My plea on 9/11


Dear 9/11 Conspiracists:

If a caveman were to look at a modern skyscraper and see it on fire, he would think that a giant, perhaps a god, was very angry. This is what you are doing every time you talk about how steel can’t melt at 1500 degrees or whatever. You don’t know what you are talking about. Physically being inside a tall building on a few occasions isn’t enough expertise to qualify you to theorize on what would make it fall down. Please stop. You are wrong and you are causing damage and pain to the people of this country.

Thank you.


  1. Here’s a huge fact that YOU are ignoring: you’re not an engineer. You’re not an architect. You have a high school understanding of physics, AT BEST. How do I know this? Because, if you were an architect or an engineer, you wouldn’t be compelled by these “facts” and “arguments” you fancy yourself so “brave” to not ignore. If you were a little less interested in making yourself out to be a hero and savior to all the ignorant sheep and more interested in listening to people who actually know what they’re talking about and aren’t 23 year old douchebags or professors of religion, you would realize that there is a consensus amongst people whose job it is to pay attention to facts and NONE of those people agree with you and your wackjob heroes.

    1. Dear hollywoodphony,
      Would you please site your sources of where you found out that “there is a consensus amongst people whose job it is to pay attention to facts and NONE of those people agree with you and your wackjob heroes.” I, for some odd reason, have to disagree with you unless you can site plural sources of people who are not a part of those who believe in your conspiracy, or what you believe to be truth. Making general statements about things does not prove anything. I could say that I am an engineer, and that steel can melt at 1500 degrees under certain conditions. I could say that, but I don’t since I do not have a degree or the knowledge. If you could site a reliable source, that would be much appreciated so I could find the truth of what happened.

      1. I don’t understand why your disagreement would end if Hollywoodphony cited several sources “who are not a part of those who believe in your conspiracy, or what you believe to be true.” That would mean that Hollywoodphony goes out and finds information to support YOUR position (which you haven’t done yourself), and not only that, but also suggests you aren’t interested in receiving any information contrary to what you already believe, being that you’ve already set your conditions of acceptability according to the personal leanings of the source. You didn’t demand unbiased sources, you demanded that all sources appear superficially not to have any sort of agenda (for lack of a better word) besides the pursuit of truth, which is a request I would consider unreasonable on this particular subject, because 9/11 has been a universal tool of political agenda since the day it happened; you might as well demand that any analysis of the Bush Administration’s anti-Iraq prewar propaganda should restrict itself only to the truth of the claims, ignore questions of “why” or of what motivates those involved, and prohibit itself from coming to any sort of conclusion beyond true/false–not only unreasonable, but also totally unimportant compared to the agendas that surrounded and motivated those propagandistic claims. All I am saying is that for intersections between science and social reality, such as “9/11 Truth,” ideological persuasion of a presenter should be received as yet another angle from which to analyze the information presented, or as greater context from within which you may see more clearly not only the information but the agenda that guides it.

        All of this being said, I’ll provide now two scientific sources:
        Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Nothing more needs to be said.
        Discovery of a foreign explosive material amidst the rubble of Ground Zero, published in peer-reviewed scientific journal.

        I believe the second link fully meets your qualifications for being totally divorced from bias in political or social arenas.

      2. Mr. Mister, I wasn’t looking to find information to prove my position, but looking for non-bias material. My opinion is that this wasn’t a huge scheme set up by the government. That isn’t to mean that I am completely one sided, because, to tell you the truth, I am a sinister person and think that we are overpopulating the world and war and tragedies such as this one help slow that problem. The problem which I believe to be the root of almost all of our other problems. I wish to believe our government serves and represents us, although I am not naive enough to not know that there is “under the table” happenings. I, like everybody else in the world want to know what physically happened. Did the towers have bombs or something that lead to the collapse that didn’t have to do with the planes in them or not. I want to believe that they didn’t but, like the evidence you posted, can be wrong. However, I am not convinced that the terrorists who got on the planes did not have explosives with them that they brought onto the planes. That could be what the red material is. It is merely a hypothesis. And thank you for responding.

  2. But didn’t all the jews stay home from work that day?
    I’m obviously kidding.
    I’d feel bad for these people if, well, no, under no circumstance outside of mental illness do these people deserve pity.
    We’ve entered a time where nothing is true and nothing is false. There are only interests. Feel like moving to Amsterdam or Sweden with me?

  3. 9/11 is a joke. I have this on good authority from both Chuck D, PhD and Flava Flav, doctor of dating whorish women on television. I will expect your written apology on my desk by COB tomorrow.

  4. I don’t get it. What’s a smelter? You mean that you can set coal on fire and make metal turn to liquid? Magic! And we all know that magic is evil. I wonder what would happen if I went into an abandoned office building, set a piece of paper on fire, and threw it into a trash can under a desk. Do you think it might possibly light the desk on fire? Gosh, and if there was something else flammable, some kind of “accelerant”, maybe, like a huge canister of kerosene in the same office, that a chain reaction might occur, and the fire may just get hotter and hotter, possibly reaching higher and higher temperatures as the flash points of different materials were reached? Holy shit, that might be bad.
    I have a deal for the conspiracists (BTW, I think our government is corrupt, too, as all are, but I do have two eyes and one brain, and I seem to remember something about airplanes). Anyway, why don’t you guys have a big meeting on the top floors of the high-rise of your choice. Then I’ll airdrop a flaming dumpster filled with a certain material that is nearly impossible to extinguish (a METAL, no less..). Then you guys can all hang out and talk about how steel doesn’t melt, and argue that the building isn’t actually collapsing, it’s just something George Bush implanted in your brains. And don’t forget to cash your government checks on the way, so you’ll have plenty of spending cash for the afterparty. That is where most of you “professors”, etc. get your money, isn’t it? From the evil, murdering, conspiritorial (still Bush-controlled) government? Oh, yeah, I almost forgot: Suck my dick. I promise it won’t “melt”.
    Sincerely, Reason

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s