'Nevertheless, I am pleased to see that Jeremy has responded to my invitation to take a more civil tone with Scott, to desist from misrepresenting his article, and retract his accusation of spookdom.' Gerard


Hey Gerard, you know you're right, I have toned down my rhetoric towards Scott, but I gaurantee, it had nothing to do with a damn word you had to say (and I assure you, I haven't retracted a single thing). Your accusing me of ranting and hurling invective will intrigue anyone new to this thread when they read your entries above. And I'm already regretting having ever shown you the slightest iota of respect in the past.

Scott Loughrey's writing, like yours, is scrambled, vague and poorly composed. It takes a subject that is difficult to even entertain and, by the end of it, you're more skeptical than you were in the beginning. But the both of you look like scholars compared to the Webfairy.

Scott, I'm sorry but I've checked the links(most of which I've seen a million times before) and I find your conclusions just tedious and not the least bit persuasive. Rather than drawing you in they make you want to pull your hair out. I want to oblige you by giving you the examples you requested but when I start to write about the subject I'm embarrassed to even be associated with it. NO PLANES HIT THE WTC?? The zoom-out theory? No debris bouncing off the facade? None of these issues are the least bit compelling to me but I'm sure the web is full of people who will make you feel like you're really on to something.

Gerard is one of the coolest chaps on the net, huh? Are we talking about the same guy who wrote the sprawling diatribe above? If your judge of 9/11 issues is as good as your judge of people maybe you should try bowling instead of writing.

I'm through with this ridiculous thread and I'm through with the both of you.