Well, to answer one part of your question, my approach is critical and scientific. What that means is that if someone claims 9/11 had to have been explosives because a four ton chunk of steel was tossed 500 feet, then I simply compute that matter.
That should read: "... my approach is critical and
rational. What that means is that if someone claims 9/11 ___________________________, then I simply compute that matter." In other words, it shouldn't matter what the "claim" is or who is claiming it.
It has nothing to do with who tells who what to think. It is a simple examination of a claim using math and physics.
Which is missing the point completely. You're looking at "claims" (symbols) rather than the event itself (reality)... and more importantly, you've assumed from the beginning that the "claims" of your perceived "authority" figures are true by default, just because they happen to have greater media access -- i.e. greater capability to manipulate you into believing. Notice I said "believing", without qualifiers. A real skeptic believes nothing but/ergo entertains all ideas.
That's one form of "seeking answers." It's also a way of examining the greatest fucking mysteries that could be, quite opposite to listening to babble from bobble-heads.
So you're saying that you are not a mystery?
