Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Evan Burton]

That's right - a scenario of a B707 at approach speeds hitting the WTC was considered but they were never designed to take such an impact.

It's just another one of those things which the 9/11 CT people like to misinform about.

[Evan Burton]

Here we go:

Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.

Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances.

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.

http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Heig...Part%20Four.pdf

[Len Colby]

Well,

This is a picture from Loose Change 2nd. Where I said it floloering in every direction wered in every direction

To me more consistant with an explosion, than a collision at 500Mph, or 800 km/hr. The other part is just a couple of feet away. Collision at 800km/hour... A couple of feet away......

If by flowering in every direction you mean this part, it seems pretty obviously to be cables

I'll reply to the rest tomorrow it's time to go out for a night on the town!

[John Geraghty]

I don't know after 5 years the "no planers" have yet to turn up evidence that the Pentagon had survellence video other than the two already released. Just speculation that there must have been. There are about a dozen ex-miltary/intelligence officers/DoD workers in the "truth movement" I don't remember any of them saying anything about it.

CNN reported that the nearby Sheraton Hotel had a surveillance camera that captured the pentagon impact. They also reported that several employees watched the tape in horror before the FBI came and took it away. If this is true, it would be very interesting to hear their accounts of what they saw. In fact, it would be very interesting to see the tape.

John Judge spoke to several Sheraton employees who saw the video footage. Another lady he spoke to even watched the plane fly into the Pentagon.

John

[Len Colby]

Actually the same collision should be with this one: <<no more web-space>> I'll describe. The taxi with broken windshield. Wheels to his left turned. A main piece of lamppowl in front of bumper. To the left. In front of the right bumper lies a half lamp. The other half + a length of the powl lies on the passenger-side.

I can't understand what you are trying to say. If you host your images remotely (using the insert image button) space should be a problem. This would make the forum administrators happier too. If you are somehow unable to do that for some reason provide a link.

I presume you're talking about this photo, but I still don't understand your point.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-667-1149188654.jpg

"Now I find it suspicious to find that amound of glass in front of the car, next to the iron rail. That could not have happened at 800 km/hr impact with lamppowl glass against wing. If a cut, that would look differend."

How so?

"The alternativ thing I come up with is: they unbolted/exploded the base, let the powl fall. It breaks the glass of the lamp in a not to big area."

How did they do that without anyone seeing? Witnesses said the pole were knocked over by the plane, many of them are bent in ways seemingly inconsistent with merely falling over.

"Next is the lamppowl cut or exploded, and spread around. And I assume then was the car skid into place.

I was not there."

I don't understand what you are trying to say

"Furthermore compare to the lamppost the Bush Sr's flight had hit on approach. No sign of the lamp itself. That was slower than 800km/h."

Show us a picture

"Next the tree:Loose Change again 2nd, 11 minutes+ I came across:

It is the tree in front of the fire truck. In the moving images it is more clear. It can even be seen in Jack's picture, but takes real work. I would recomend the moving pictures. Better because of the smoke."

That image is too low quality to determine anything presumably you should be able to find clearer images of it. You didn't address the questions from my last post. Why do you think it odd to see a burnt tree next to a building that burned foe 24 hours? How do we know the tree wasn't burnt by the fireball

"With regards to smutty language, I would like to rephrase".

That was a joke one member of this forum feigned objection to the words "masturbations" and "pimping". See the linked message.

"There were a lot of camera's, not all in the property of the Pentagon. Nothing to do with Pentagon. Not even AIMED at the Pentagon. But would provide footage to substanciate their findings."

As I asked you last time, provide evidence to back you claim. Just because there were cameras in the vicinity doesn't mean they captured the last moments of flight 77.

"I consider it injust to hang on to an official story, because they say it is the only story. That is upside down."

Straw man, no one is saying that. That flight American 77, a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. The "theory" that it was hit by a missile or drone is so absurd that it is rejected by many "inside jobbers"

"For the flashes I saw from Camera 1 (file 1/2) at 1.28. Camera 2 (File2/3) at 0.34. The times are taken from the player. Cannot miss."

What exactly is the problem?

Len

I don't know after 5 years the "no planers" have yet to turn up evidence that the Pentagon had survellence video other than the two already released. Just speculation that there must have been. There are about a dozen ex-miltary/intelligence officers/DoD workers in the "truth movement" I don't remember any of them saying anything about it.

CNN reported that the nearby Sheraton Hotel had a surveillance camera that captured the pentagon impact. They also reported that several employees watched the tape in horror before the FBI came and took it away. If this is true, it would be very interesting to hear their accounts of what they saw. In fact, it would be very interesting to see the tape.

