wasnt aware of this, thanks.

/like

and not to forget this was not the last time we would see a terrorist act scheduled the same time as a “training” operation was being conducted at the same place and time.

I dont know, just saying thats not proof. Why does the govt classify and keep classified most of what it does. they love having shit no one else does i guess. its a very good question though, and I dont deny its a possibility, just asking questions.

right, thats one of the ones i was referring to from memory.. much smaller than i thought though.

actually, thats probably twice the height im thinking of.

you would need to glue them together with proportional strength that the steel was held together, no?

I think S/he means the planes were pimped out with bigger engines or something..? :)

im not sure how tall wtc7 was, but i think it was similar in size to an example zeitgeist had in one of the movies, where a demo went wrong and the building tipped over and almost hit another building. also a building in china tipped over. looked to be of similar size.

There are building that have tipped over, without collapsing, i believe. unless i missed something of your point.

yes, but that was not discussed in the movie. Also, what motive would there be for flying a plane into the ocean, when they could have flown it into the pentagon themselves instead of using bombs.

yes, like speculating a plane never hit the pentagon, but not explaining where that plane and its passengers went.

I think what many people miss, in the accusations, violent rhetoric from politicians or pundits are the focus. We all know there are civilians that participate on both sides in large scale. The important aspect of this issue is for people on each side that hold high positions of exposure to control their tone. so the examples of regular people are sort of irrelevant.

I have also, and agree as well. The movies are very dramatic, and in the beginning it seems like he meant this more of a performance piece that evolved into something else. but if you look past that, much of what he says is documented information, maybe some of the speculation is questionable, but they bring light to important topics many people seem to forget or ignore.

But having seen the films, would you agree with the article that it is fringe right? If anything I would say its very far left being that its anti religion, and anti Bush, and partly anti govt. but really, if you are only distrustful of the opposing party and not your own, you may be sorely mistaken.

Yes, but holding the right responsible is not only premature, but irresponsible to the point of bringing up the topic of violent rhetoric. Yes, the right is far more responsible for the amount of violent rhetoric, but the left is as well. But to claim this act was to blame on the right while at the same time acknowledging his lack of sanity is laughable. I am probably closer to the far left than anything, but I am also of a realistic mindset. This event is a great opportunity to gain the short attention spans of the public and bring light to both sides of the fence and their unnecessary rhetoric, but there is no need to place blame on someone with such a minuscule amount of information. The right is doing the same thing as the left would doing if this was a member of the republican party. they would be pointing to Obama making statements about guns and knives or something and the left would be pointing fingers at the right and so forth. but as Obama would say:

LET ME BE CLEAR, USE THIS EVENT TO BRING ATTENTION TO VIOLENT RHETORIC. But blaming the right on the basis of a bilaterally accepted “nutjob” only detracts from the chance to gain unity over such an important topic. Each side is to blame, even if one side is further in the red than other is beside the point, that is unchangeable, what is changeable is that we not blame one or the other, but both accept blame and both work to end it. Placing blame only divides people and nothing will ever come to peaceful agreement. It can not get much more simple than this.

I would like to know how you can blame the far right from characterizing loughner as a nutjob and hurting his chances of a successful trial, and then at the end of the article claim he is ill, “there is no question”. That is pretty much the definition of contradiction.