And I have made it very clear that even if the NIST claimed that it was as much as twenty seconds before WTC 1 and 2 fell completely to the ground that it would not change my mind that it was a controlled demolition. They said it was 11 and 9 seconds respectively and they are trying to sell the official story...you see, they are on YOUR side.
It doesn't make one bit of difference which "side" they are on. Facts are facts. You have been shown that your 9.2 second collapse time was garbage. If you want to continue to spew it, that's up to you.
You believe the official version...I don't nor will I ever buy this load of horseshit...you, on the other hand do buy the official version and I respect that. Why can't you respect MY right to no longer buy into what I believe is a load of horseshit?
Because it's a forum where people debate right? I can respect your opinion as long as the facts to associate with it are correct. So far, many of you "facts" that you base your beliefs on have been shown to be wrong. Whether your man enough to admit that or not is up to you.
Why does it offend your sense of decorum that I don't believe anything "da gubermint" tells me?
I'm not offended in the least. I'm just here to present facts against your incorrect claims. Like I said before, you can believe anything you want as long as it's based on factual evidence. It's your "factual" evidence I have an issue with.
How does it affect you personally?
It doesn't. Why are you here then? Are you here to just spew your beliefs and leave or did you come here to debate? You started out with an open mind for discussion and when you had your facts and claims that were the foundation of your beliefs countered, you took a different tone.
I have more than made my case as to why the official version reeks to high heaven...you have made your case as to how it doesn't. You are not going to "one up" me when it comes to this no matter how hard you try....let it go and move on because we are never going to agree.
Again, I am not asking you to agree with what I believe. I am asking you to own up to the incorrect claims made in this thread. You have yet to do that. The 9.2 second collapse time is a perfect example. Will you continue to use that wrong information in the future or will you use the correct information?