The Deafness Before the Storm: New York Times

[Th1onein]

67. "Making wild conjectures before you have the answers based no evidence and weak inferences....

is not honorable." Really? Now, they are making "conjectures" (about the laws of physics, for goodness sake!). And they have answers that are "based on no evidence and weak inferences." Are you serious? You mean that eyewitness accounts are not evidence? The laws of physics are not evidence? The videos are not evidence?

You know what I'm sick of? I'm sick of very good evidence, evidence that would be allowed in a court of law, in it's entirety being called a "conspiracy theory." Many men and women have been sent to their deaths, or have lost their freedom based on lesser evidence, but ALL of this evidence, taken together, simply because it conflicts with the "official" story is somehow a "conspiracy theory"?

Give us a break. If that's not condescending, then nothing is.

Somebody, on the inside, who had access (and I don't think it was the terrorists) wanted those buildings to come down. All the way down. I don't know why; I don't pretend to know the whole story. I don't know how they did it. I don't make THOSE conjectures, you see (although you seem to credit those who don't believe the official story with just those types of conjectures, for some reason). But those buildings didn't collapse from planes hitting them. Never in the history of steel buildings has that happened. NEVER. And, in one day, not one, not two, but THREE of them (and one that hadn't even been hit by a plane!) came down and set a record.

Uh huh. Riiiiight.