So I don't know what you're complaining about. I can only assume you get your marching orders from Fox News.

But yeah -- he's entitled to his personal opinions and all that. But to discuss a "reasonable compromise" between a position that supports a legal procedure and one that does not? And never to acknowledge that that's what you're talking about?

Infuriating!

See, it's mostly Obama supporters who own clunkers, and it's always good politics to make fun of those who own clunkers!

Jeez, it's getting to where I just about hate all Republicans on principle alone. (Sorry, Dad)

I heard a truther on the radio last night and had to turn it off. He seemed typical, though, in that he had seized upon some fact and was using that as proof of something. In the case of the fellow on the radio, it was that jet fuel burns at some temperature and steel doesn't melt until some much higher temperature. Ipso facto, bada boom bada bing -- it could only have been a controlled demolition, etc. etc.

He completely ignored the fact that the buildings had each been burning for some time before they collapsed -- long enough that I would assume the jet fuel was long spent and the fire was now being "fueled" by other materials. Might any of those other burning materials have resulted in whatever higher temperature this guy was claiming was required? He didn't say. Didn't even address that.

I've also heard truthers point to the manner of collapse as "proof" that it was a controlled demolition. Now, has any of us actually seen a controlled demolition of a building the size of the World Trade Center? No. But don't let that stop ya!

But, think about it. Even intuitively, the manner of collapse makes a certain sense. The steel supporting the top floors begins to melt and give until those floors simply give way and crash to the floors below. It appeared that the entire top floors were engulfed but even if they fell unevenly at first, it makes sense to me that, as they fell, the distribution of weight would even out, as the weight crashing down successively to each floor below caused that floor to give way, and the ever increasing weight of the floors crashed down to the floors below. But this is never considered (that I've heard). I agree it was a stunning thing to see, but that alone is not enough to say it could only have been controlled.

Anyway, I must admit I don't really follow what the details of what the truthers say. I mostly think they're nuts.

But, to return to this note, I'm just not sure that coverup and exploitation after the fact makes you a truther. That's not really their calling card, is it?

Eric, Are you sure this is just a "small sampling"? I was reading that the MSM is doing the same thing with this speech to the kids that they did with the August town halls -- i.e., covering the sensationalist crap and ignoring the majority of town halls (or schools) that are doing the right thing.

So here's my question: On what do you base your statement that the list presented above is "just a small sampling"?