Are you this stupid?

[Shibby]

I myslef, probably like so many others, see he is wanted for terrorism and automatically connect that in our minds with 9/11. As if it's an implied charge being put on him when I see him on that site.

[Primal Instinct]

Yeah, thanks for that. And this doesn't come off as arrogant?

I'm reading some research right now that is actually pretty compelling. I'm not ready to say I believe that it was staged by our government, but I'm leaning toward believing that certain individuals knew about the plot, whoever came up with and implemented it, and profited from it.

babyblues,

That's all anyone can ask - to look into the matter more closely and then make up our own minds. It is a very difficult concept to comprehend at first. That is, until one looks more closely at the actual events surrounding the days leading up to and on 9/11. Once people start seeing the incredible chain of coincidences, one must give pause to the official account. The thing is that there are just SOOO many amazing and improbable coinicidents that our government is asking us to believe that lead to the 9/11 attacks. There was a means, motive and definitely a coverup.


If you are up for it, do a search and see why all of the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled offsite of the WTC just two weeks prior to the attacks. Check out why there was a power down of the WTC towers (for the first time ever) just the weekend PRIOR to the attacks in which there were no surveillance cameras operating, no electronic door locks, no electronic entry/exit records, nothing. Also, there were almost NO WTC employees or any of the building's tenants onsite that weekend. There wasn't even emergency generator backup power available, as far as I can tell. Ostensibly, this happened so that "someone" could add high speed data lines to increase building bandwidth. Some of this happened within the elevator shafts. This is absolutely unheard of, as I currently work in this very industry. Red flags everywhere!


A large number of people were murdered that day in NYC, DC and possibly over Pa. They and their families deserve justice and we deserve to know the truth about who perpetrated these crimes and the real reasons behind it. 9/11 was the Bush Administration's Reichstag fire and it launched the "War on Terror" which supposedly led us into Afghanistan (major natural gas reserves) and then Iraq (oil and more importantly, water for the region).

[redsquirrel]

I disagree with your conclusion, but I'm not an idiot. I don't agree with what you claim is your evidence, but I'm not stupid. I actually have researched most of what you've presented as fact and I've come to the conclusion that it's just your opinion. Everything you just posted is based on theory...your theory. Theory isn't reality. I prefer to rely on logic, reason and common sense. Some things that you seriously seem to lack.

You present your opinion in a very convincing manner and you're obviously a very intelligent person. And I don't doubt when you say that you do your homework. But in my opinion, your conclusion isn't very sound. My evidence is fucking common sense. I have a pretty good track record myself with being able to tell the difference between a reasonable, logical statement and one that is full of opinion and hasty conclusions. Don't assume you're the most informed person in this discussion. My information may be different than yours and my methods may be different but I'm far from wet behind the ears. Say what you will, post another 15 page diatribe full of your opinion and call it fact if you want. I can respect the fact that you have your opinion and that it's different than mine, but when you start telling me that I'm uninformed because I don't share your opinion my respect goes right down to zero. Enjoy your witch hunt.

I hate to jump in at the ass end of something like this, but I don't see it indicated anywhere you being called stupid, or an idiot.

I also don't think Primal is trying to force his opinions, theories, or facts on you or anyone. He is simply leaving it there for the taking. He is making us privvy to some information we probably haven't heard about, or in this case- totally refuted and therefore decided to ignore. Why not have all of the cards on the table before making an informed decisions? Isn't it true one has the biggest advantage when they have all possible explanations and facets of a theory?

Not only is it our job as citizens to question our leaders, but it's our RESPONSIBILITY. Citizens who put to much trust in the government

It's my guess and feeling that you are so infuriated by these claims that you think and want it to be false. Don't you think we all feel the same way? Do you think the rest of us want to come to the realization that the government could have had ANY role in this horrific travesty?

