9/11 conspiracy theorists multiply

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I don't believe any conspiracies but I DO KNOW that explosives were used to bring down the WTC Towers. My dad is a physics teacher and shows this to his class as well:
Text

How the explosives got there, I don't know nor care but if you think that "frame was melted by fire" or "collapsed on its own" then you're a moron.

So we have fvcking retard #2 and #3 now. But I guess one was bred from the other, so we'll just count them as one.

The fact is, physics can only be applied to structural engineering. It doesn't make an expert of physics an expert of structural engineering. What grade, class, and school does your dad teach any way? There is a huge difference between say a 7th grade physics teacher and a theoretical Physics professor at MIT. Maybe you can provide your dad with more credibility - but I doubt it

He teaches physics at a community college in the summer and 12th grade during the schoolyear, who really cares? The fact of the matter is that 94 floors fell as FAST AS A ROCK (8.4 seconds) would fall through thin air. The laws of Physics will not allow 94 floors of a building to fall on top of each other as fast a rock in thin air unless explosives were involved. If you believe anything otherwise then you are a naive moron and need to take a high school physics class.

How about you post one qualified person who believes what you just said. I've already given a much more credible source, as the person who posted right above you did. I love how you believe your dad over the man who actually built the buildings. And someone I'm a niave moron.

And as to why I asked what grade, class and school your dad teaches in/at is because thats relevant to my argument. If you can't figure that out, then once again I ask - who is the real moron here.

You still never addressed the original argument: How is it possible for 94 floors to fall into each other as fast as a free falling object without explosives? Take a physics class please, then post again.

Lack of resistence. The buildings were an empty core design. Also, the collapse began only 2/3 of the way to the top. When the area around the impact collapsed, the weight of the many floors above it caused the lower floors to immediately pancake. You will notice from the videos that 1) The top section stayed largely intact all the way down (i'm not sure if that was included in your 8.4 seconds). 2) The first floors to collapse (just below the impact site) did provide some resistence. The ones below that collapsed faster and faster as more weight was added. The key here is weight. If the collapse had been on the top floor, it would be really suspicious. As it is, it began miuch further down.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I don't believe any conspiracies but I DO KNOW that explosives were used to bring down the WTC Towers. My dad is a physics teacher and shows this to his class as well:
Text

How the explosives got there, I don't know nor care but if you think that "frame was melted by fire" or "collapsed on its own" then you're a moron.

So we have fvcking retard #2 and #3 now. But I guess one was bred from the other, so we'll just count them as one.

The fact is, physics can only be applied to structural engineering. It doesn't make an expert of physics an expert of structural engineering. What grade, class, and school does your dad teach any way? There is a huge difference between say a 7th grade physics teacher and a theoretical Physics professor at MIT. Maybe you can provide your dad with more credibility - but I doubt it

He teaches physics at a community college in the summer and 12th grade during the schoolyear, who really cares? The fact of the matter is that 94 floors fell as FAST AS A ROCK (8.4 seconds) would fall through thin air. The laws of Physics will not allow 94 floors of a building to fall on top of each other as fast a rock in thin air unless explosives were involved. If you believe anything otherwise then you are a naive moron and need to take a high school physics class.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM


The building didn't fall as fast as a rock, in fact it was still collapsing. However, much of the material fell as quick as a rock, say a lot of the concrete and such. FUrthermore, not all of the 110 stories made it to the ground, the debris was still several stories high, not to mention the building was largely hollow and continued to collapse long after 8.4s.

Gravity will pull it down the same way. Your dad needs some lessons in physics, and logic.

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

No, you clearly do not. Your statements support restrictions on free speech. You are saying we should not publicly criticise those that voice their opinions on matters because it quashes free speech. At the same time, your statements do the exact same thing. In effect, you are encouraging the limiting of rights to free speech.

As I think anyone with a brain can see, there's a difference between speech that advocates a particular position (whether that position is something laudable, like suffrage, or something contemptible, like white supremacy), and speech that is intended only to limit it by saying "STFU." Obviously I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to say "STFU," just that I think it's antithetical to the notion of free speech.

