"You're subjective in your judgements, Bill. You're not unbiased. You're the same as me or anyone else in that respect..."

Sorry, LH, it is NOT the same....my judgments differ from yours in several respects. You are 'usually' making assertions that 'X' or 'Y' is so, or probably is so...I am 'usually' saying only that a certain line of reasoning or claimed 'fact' does not stand up to scrutiny.

If you cannot see the difference between the two TYPES of judgment, then we can't go much further.


.....and *sigh*....everyone....please...ONCE AND FOR ALL...The girders in the WTC did not MELT!! They were weakened by heat...after having much of their protective fireproofing knocked off by impact! THEN they sagged from heat, fatigue and damage, and eventually failed from the weight and loss of structural integrity. Continuing to assert that "the fire was not hot enough to melt steel" is a classic "straw man" argument. Failure to grasp this point because you only read what the conspiracy theorists assert is flat lazy research!

   Concocting complex plots, even IF they are "mere speculation", based on **subjective** ideas of what certain parties 'might' have done only adds fuel to an already damaged view of history, and makes attempts at clarifying the matter with serious analysis that much harder.

Do I sound peeved? Good....I meant to sound peeved.