[redsquirrel]

[QUOTE=Primal Instinct]babyblues,


If you are up for it, do a search and see why all of the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled offsite of the WTC just two weeks prior to the attacks. Check out why there was a power down of the WTC towers (for the first time ever) just the weekend PRIOR to the attacks in which there were no surveillance cameras operating, no electronic door locks, no electronic entry/exit records, nothing. Also, there were almost NO WTC employees or any of the building's tenants onsite that weekend. There wasn't even emergency generator backup power available, as far as I can tell. Ostensibly, this happened so that "someone" could add high speed data lines to increase building bandwidth. Some of this happened within the elevator shafts. This is absolutely unheard of, as I currently work in this very industry. Red flags everywhere![QUOTE=Primal Instinct]



PI-

Can you please clarify what effect this would have on the WTC collapsing? Are you insinuating that these data lines were possible ways of levelling the building? Is it possible these camera records and such was destroyed? Are you saying WTC tenants were ordered out of the compound for the weekend?

I had watched something on the History Channel quite some time ago about the structural effectiveness of the WTC's. They interviewed the engineers, architects, etc. (And yes, I know this could be propaganda) But what they said is that the design of the building was errected in the way that in case of a fire, the steel beams would be able to withstand the heat. However, in this case, we obviously had fire ignited by jet fuel, which burns like 10 times hotter than a regular fire....this is what they indicated that caused the sway in structural beams, therefore causing the buildings to collapse. In addition, after watching these buildings collapse, the 2nd one to fall (can't remember if it was N or S) actually collapsed at the point of impact.

Can you shed some light on this info? I mean, if there were bombs, or other things that caused the buildings to collapse, then why did Al-Queda take credit for the attack? Also, if your theories are mostly true, then how do we explain the Madrid bombings, Bali, and London last July? Are you saying that the recent thwarted plot was propaganda as well in order to add to the cause? What about they missing Egyptian students? What about the fact of this Iran situation? Isn't it ironic that Iran told us they would "answer our questions" about uranium enrichment on 8/22, yet 8/22 is a sacred day among Muslims? Although, my intuition tells me we invaded Iraq because we KNEW the potential threat Iran was and will be. But what I'm saying is it seems like all of these global dramas and turmoil is much too detailed and virtually impossible to fabricate for very long..Don't get me wrong- I do think there is some serious truth to your theory. However, on the flip side- I think all of these events are yielding a much larger plan; one that we don't even know about yet....and I don't think our government is orchestrating this one

[babyblues]

I’ve run into many sites that duplicate many of the same theories and instead of trying to tackle each one separately, I’m going to post a link to the most common myths, theories and observations used as evidence of government conspiracy. We can discuss different topics seperately if you like, but it's way too much to include in one post. Be prepared to spend alot of time on these sites because there is a freakin TON of information, all very interesting. This site seems to be pretty comprehensive.

http://911research.com/sept11/foreknowledge.html

Here are some websites that debunk many of the myths surrounding 9/11 that are being used as evidence of government conspiracy.

http://www.911myths.com/index.html

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

Here is an article on the collapse of the towers, written by Tim Wilkinson who is a professor in the University of Sydney's Department of Civil Engineering in Australia.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

And here is another article on the collapse of the towers, written by Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. He actually references Wilkinson in his bibliography.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

They both agree as far as structural engineering theory and their analysis in turn agrees with the debunking websites above. These aren’t theology professors theorizing about structural engineering (David Ray Griffin for example) they are trained professionals in the field of civil engineering. These are perfectly reasonable explanations from independent engineers as to how and why the towers collapsed. It’s all right there in the websites that I’ve linked. They even address many of the points that Primal Instinct brought up such as bomb sniffing dogs being removed just days before.

The “proof” of a conspiracy is nothing more than a collection of observations made by untrained individuals who have no knowledge of engineering or demolition or economics. Conspiracy theorists have pointed to “anomalies” that they do not understand and concluded that their lack of comprehension proves our government planned the attacks of 9/11. There is a wealth of knowledge that is needed to understand the physics of a controlled demolition. I don’t claim to have that knowledge, so I’ll just trust the opinions of those who do. I doubt that anyone participating in this discussion has the credentials to say they’re an expert in any of these fields of research, comments like “your almighty truth” and “your opinion is gospel” notwithstanding.

Yes. There is more to the story than we have been told, but the evidence, such as it is, doesn’t support the theory that 9/11 was the brain child of our current administration. If they were out to control the price of oil, there would seem to be better ways to do that than invading Iraq. That’s what makes me think that there’s more to this than we’re being told. Iraq posed no real threat to us and now recent discoveries in Canada puts them ahead of Iraq in recoverable crude oil reserves. It just doesn’t make sense. But I certainly won’t go so far as to imply that this is a government conspiracy.