In this case, STFU means "I don't want to hear it, your arguments are moronic and devoid of any fact." It is not interpreted by anyone (except you) as meaning "stop talking, you should not be saying these things."

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

No, you clearly do not. Your statements support restrictions on free speech. You are saying we should not publicly criticise those that voice their opinions on matters because it quashes free speech. At the same time, your statements do the exact same thing. In effect, you are encouraging the limiting of rights to free speech.

As I think anyone with a brain can see, there's a difference between speech that advocates a particular position (whether that position is something laudable, like suffrage, or something contemptible, like white supremacy), and speech that is intended only to limit it by saying "STFU." Obviously I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to say "STFU," just that I think it's antithetical to the notion of free speech.

Keep back pedaling.

And BrokenVisage, I guess we didn't land on the moon either eh? Its really easy to discredit people like you - because you believe every conspiracy theory. Not just one, all of them.

And since your reading comprehenson is obviously impaired - you will notice that DonVito doesn't share your conspiracy notions. He said he doesn't believe what you do, he was arguing on your right to voice those notions. And doing a poor job of it, since anyone would see the hypocrisy shine through.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
You still never addressed the original argument: How is it possible for 94 floors to fall into each other as fast as a free falling object without explosives? Take a physics class please, then post again.

How much is a person's hand slowed down if they do a karate chop through 8 blocks of wood?

Did you watch the video you linked? How much do you imagine that top quarter of the building weighed in total? Every time it smashed through just one more floor and added that weight on, do you think that the next floor was about to slow down that fall?

I'm not especially impressed with the completely non-technical explanation that video provided. Other than "8.4 seconds!!!!!!!!!111111111", I didn't see one single fact, figure or calculation in that video. What exactly are we using mathematics upon, multiplying OMGWTF by GOP to equal EXPLOSIVES?

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Platypus
P&N is that way..

You make a legitimate point.

Indeed, but members like Number1 LOVE deliberately making a spectical out of that fateful day and the 9/11 conspiracies that emerged from it, choosing to forego the debate-side of them you would find on P&N, and going right for the peanut gallery post-debate commentary-side you would find on ATOT.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

1. The fire on the WTC was much different than a regular building fire. The jet fuel, which traveled through the core (which was hallow with elevator shafts and such) going to other floors, you didn't see the smoke because the windows were closed.

2. Impacts from the jet probably blew off weak fire resistant material from the structural beams.

3. The WTC wasn't designed like that Spain building. Why? Because they wanted to maximize the floorspace, so they removed almost all of the floor structures. Instead of building a floor-beam, verticle-beam type structure like a traditional building, the WTC was built using tubes on the exterior which were verticle members holding the vast majority of the weight of the building.

Furthermore, these tubes had smaller members connecting them to the core. The core did not bear most of the weight of the building, the steel tubes did. This is why the floors could pancake easily.

4. The weight of the floors above the building and the hallow core allowed high pressure air to travel down ward, exploding out the windows. Either that or the windows were already opened by people, whether they jumped (and many did) or not.

5. If there were explosions, why didn't we see a lot of dust jets? Why not more windows exploding outwards?

How is logic so hard for people to get?

I weep from your naivity and speculation. So "impacts from the jet probably" blew off fire resistant material from EVERY FLOOR? Listen to what you're saying dude and how ridiculous that sounds. Even the fact that the WTC is built differently makes no difference, energy will be absorbed as each floor crumbles onto the next. Which means that it still should not fall as fast as a free falling object unless demolition explosives were used.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I don't believe any conspiracies but I DO KNOW that explosives were used to bring down the WTC Towers. My dad is a physics teacher and shows this to his class as well:
Text

How the explosives got there, I don't know nor care but if you think that "frame was melted by fire" or "collapsed on its own" then you're a moron.

So we have fvcking retard #2 and #3 now. But I guess one was bred from the other, so we'll just count them as one.

