet the list?) think like you do, shouldn't be too surprising (troubling perhaps, but not surprising) in our diverse society.

And as has become usual with JS, the third link has nothing to do with 9/11 at all. *It's the usual, when pressed to provide some support for issue A, bring up issue B nonsense. *Yes, issue A and issue B may be real issues, but if they have nothing to do with each other, then they don't supply any support for your position, JS. *How many times in your 9/11 threads, JS, have you turned the discussion to "the birth certificate isn't real"? *I've certainly lost count.

Now, I predict that JS will simply ignore my criticisms. *He will not do as I suggested and actually read his own references in detail, nor will he provide any cogent counters to any of my points. *I predict he will simply continue to post the same set of links (like he did with his original 9/11 list) despite the fact I poked them full of holes. *Heck, he may even "plonk" me again. *If he hasn't learned any restraint, he may even *gasp* call me names again, as if that somehow proves his point.

Dan (Woj...)

Its' BS ...

I will let others argue with you, if they chose ... your opinions don't
matter, others will have their own ... bye.

You and your opinions are only important to yourself, eventually, you
are going to have to realize that and quit demanding attention like a
spoiled little brat ... sad, so very, very sad ...

Regards,
JS


JS, may you share with us your opinion? I, for one, would enjoy
reading it.

Take care,

DCI