This essay contradicts itself repeatedly and its only points are the sorts of things people already know.

The whole "Don't judge individuals who cause senseless deaths, judge the disease of alcoholism!" thing doesn't wash with me.

How about "Don't judge people who crash while talking on cell phones -- judge the social ill of cell phones, and our pervasive need to use the latest technologies to communicate at inappropriate times!"

I don't get this "Don't blame the responsible party!" thing.

Or maybe the point was not to blame people at all? For anything?

Well duh, the Joker obviously had some sort of unexplained super-human abilities. After all, he could plan and execute a split-second-timed bank robbery in which nobody but himself ended up alive, and he was able to kill a man by pushing his head into a pencil. And on at least two occasions he used bombs to create ethical conundrums for the other characters, when all he really needed was to invite two women wearing the same dress to a party.

Those indians wank on his bones.

LondonLad: "Do tell, how on earth can the disappearance into fine dust of between 6-7.5 floors EVERY SECOND in a steel framed building collapsing in a manner never ever seen before or since ever be considered "insignificant"?"

Losing your train of thought, there? Forget what we were talking about?

You were saying that the rate of descent was significant. When pressed on the reason for this, you said something like, "We all saw it with our own eyes!" as if your reasoning were self-evident based on any layman's observation.

You really should try harder to keep up with yourself.

By the way, good to hear from you, and good post.

Porky's, the king of the teen sex comedies in the 1980s, had themes about parental abuse, anti-Semitism, racism and police corruption.

It also had sexually liberated female characters and frequent references to STDs and the need for condom use. (Typical scene: "Wendy's going to do it with me -- I really need a condom, anyone got one?!")

--------

Then you have "Better Off Dead," which dealt (comedically) with a character's suicidal feelings after being dumped by a lame girlfriend.

Or "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" which dealt with premature ejaculation, masturbation, betrayal of friendship, and abortion.

Or "Can't Buy Me Love" which depicted a form of (social) prostitution, as well as the pointlessness and pitfalls of popularity.

------------

As for "Revenge of the Nerds," at least the masked character goes down on the duped woman. She might be fooled into having sex with the wrong guy, but as a result she has better sex and realizes that the sex with the jock she's dating (who describes sex by saying, "Let's go pump some iron") is mechanical and loveless.

You'd think the scene in "Revenge of the Nerds" where the nerds outfit the sorority with hidden cameras would be more offensive.

Verdict is out on whether the Lamar character is an offensive portrayal of gays. He designs a flexible javelin that works in accordance with his "limp-wristed throwing style." More weird is that the underage kid nerd starts hanging out with him instead of the heterosexual, peeping-Tom nerds. (What does that imply?)

I think, on balance, the 1980s teen movies (including the John Hughes stuff) were politically inoffensive. They had more positive messages than the adult-genre films of the time, like whatever Arnold Schwarzenegger film had him impaling somebody on a steam pipe and quipping, "Let off zum zteem!"

Okay, I will read the sites you listed.

I am only on the side of skepticism. I am skeptical of BOTH the official story and the "Truthers"' stories.

LondonLad: "If object A (tower top) hits object B (lower tower) there would have been an equal and opposite effect. No such effect was detected. Which highly surprises as the material lower was both heavier and larger in quantity than the light top falling on it."

It seems you are using a very simplistic scientific analysis here. To say "it couldn't have happened that way" requires more than a couple of brief mentions of intertial concepts. What is the math? You'd have to do some pretty advanced calculus to be able to unequivocally say that it could not have happened.

Your comments here do not seem to be accurate descriptions. The tower top didn't merely hit the tower below it. The part of the tower that fell was several stories below the top. So it would be several times the weight of the tower it was falling onto -- not just two equally-weighted floors pushing against each other.

The "equal and opposite effect" you speak of would not be equal, and it would have gravity and momentum on its side.

Remember that the building's structure was held in place primarily by its exoskeleton. What kept the exoskeleton from succumbing to outward pressure were the struts that connected the inside to the outside.

The plane collisions and blasts would have weakened the holding strength of the exoskeleton, as well as dislodging many of the internal struts. The remaining struts were then weakened by the heat of the fire. They also had their fire-resistant foam cracked off by the impact stress of the plane collisions, so that would have further exacerbated the effects of heat -- heat that would not have melted the steel, but would have weakened its structural effectiveness.

It is claimed that the struts fell from their connections, one by one, causing further stress and lack of strength.

The WTC was designed to withstand high winds and carry a huge weight load. It was also supposed to be able to withstand impacts from planes. But withstanding the impact of jumbo jets carrying full fuel loads was probably not factored into the design...