I think thats just a wee bit of a understatement.

JWOD is on the way!


Not that I think buying from the disabled is bad, but the US Goverment is probably buying stuff just because not because they need it.

As in terrorists you mean U.S goverment?

I had figured that is what those secondary "explosions" were reported at the Pentagon. The roof and floors collapsing.

Some of the stuff in there is very curious, but frankly the way a lot of it is handled leads me to believe the curious bits were not fairly or thoroughly explored for all possible explainations.

The worst part of it? That claptrap like this distract from how portions of the administration seemingly cynically used the situation afterward to sell their unrelated agenda.

Most of the rumors and conspiracy theories have leveled down on the probablility that it was a cruise missle more than likely...but the video really isn't clear on what they think it might be. Theres really alot of posibilities. For all we know it could very much be a combination of a bunch of different things...explosives, a missile, small plane...hard to say. One things for sure...it wasn't a 757 that took down 5 light posts and skipped off the ground and vaporized from the fire when it slammed into the pentagon...

You get half a point for effort - the towers didn't collapse from the impact of the planes (which would possibly have caused them to fall like dominoes).

They collapsed because the burning jet fuel (which was liquid, and thus drained down elevator shafts and the like) weakened the supports throughout, but especially at the base of the towers. Since there was, at that point, no lateral force being applied to the towers, they fell exactly as should be expected - straight down - due to gravity.

This is the way almost all buildings that collapse due to complete structural failure fall - only when there is a significant portion of the load still being supported do buildings fall over - witness any number of failed controlled demolitions.

Orly? Burning jet fuel drained down the elevator shafts eh? Seems to me that the burning fuel would burn before it had a chance to drain.

Look, here's the deal. I don't think anyone is giving us the straight dope on what happened on 9/11. Maybe the conspiracy theorists can't tell us exactly what happened, but they've made it absolutely clear that the government's official explanation of the incident is patently false. And if you don't see a need for a more thorough investigation into this matter, you need to work on developing some critical thinking skills.

This is P.P.Lemonade signing out.

..if there is enough oxygen, which can and will limit that rate.

Which, as stated above, isn't necessary to bring loadbearing capabilities beneath safety levels, especially if there already was structural damage.

That's an engineer from MIT in the above posted link. I'm not sure what his area of expertise is though.

He "studied physics at MIT" and "did electrical engineering for about eight years" with "quite a bit of practical engineering experience." To start off he also cites the testimony of an anonymous "retired army core of engineers fellow" who thinks that the puffs of smoke are squibs.

Ultimately, you have to decide for yourself if you think he is credible. However, I will point out that there are engineers and scientists who have looked at the issue closely and who do not subscribe to any conspiracy theory. I cite a team of them below.


Now for my own two cents:

Once upon a time, I spent days reading the debates at abovetopsecret.com. Eventually they contacted a structural engineer to help settle some of the disputes. It was the expert's opinion that the building collapsed as expected. Undeterred, the conspiracy theorists selectively quoted his email in order to show that he had (in fact) proven them all right.

Also notice the use of meaningless innuendo. For instance: $600,000 spent investingating WTC vs. $40,000,000 spent to investigate Clinton. (So?) Or: did you know that Marvin Bush ran security at the WTC? (So?) Or: "Is it merely a coincidence that...Donald Rumsfeld was safe in his office on the opposite end of the [Pentagon]?" (Very suspicious indeed. ) It takes a logical leap the size of Kansas to make anything out of these factoids, and the theorists seem to be all-too-willing to mislead the audience with them.

I also suggest watching the "extra footage" on the DVD. One of the filmmakers tells a woman that it takes "months of intense planning and science" to blow up a building, which presumably "a bunch of Muslims" could never do. Then see them gloating at (what should be) a sobering screening of their own movie.

P.S. Here is a report of a simulation of the Pentagon crash. http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/0...n.Pentagon.html Oops, I forgot: "Animations are imaginary. Not proof of anything."

I own a book which gives the following advice: if you want to get revenge against someone with a flashy new car, simply put a note on the windshield the next time it is parked in a public lot. "Dear Sir, Sorry about your car. I will gladly pay to repair the damages." Invariably the owner will inspect the car and begin finding scratches, blemishes, and/or dents that were never noticed before.

Just as invariably, a die-hard conspiracy buff will find fault with whatever evidence is presented. We have considerably more than five frames of the WTC collapsing, and yet people still believe it was destroyed with a controlled demolition.

Another anecdote: I once saw a documentary about Area 51. The narrator marvelled that the government hadn't disallowed satellite photography of the region. He said this was proof that it was so top secret that even government documents aren't permitted to acknowledge its existence. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Obviously, you never saw Wag the Dog.

It's not really question whether the incident was a sacrifice to produce profit - the question whether it was tolerated or raised is the point energy should be spend on.

After stopping the absurd changes concerning civil right summoned by 'the threat of terror'.

You honestly don't find anything questionable about that? 6600% more was spent on an investigation of real estate scandals and fellatio in the oval office than the investigation of 9/11.