Operation Northwoods. The fact that this plan was concocted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962 doesn’t prove that our administration today shares their motives or employs the same strategy. Do we assume that the current German government wants to resurrect the Third Reich? Do we assume that the current Italian government wants to continue Mussolini’s fascist rule? Do we assume that the current Russian government wants to resume the Cold War? Do we assume that the current Japanese government is looking to recreate Pearl Harbor? Imputed motives hardly constitute empirical evidence.

[Primal Instinct]

So I wrote a very detailed and insightful post responding to all of Red's questions. However, I was a doofus and did not save a copy while writing. I go to open another Internet Explorer window to check a reference that I was providing a link to and WHAM! The frigging screen locks up and I lost EVERYTHING! Pissed me off! So, I will have to get back to Red's questions in a few days because I will be very busy with some work for awhile now. I won't forget though.



babyblues,

I think that you have totally missed my point about Operation Northwoods. The thing that I was trying to point out to you was that people CAN & DO sometimes achieve a high position of authority in our government and as my example has shown, are not above nefarious activities to promote a decidely treasonous agenda for political purposes. The mere fact that this has occurred in the past does not preclude such an event from happening again, as in the events of 9/11. Only this time, the SecDef and the White House agree to go along with the updated plan. You cannot simply dismiss such a possibility in light of my example. It has happened before. What is our protection against it happeneing again, especially with the most secretive US government in the history of the United States. Do you trust Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld so much as to preclude this possibility? Have you read the PNAC goals and strategies which, were written PRIOR to this administration (and tese very same members) taking office? You seem to be VERY trusting of a secretive and mid-stage authoritarian government. I will not give them such a pass. I fear the loss of our system of government and our way of life here. There should be transparency in government and we have yet to see any from the Bush-Cheney cabal. What we HAVE seen however, is a lot of intentionally misleading statements and stark refusals from the office of the White House to address even federal supeonas delivered unto them. They actually flaunt the fact that they think that they are above the law. They aren't above mine.

[babyblues]

babyblues,

I think that you have totally missed my point about Operation Northwoods. The thing that I was trying to point out to you was that people CAN & DO sometimes achieve a high position of authority in our government and as my example has shown, are not above nefarious activities to promote a decidely treasonous agenda for political purposes. The mere fact that this has occurred in the past does not preclude such an event from happening again, as in the events of 9/11. Only this time, the SecDef and the White House agree to go along with the updated plan. You cannot simply dismiss such a possibility in light of my example. It has happened before. What is our protection against it happeneing again, especially with the most secretive US government in the history of the United States. Do you trust Cheney, Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld so much as to preclude this possibility? Have you read the PNAC goals and strategies which, were written PRIOR to this administration (and tese very same members) taking office? You seem to be VERY trusting of a secretive and mid-stage authoritarian government. I will not give them such a pass. I fear the loss of our system of government and our way of life here. There should be transparency in government and we have yet to see any from the Bush-Cheney cabal. What we HAVE seen however, is a lot of intentionally misleading statements and stark refusals from the office of the White House to address even federal supeonas delivered unto them. They actually flaunt the fact that they think that they are above the law. They aren't above mine.

I haven't missed your point. I understand your point. But your point doesn't have anything to do with proving whether or not our government actually did it. You can establish a possible motive and opportunity (no matter how remote it may be) but if the actual evidence doesn't support it, it's all circumstantial. Capability does not prove guilt. Absent any credible, verifiable proof that 9/11 was anything but a terrorist attack I don't believe our government ACTUALLY DID it. They're capable of it, I'll give you that, but guilt has nothing to do whatsoever with whether I trust someone or not. So far, there is no verifiable, reasonable evidence to support the claim that they actually did it. All conspiracy theories have been refuted or at least proven seriously questionable. I don't trust them any more than you do, but I do trust the evidence.

[Primal Instinct]

Not all theories have been refuted. Please explain where the molten stell came from in the basements of WTC I & II? It wasn't a result of jet fuel either because jet fuel simply does not burn hot enough to melt structural steel (2750F melting point). Besides that, how come molten steel was also found in the basement of WTC 7 which was NOT struck by an aircraft? Hydrocarbon fires don't melt structural steel. If that was true then your wood burning steel/iron stove would melt then wouldn't it? Thermate burns above 2750F though and would be the logical choice in breaking the 4" thick structural steel tubular columns necessary to collapse the towers.