The fact is, physics can only be applied to structural engineering. It doesn't make an expert of physics an expert of structural engineering. What grade, class, and school does your dad teach any way? There is a huge difference between say a 7th grade physics teacher and a theoretical Physics professor at MIT. Maybe you can provide your dad with more credibility - but I doubt it

He teaches physics at a community college in the summer and 12th grade during the schoolyear, who really cares? The fact of the matter is that 94 floors fell as FAST AS A ROCK (8.4 seconds) would fall through thin air. The laws of Physics will not allow 94 floors of a building to fall on top of each other as fast a rock in thin air unless explosives were involved. If you believe anything otherwise then you are a naive moron and need to take a high school physics class.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM


The building didn't fall as fast as a rock, in fact it was still collapsing. However, much of the material fell as quick as a rock, say a lot of the concrete and such. FUrthermore, not all of the 110 stories made it to the ground, the debris was still several stories high, not to mention the building was largely hollow and continued to collapse long after 8.4s.

Gravity will pull it down the same way. Your dad needs some lessons in physics, and logic.

As someone else already pointed out - its truly sad when you think about American education and the type of people representing it.

 

[everman]

I had no idea that there were so many qualified structural engineers here. oh wait...

It seems to me that many of these theories are founded in a lack of knowledge in many different fields. These people seem to discount their inherrent lack of knowledge and understanding and just jump to conclusions that are wholly unfounded. Essentially what we have is people who have reached a conclusion and now just need to figure out how to explain it.

Go ahead, argue with the WTC engineers who claim planes did bring it down and actually know what they're talking about because they built the buildings.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: yllus
Occam's Razor says that the GOP, a group of politicians who couldn't keep their traps shut if they were stapled down, orchestrated the death of 3,000 fellow citizens and managed to keep every single person involved silent.

The CIA, not exactly a stranger to silence, can't keep the existence of overseas prisons a secret.

Yeah. Al Qaeda is the conspiracy theory. If you're a fscking retard.

You forgot the best one! The NSA, the most secretive organization in the US, an organization that until recently would not even admit that it existed, couldn't keep a simple wiretapping operation out of the press because some in the organization had questions about the legality of the wiretapping.

Yet we're supposed to believe that hundreds of government personnel and a full demo team have remained silent about the murder of thousands of US citizens for five years now. Sure... As you said... Only if you're a fscking retard.

 

[So]

Conspiracy theorists -- specifically 9/11 conspiracy theorists are idiots, period. I don't care if your feelings are hurt, you're an idiot. I don't care what you believe, I won't say that you should be kept quiet, but that doesn't mean I don't reserve my right to call them as I see them...and call idiots just that.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

1. The fire on the WTC was much different than a regular building fire. The jet fuel, which traveled through the core (which was hallow with elevator shafts and such) going to other floors, you didn't see the smoke because the windows were closed.

2. Impacts from the jet probably blew off weak fire resistant material from the structural beams.

3. The WTC wasn't designed like that Spain building. Why? Because they wanted to maximize the floorspace, so they removed almost all of the floor structures. Instead of building a floor-beam, verticle-beam type structure like a traditional building, the WTC was built using tubes on the exterior which were verticle members holding the vast majority of the weight of the building.

Furthermore, these tubes had smaller members connecting them to the core. The core did not bear most of the weight of the building, the steel tubes did. This is why the floors could pancake easily.

4. The weight of the floors above the building and the hallow core allowed high pressure air to travel down ward, exploding out the windows. Either that or the windows were already opened by people, whether they jumped (and many did) or not.

5. If there were explosions, why didn't we see a lot of dust jets? Why not more windows exploding outwards?

How is logic so hard for people to get?

I weep from your naivity and speculation. So "impacts from the jet probably" blew off fire resistant material from EVERY FLOOR? Listen to what you're saying dude and how ridiculous that sounds. Even the fact that the WTC is built differently makes no difference, energy will be absorbed as each floor crumbles onto the next. Which means that it still should not fall as fast as a free falling object unless demolition explosives were used.

Yeah, it's my naivity and speculation. What about yours?

