Reply #34: you never responded conclusively to anything in that post [View All]

[mirandapriestly]

I recall you made the remark that there were no shock waves which you sited as more "proof" that wtc wasn't a CD. You never responded to the fact that there were shock waves measured by Columbia University and visible from a nearby helicopter as well as camera evidence.
Most of the posts in that thread were a flame fest involving an OCT poster who posted late at night after having a few too many, who has since been replaced by a similar poster.
Of course there are going to be articles which don't support government involvement! Initially, of course, I read them (The Guardian I would not consider OCT, however, I'm patiently awaiting "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast to arrive). I didn't start seriously doubting the OCT until after reading "the New Pearl Harbor" and "Crossing the Rubicon". THEN I started looking at web sites, because that is what is available.
I am not a "lunatic" and people like you have always used the label "crazy" "nuts", etc..to describe those who usually end up being right. Haven't you noticed that it is turning out there was US intelligence or law enforcement involvement in Oklahoma and the 93 world trade bombing? and now a witness is saying that the CIA planted evidence in the Lockerbie crash to indicate the wrong people were involved. This is documented and not crazy "cter" stuff. No one cares anymore, the same thing will happen with 911, in a few years it will come out that there was at least some involvement and no one will care anymore, on to something else.
Either parts of our government were involved or they weren't, there is no in between, for me, so I don't subscribe to your being something other than "oct", but not lihop or mihop.

You come here and call people names, you are never going to get respect in return. There are posters who have a respectful reception here, who don't subscribe to MIHOP, one of my favorite posters in fact who I always read.
"Indeed", you guys all say that. Who says "indeed"?