You want evidence before you decide. Fair enough. How about you file a FOIA request to the FBI to release all of the various confiscated videotapes of the Pentagon impact or perhaps show the serial numbered parts of the various aircraft that struck the Pentagon or crashed in Shanksville, Pa. They hold all of this pertinent evidence and much, much more. However, they refuse to release it for independent investigation or even observation? Why? There is no longer a national security threat of those aircraft striking the buildings. So what would be the only reason NOT to freely allow inspection of various forms of evidence then if what they say happened really happened? Surely, if their story is true and accurate the evidence would just bolster their claims.


I'll tell you what. Let's try a different approach. I have submitted much information pertaining to my thoughts of what happened on 9/11. You say that you require proof. Fine. Why don't you show us ANY hard evidence that Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden did the 9/11 attacks? Surely there must be tons of evidence to support your beliefs. Post something to sway MY mind. Beware- the FBI have admitted that there is no hard evidence tying OBL or Al Qaeda to 9/11. That is why they can't put 9/11 attacks as a reason for wanting OBL in his FBI's Most Wanted profile. Fire away...

[babyblues]

Not all theories have been refuted. Please explain where the molten stell came from in the basements of WTC I & II? It wasn't a result of jet fuel either because jet fuel simply does not burn hot enough to melt structural steel (2750F melting point). Besides that, how come molten steel was also found in the basement of WTC 7 which was NOT struck by an aircraft? Hydrocarbon fires don't melt structural steel. If that was true then your wood burning steel/iron stove would melt then wouldn't it? Thermate burns above 2750F though and would be the logical choice in breaking the 4" thick structural steel tubular columns necessary to collapse the towers.


You want evidence before you decide. Fair enough. How about you file a FOIA request to the FBI to release all of the various confiscated videotapes of the Pentagon impact or perhaps show the serial numbered parts of the various aircraft that struck the Pentagon or crashed in Shanksville, Pa. They hold all of this pertinent evidence and much, much more. However, they refuse to release it for independent investigation or even observation? Why? There is no longer a national security threat of those aircraft striking the buildings. So what would be the only reason NOT to freely allow inspection of various forms of evidence then if what they say happened really happened? Surely, if their story is true and accurate the evidence would just bolster their claims.


I'll tell you what. Let's try a different approach. I have submitted much information pertaining to my thoughts of what happened on 9/11. You say that you require proof. Fine. Why don't you show us ANY hard evidence that Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden did the 9/11 attacks? Surely there must be tons of evidence to support your beliefs. Post something to sway MY mind. Beware- the FBI have admitted that there is no hard evidence tying OBL or Al Qaeda to 9/11. That is why they can't put 9/11 attacks as a reason for wanting OBL in his FBI's Most Wanted profile. Fire away...

Supposed molten steel, claims of cooked evidence from the Pentagon impact and Osama bin Laden/Al Queda are all addressed in the links I provided. Please review ALL OF THE EVIDENCE as you suggested. I actually took the time to read ALL of the evidence that you have referenced and posted links to. Please take the time to read and consider my evidence. It's there, you just have to be willing to see it. Why don't YOU show ME some HARD evidence of your own. If the FBI's Most Wanted list is the only credible piece of evidence you can come up with for bin Laden's innocence, your evidence isn't very strong. Please spend a little more time reading the websites I have linked.

Listen, I got frustrated and sarcastic earlier in this discussion and you called me on it. I thought better of my actions and changed my approach. It would be more beneficial to this discussion if you would also dispense with the sarcasm.

[hlcn8]

I think it's safe to say there's no real "hard" evidence out there. If there were this conversation wouldn't be taking place. I respect everyone's beliefs, and at some point we all have to come to our own conclusion by looking at the evidence, and its apparent most of us have!