1. The fire resistant material doesn't have to effect every floor. That building was designed to only be as strong as teh *ENTIRE* structure. It's like building a house of cards, if one key structural member at any place in the structure fails, the entire thing falls. The entire WTC building was solid, but once you yanked a let or 10 from underneath it, then that section, which was supposed to support the weight of the sections above it failed, thus making the sections below it have to support the failed section *AND* the sections abovie it.

The sum of the building was much stronger than the individual parts. Remove a key part (which they all were) and the structure as a whole weakens significantly. It's also like some furniture that is dang wobbly when 90% of the structure is there, but once you put that *ONE* piece in, it's stronger than heck. It all ties together.


2. Even buildings that are exploded with explosives don't free-fall either, so your theory is out the door too. If they were to free-fall, it would require all of the material underneath them to just disappear, *ANY* material represents resistance to gravity. It's the same as a feather and a penny, the only time they will fall at the same speed is in a vacuum, once air resistance is removed.

Explosives do not equal resistance removers!!!!

So, not only did you just disprove your theory, but you also disproved WTC. However, you only disproved WTC in the fact that it supposedly fell at the same speed, 8.4s. This is false, considering that not only did all of that material *NOT* fall the complete 110 stories (considering 20 of those stories fell only 90 or so stories), but the entire building didn't magically reach 0. Furthermore, it took longer than 8.4s. Your graph might only show 8.4, but not all of the material collapsed at the same time. The majority of the registered impact was from the majority of the weight, which was in free-fall for 8.4s. However, the lighter stuff, the steel and core, which were relatively light compared to the concrete, fell slower and didn't impact in the same way or the same force.

To sum it up.

Explosives != magic resistance removers that give a building the same velocity as a rock with no resistance

Structures = sum of whole is stronger than if one piece removed.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

No, you clearly do not. Your statements support restrictions on free speech. You are saying we should not publicly criticise those that voice their opinions on matters because it quashes free speech. At the same time, your statements do the exact same thing. In effect, you are encouraging the limiting of rights to free speech.

As I think anyone with a brain can see, there's a difference between speech that advocates a particular position (whether that position is something laudable, like suffrage, or something contemptible, like white supremacy), and speech that is intended only to limit it by saying "STFU." Obviously I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to say "STFU," just that I think it's antithetical to the notion of free speech.

Keep back pedaling.

And BrokenVisage, I guess we didn't land on the moon either eh? Its really easy to discredit people like you - because you believe every conspiracy theory. Not just one, all of them.

And since your reading comprehenson is obviously impaired - you will notice that DonVito doesn't share your conspiracy notions. He said he doesn't believe what you do, he was arguing on your right to voice those notions. And doing a poor job of it, since anyone would see the hypocrisy shine through.

You'll find no back-pedaling here, even if I am an "old douche bag." The operative language here is "[a]s I think anyone with a brain can see . . ." As we sometimes say in my profession, I guess I was assuming facts not in evidence.

 

[Vic]

"You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity." -- Robert Heinlein

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: So
Conspiracy theorists -- specifically 9/11 conspiracy theorists are idiots, period. I don't care if your feelings are hurt, you're an idiot. I don't care what you believe, I won't say that you should be kept quiet, but that doesn't mean I don't reserve my right to call them as I see them...and call idiots just that.

Finally, a lifer who isn't a nut job. Since the other's with seniority who have posted so far take the conspiracy side, or the hypocrisy side - I was starting to lose faith in ATOT as a whole.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: thraashman
Good point, our current government isn't near competent enough to keep this from leaking out if it were true.

I do however think that on 9/11 the government intentionally didn't do more when it could have. Whether from incompetence or some conspiracy, I don't know.

incompetence != intentional

edit: i'm an hour and a half behind the conversation

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
I don't believe any conspiracies but I DO KNOW that explosives were used to bring down the WTC Towers. My dad is a physics teacher and shows this to his class as well:
Text

How the explosives got there, I don't know nor care but if you think that "frame was melted by fire" or "collapsed on its own" then you're a moron.

So we have fvcking retard #2 and #3 now. But I guess one was bred from the other, so we'll just count them as one.

