[Rokke]

Well, so far today I've been called clueless because in my lexicon 100 (nevermind 96) doesn't equal "hundreds", and told to use my brain by someone who apparently can't read an entire thread and missed the fact that "hundreds" of witnesses did not describe the same thing. Just another typical day on a conspiracy thread.

[Dr. Luv]

There really is no point in disagreeing with them, for they are the "True Believers In The Missile Theory". Impervious to logic, immune to fact, folks like these are a never-ending source of amusement.

I just wish they wouldn't call themselves Freepers...

[UberVernunft]

Well, so far today I've been called clueless because in my lexicon 100 (nevermind 96) doesn't equal "hundreds"

Uh, no. You were called clueless for ignoring my justificatin for using the term "hundreds", and then your continaul uninformed snide remarks based on *your* own misunderstanding, and then of course your contiual harping on a minor distinction that made no sense. I repeatedly pointed this out. You came in making ignorant and abusive statements, and then found out you were actually wrong.

Your lexicon? Try using a well known dictionary Why don't you tell us all what your dictionary quotes as the definition of "hundreds"? Reference?

[UberVernunft]

From the American Heritage® Dictionary, 4th edition:

SYLLABICATION: hun·dred
PRONUNCIATION: hndrd
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. hundred or hun·dreds 1. The cardinal number equal to 10 × 10 or 102. 2. The number in the third position left of the decimal point in an Arabic numeral. 3. A one-hundred-dollar bill. 4. hundreds The numbers between 100 and 999: an attendance figure estimated in the hundreds. 5. An administrative division of some counties in England and the United States.

hundred

Now I've quoted two dictionaries that agree with me. You have yet to provide a definition for *your* particular meaning, or even a reference. Are you making this all up?

[UberVernunft]

Just another typical day on a conspiracy thread.

It's doubtful this has anything to do with a "conspiracy". The NTSB can't justify how or why the fuel tank supposedly exploded. They can't explain how or what happened, and so they came up a pet theory. It doesn't take a "conspiracy", just ignorance and the need to come up with an explanation. They have also routinely ignored evidence that contradicts their position, which is typical of a government investigation. So need for a "conspiracy".

Do we need to go through the particulars of all the corruption found in the FBI lab, which were used to help make convictions?