[Primal Instinct]

Supposed molten steel, claims of cooked evidence from the Pentagon impact and Osama bin Laden/Al Queda are all addressed in the links I provided. Please review ALL OF THE EVIDENCE as you suggested. I actually took the time to read ALL of the evidence that you have referenced and posted links to. Please take the time to read and consider my evidence. It's there, you just have to be willing to see it. Why don't YOU show ME some HARD evidence of your own. If the FBI's Most Wanted list is the only credible piece of evidence you can come up with for bin Laden's innocence, your evidence isn't very strong. Please spend a little more time reading the websites I have linked.

Listen, I got frustrated and sarcastic earlier in this discussion and you called me on it. I thought better of my actions and changed my approach. It would be more beneficial to this discussion if you would also dispense with the sarcasm.

First, two questions....does eyewitness testimony from credible witnesses count? Also, what if I could show you proof that FEMA changed the WTC construction details (via ommission of critical structural details) on their official publication? In other words, what if I showed you FEMA's changes to an already existing cutaway diagram, which was done to support their claims of structural failure?


Also, would you accept an independent structural analysis of a few steel beams from the WTC site which validate a chemical change in the steel itself resulting from the introduction of sulfides in order to rapidly oxidize structural steel supports?


BTW, I was not being sarcastic. I was shifting the burden of proof to you to backup your claims that the events happened as officially stated, to which you have not provided any yet to this point in time. It is a fair and valid tactic in a discussion between two parties with differing opinions. In an honest debate, one cannot disprove another's offerings beyond reasonable doubt without a direct rebuttal to such claims and at the same time refusing to provide any validated proof of your own argument. Saying "read the sites" is not what I would call a discussion. It is the lazy man's debate tactic and lacks credibility of the poster. I feel that you are an intelligent and reasonable person and I simply expect more from you than that.


There are websites on both sides of the discussion that are there merely to setup the discussion as a strawman argument. The trick is to be able to navigate through the dreck without getting sucked into a false claim. There also seems to be some sort of ego trip with some website owners that would rather discredit others than to actually work with them in a cohesive fashion. So in effect, politics sadly plays a role even when two or more parties seek to find out the same truth from a different party.


I have spent the better portion of my free time for over 4-1/2 years on this particular subject. There is very little that I haven't seen on all sides of this discussion in that period of time. I don't WANT it to be true that our government played a role in these attacks but after review of everything available, I cannot simply waive a dismissive hand over this as some conspiracy crap. The conspiracy IS real and we have been asked to believe in it when we reiterate the official government account of events. I personally have volumes of information pertaining to the evidence and testimonies of various parties involved during the 9/11 attacks and afterward. I DO know my shit when it comes to this topic.


Didi you ever talk to a professional blaster about the collapses of WTC I, II, and & 7? Have you personally (and off the record) ever spoken to a structural analyst familiar with the details of the buildings and sequence of collapses? I have. No one talks about it publically because doing so amounts to career suicide and backballing of ANY federal and state government contracts. Don't take MY word for it. Talk to such people and see for yourself.

[babyblues]

First, two questions....does eyewitness testimony from credible witnesses count? Also, what if I could show you proof that FEMA changed the WTC construction details (via ommission of critical structural details) on their official publication? In other words, what if I showed you FEMA's changes to an already existing cutaway diagram, which was done to support their claims of structural failure?


Also, would you accept an independent structural analysis of a few steel beams from the WTC site which validate a chemical change in the steel itself resulting from the introduction of sulfides in order to rapidly oxidize structural steel supports?


BTW, I was not being sarcastic. I was shifting the burden of proof to you to backup your claims that the events happened as officially stated, to which you have not provided any yet to this point in time. It is a fair and valid tactic in a discussion between two parties with differing opinions. In an honest debate, one cannot disprove another's offerings beyond reasonable doubt without a direct rebuttal to such claims and at the same time refusing to provide any validated proof of your own argument. Saying "read the sites" is not what I would call a discussion. It is the lazy man's debate tactic and lacks credibility of the poster. I feel that you are an intelligent and reasonable person and I simply expect more from you than that.


There are websites on both sides of the discussion that are there merely to setup the discussion as a strawman argument. The trick is to be able to navigate through the dreck without getting sucked into a false claim. There also seems to be some sort of ego trip with some website owners that would rather discredit others than to actually work with them in a cohesive fashion. So in effect, politics sadly plays a role even when two or more parties seek to find out the same truth from a different party.