The fact is, physics can only be applied to structural engineering. It doesn't make an expert of physics an expert of structural engineering. What grade, class, and school does your dad teach any way? There is a huge difference between say a 7th grade physics teacher and a theoretical Physics professor at MIT. Maybe you can provide your dad with more credibility - but I doubt it

He teaches physics at a community college in the summer and 12th grade during the schoolyear, who really cares? The fact of the matter is that 94 floors fell as FAST AS A ROCK (8.4 seconds) would fall through thin air. The laws of Physics will not allow 94 floors of a building to fall on top of each other as fast a rock in thin air unless explosives were involved. If you believe anything otherwise then you are a naive moron and need to take a high school physics class.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM


The building didn't fall as fast as a rock, in fact it was still collapsing. However, much of the material fell as quick as a rock, say a lot of the concrete and such. FUrthermore, not all of the 110 stories made it to the ground, the debris was still several stories high, not to mention the building was largely hollow and continued to collapse long after 8.4s.

Gravity will pull it down the same way. Your dad needs some lessons in physics, and logic.

Here's what your buddy has to say for the explanation:
All photos of the collapse show a plume of debris extending far below the main level of collapse. So the debris did fall appreciably faster than the building itself. The building provided little more resistance than air for the simple reason that a skyscraper is mostly air.
In the photo at left the collapse is about where the cloud fills the entire width of the picture, but the debris in free fall has almost reached the ground.
The picture he shows makes no sense: Of course the some debris will be falling a split second faster than the rest of the building, on average each floor should have taken at least a half a second to collapse. Do the math 94X.5 = 47. Yet the building fell just about as fast as a free falling object, in 8.4 seconds.

Furthermore, he says: The fall doesn't have to crush the stories beneath. It merely has to stress the structural elements until the rivets pop and the welds break. The impact of that pancaking material will cause the outer vertical members to bow outward, then fly outward violently when failure occurs. There's no need to appeal to explosives to fling material outward from the buildings.

It takes time and energy absorption to break a weld, so right there the evidence isn't adding up.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: yllus
Occam's Razor says that the GOP, a group of politicians who couldn't keep their traps shut if they were stapled down, orchestrated the death of 3,000 fellow citizens and managed to keep every single person involved silent.

The CIA, not exactly a stranger to silence, can't keep the existence of overseas prisons a secret.

Yeah. Al Qaeda is the conspiracy theory. If you're a fscking retard.

You forgot the best one! The NSA, the most secretive organization in the US, an organization that until recently would not even admit that it existed, couldn't keep a simple wiretapping operation out of the press because some in the organization had questions about the legality of the wiretapping.

Yet we're supposed to believe that hundreds of government personnel and a full demo team have remained silent about the murder of thousands of US citizens for five years now. Sure... As you said... Only if you're a fscking retard.

Dude. Didn't you know they were all killed? In the planes! That's right. The demo team and planners were all sent on vacation on 9/11 on flights like UA93.

First rule of assassination: kill the assassin!

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf

No, you clearly do not. Your statements support restrictions on free speech. You are saying we should not publicly criticise those that voice their opinions on matters because it quashes free speech. At the same time, your statements do the exact same thing. In effect, you are encouraging the limiting of rights to free speech.

As I think anyone with a brain can see, there's a difference between speech that advocates a particular position (whether that position is something laudable, like suffrage, or something contemptible, like white supremacy), and speech that is intended only to limit it by saying "STFU." Obviously I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to say "STFU," just that I think it's antithetical to the notion of free speech.

Keep back pedaling.

And BrokenVisage, I guess we didn't land on the moon either eh? Its really easy to discredit people like you - because you believe every conspiracy theory. Not just one, all of them.

And since your reading comprehenson is obviously impaired - you will notice that DonVito doesn't share your conspiracy notions. He said he doesn't believe what you do, he was arguing on your right to voice those notions. And doing a poor job of it, since anyone would see the hypocrisy shine through.

You'll find no back-pedaling here, even if I am an "old douche bag." The operative language here is "[a]s I think anyone with a brain can see . . ." As we sometimes say in my profession, I guess I was assuming facts not in evidence.