I have spent the better portion of my free time for over 4-1/2 years on this particular subject. There is very little that I haven't seen on all sides of this discussion in that period of time. I don't WANT it to be true that our government played a role in these attacks but after review of everything available, I cannot simply waive a dismissive hand over this as some conspiracy crap. The conspiracy IS real and we have been asked to believe in it when we reiterate the official government account of events. I personally have volumes of information pertaining to the evidence and testimonies of various parties involved during the 9/11 attacks and afterward. I DO know my shit when it comes to this topic.


Didi you ever talk to a professional blaster about the collapses of WTC I, II, and & 7? Have you personally (and off the record) ever spoken to a structural analyst familiar with the details of the buildings and sequence of collapses? I have. No one talks about it publically because doing so amounts to career suicide and backballing of ANY federal and state government contracts. Don't take MY word for it. Talk to such people and see for yourself.

Tell you what. The way we're doing this is not very efficient and not easy to follow. What if we created another thread "The Truth of 9/11" and debate each issue seperately, one at a time. That way you can pose one question at a time and we could throughly discuss the evidence for and against. I think that alot of what we have both presented has gotten lost in translation so to speak. Like you said, it's lazy to just point to a website and say "it's all right there" but long posts in a format like this are kind of hard to follow when they contain 3 or 4 different questions in the same post. Plus, it's going to take a while to sift through and discuss even a fraction of the evidence. Because I really do want to see some of the information that you have collected.

[bonebreaker]

Hey folks, you know, it doesn't really matter who's right and who's wrong. The fact of the matter is, that America, as much as I love it, (just as much as I loathe ALL politicians), is on the road to a very rude awakening and I fear that will not be long in coming. The political control in this country is just plain whacked. We are reducing Americans to the lowest common denominator, by a government who just plain doesn't care about their citizens. Politicians only want to be elected or re-elected and damn their constituents after the fact. We are all merely pawns and can do nothing about it, (the way we currently behave). We have always heard that we should vote and "throw the bums out" if they fail to do the job right. Problem is, given most politicians propensity to be all about themselves and not the people who voted them in, "throwing the bums out" only replaces the old "bums" with new ones". Most of us on this board, I assume, are W.A.S.P.'s, and middle classed. Which means we pay the most and get the least for our tax dollars, while the government laughs at us for being so docile and stupid, yes, we're stupid for putting up with all their shit.

IMHO, we have not had a decent Presidential Administration, or Congress since the 50's and Dwight D. Eisenhour. Again, IMHO, the beginning of the 60's and the crappy politics we have had since, Democratic AND Republican, has put America into a steep slide towards truly severe economic and political strife. We haven't hit the bottom yet, but unless something remarkable happens, we're in deep shit, (actually we are now, but IT WILL get worse).

"Shays' Rebellion--- a sometimes-violent uprising of farmers angry over conditions in Massachusetts in 1786--- prompted Thomas Jefferson to express the view that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America. Unlike other leaders of The Republic, Jefferson felt that the people had a right to express their grievances against the government, even if those grievances might take the form of violent action."

I think Jefferson hit the nail right on the head. I personally believe we are long overdue.

BB

[Primal Instinct]

Great post, bonebreaker! It's sad but I think that in today's political arena, Thomas Jefferson would be accused by the current administration as anti-American because of his views of transparency in government, a truly free and independent press and his multiple warnings about not letting our republic be wrested from us from parties both foreign AND domestic. Like Jesus speaking out in his day, Jefferson today would have been considered a threat to the establishment. What do you think?



babyblues,

I like your idea. Would you like to start a seperate thread soon? We all may learn something from each other in the process and that's got to be a good thing. Don't you agree?
:)

[Shibby]

Tell you what. The way we're doing this is not very efficient and not easy to follow. What if we created another thread "The Truth of 9/11" and debate each issue seperately, one at a time. That way you can pose one question at a time and we could throughly discuss the evidence for and against. I think that alot of what we have both presented has gotten lost in translation so to speak. Like you said, it's lazy to just point to a website and say "it's all right there" but long posts in a format like this are kind of hard to follow when they contain 3 or 4 different questions in the same post. Plus, it's going to take a while to sift through and discuss even a fraction of the evidence. Because I really do want to see some of the information that you have collected.

I like the idea. It would be very interesting to read.