After being reminded that you had "served", for some reason I thought I had read elsewhere that you were in vietnam. So I was wrong on your age, but not on your level of understanding.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

After being reminded that you had "served", for some reason I thought I had read elsewhere that you were in vietnam. So I was wrong on your age, but not on your level of understanding.

You use the word "understanding," which to me implies you are privy to some fact that I'm not. Please elaborate how my posts indicate a lack of understanding, as opposed to a difference of opinion from your own.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
You still never addressed the original argument: How is it possible for 94 floors to fall into each other as fast as a free falling object without explosives? Take a physics class please, then post again.

How much is a person's hand slowed down if they do a karate chop through 8 blocks of wood?

So the top of the building was moving with a force other than gravity similar to the force generated from a karate chop? Please, don't post anymore. :laugh:

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: AMDZen

After being reminded that you had "served", for some reason I thought I had read elsewhere that you were in vietnam. So I was wrong on your age, but not on your level of understanding.

You use the word "understanding," which to me implies you are privy to some fact that I'm not. Please elaborate how my posts indicate a lack of understanding, as opposed to a difference of opinion from your own.

You lack the understanding that protesting the protesters is not a bad thing.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
You still never addressed the original argument: How is it possible for 94 floors to fall into each other as fast as a free falling object without explosives? Take a physics class please, then post again.

How much is a person's hand slowed down if they do a karate chop through 8 blocks of wood?

So the top of the building was moving with a force other than gravity similar to the force generated from a karate chop? Please, don't post anymore. :laugh:

If he's going to stop posting, would you kindly do the same? I mean, if we have to lose someone who's not an idiot, we should at least get rid of an idiot as well.

 

[acemcmac]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: acemcmac
There is a very very plausable case for thermite in WTC 1, 2 and 7 and there were dozens of security cameras aimed at the pentigon that would have shown the impact and ended all of the cruise missile talk that the fed's are refusing to release (hotels, gas stations, etc).

These concerns are not baseless and the feds refusing to do anything to quell them only makes them look like they're really hiding something.

I've seen tapes. And I've seen highly qualified scientists and video analyst's on the History Channel who were able to slow it down enough to see that it was too big to be anything of the cruise missle sort.

The same was done for the towers' collapse, on the same progrma. Any qualified structural engineer would say the same. And yet you, and other simple Americans think they are better qualified. HTF is their a plausable case for thermite considering I have yet to see a single qualified person raise this theory, only the dim witted conspiracy people.

And to think I used to see intelligence in your posts here. Guess I wasn't paying enough attention

I really wish you wouldn't get so personal with your insults.

I just thought that this was pretty compelling. I'm not saying that I agree with them, but I do think they have a plausible case and would like to hear more.

As far as the missing pentigon videos go, see for yourself.

I reiterate. I don't believe all of this stuff, but I think that the government could definitely be more forthcoming and dispel 90% of the current conspiracy theories if they really wanted to. The fact that they resist releasing things like unedited tapes I think just causes more suspicion.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: AMDZen

After being reminded that you had "served", for some reason I thought I had read elsewhere that you were in vietnam. So I was wrong on your age, but not on your level of understanding.

You use the word "understanding," which to me implies you are privy to some fact that I'm not. Please elaborate how my posts indicate a lack of understanding, as opposed to a difference of opinion from your own.

For starters:

As a disabled veteran of a foreign war (albeit not THAT disabled), I tell you to STFU!

Using the fact that your a "disabled" veteran to somehow place further relevance to your argument. When it was completely irrelevant to all parts of the conversation. I think you believed it was relevant, which shows lack of understanding.

and speech that is intended only to limit it by saying "STFU."

SarcasticDwarf put it well enough:

In this case, STFU means "I don't want to hear it, your arguments are moronic and devoid of any fact." It is not interpreted by anyone (except you) as meaning "stop talking, you should not be saying these things."

I guess you didn't understand that, And my favorite

but I think it's absolutely critical that people are free to discuss these issues without mockery.

I can imagine that you somehow believe this is even possible. This proves your lack of understanding on so many levels, namely human nature at its core. Anyone, with "Half a Brain" (as you so eloquently put it) would understand that.