John Judge spoke to several Sheraton employees who saw the video footage. Another lady he spoke to even watched the plane fly into the Pentagon.

John

Please provide a link, considering the distance (0.8miles) the hotel was from Pentagon it's hard to believe it shows anything. Security cames are normally very low-res

John Judge refutes the no plane theory

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/f77FoF.html

More from Judge and other “inside job” proponents

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-truth.html

Len

Edited September 23, 2006 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

The ardent defenders of the crime of 9-11 continually cite

"OTHER" skyscraper collapses...without being specific.

Here is a website that addresses collapses (other than

controlled demolition) of all known skyscrapers. Let the

crime defenders talk specifics like these:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/c.../collapses.html

Photos show GRAVITY COLLAPSES of various causes. None

is symmetrical; none shows the pulverization present in

the WTC buildings; most are still recognizable as buildings,

not powder.

Jack

LOL those photos are of otherwise structurally sound buildings tipped over by earthquakes, not "various causes" once again Jack seems to have difficulty understanding what he reads. This is not comparable to what hapen to the trade center towers.

Can Jack cite a steel framed center core building that survived a jetliner crashing into it? While the inside jobbers have been able to cite a few skyscrapers that withstood longer fires these comparisons ignore important differences.

1) Some of these buildings have/had concrete not steel frames

2) Some didn't/don't have a central core design.

3) None were structurally compromised before the fire

4) None had their fireproofing damaged/destroyed in the fire zone before the fire.

5) None had floor trusses as long as the Twin Towers

For more read http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

It is interesting to note that the unprotected steel perimeter columns of the otherwise concrete framed Windsor Tower failed after 2 -3 hours despite not carrying a great deal of load. http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150

Hi,

Anyone knows what is in the cloth rapping around the steel collums, laying in front. Seems to be wet, the steel is darker right from the edge of the wrapping. Cannot imagine Isolation. And it is nowhere near Christmas. (for Silverstein, maybe. And who knows else...)

Here it is:

I have some ideas. But like to ask first. Since I am not new with construction, but do not recognize at all for a finished building. Only from docu's with explosives, and that is to take down. But even then I think it is too thin. So combined with steel I would go for thermite, and blanket contains heat, and sparks (from view). I have the idea that the steel got real hot. But no sign of that on the cloth. Some cloth.

Are there people who have an explenation for this? Or an explonation, or implonation, or maybe a thermi(te)nation.

Thanks in advance.

Maarten

Once again I'm not sure what you are trying to say, do you think the "blankets" contained termite or that they are hiding something?

Edited September 23, 2006 by Len Colby

[Randy Downs]

I was with my dad in upstate N.Y. when the WTC was hit.

I'm already so tired of hearing people talk about it. 'Cause nobody seems interested in genuine discussion, there's just the 2 camps: A) we believe what the government tells us, and we don't believe what the government tells us. You trot out your experts, i'll counter with my experts. Gosh this is familiar.

Am i the only one who thinks this is like the JFK murder all over again? The more discusions i read, the more i began to realize: People will rather ignore reality than believe in something unpleasent. There will never be a consensus, people will never come together and agree on what happened.

If you contradict the party line you're immediately called "conspiracy theorist" which is like being called retarded. This is what i call demonstration of ignorance #1. Let us simply say there were 12 men who hijacked seperate aircraft. I would imagine that they spoke to each other, i would imagine they even discussed the details amongst each other. That, by definition is a conspiracy. I want to shout at everybody, "Get a dictionary!"

"Conspiracy" can be precise legal term; but basicly it just means you talked to someone about what you're going to do. You can argue about who talked to whom, but the fact that persons conspired is undeniable.

Demonstration of ignorance #2, is the idea "Government (officials) could not have been involved in something that horrible". And i call it ignorance 'cause you have to ignore all of human history to think that way. Is this the first time ever that a Nation-State sacrificed their own people to suit their own purpose? 'Well other nations may do that, but the U.S. would never do it'. It's not the first we've done this!

"Here's a history book, read it before i smack you in the head with it."

We've got the commission, we've got the lying president, the destruction of evidence, the propaganda films, the propaganda books; and 50 years from now people will still be arguing about it. It's like Dallas all over again.

And that's so depressing.

anon,

Randy

[Sid Walker]

I was with my dad in upstate N.Y. when the WTC was hit.

I'm already so tired of hearing people talk about it. 'Cause nobody seems interested in genuine discussion, there's just the 2 camps: A) we believe what the government tells us, and we don't believe what the government tells us. You trot out your experts, i'll counter with my experts. Gosh this is familiar.

Am i the only one who thinks this is like the JFK murder all over again? The more discusions i read, the more i began to realize: People will rather ignore reality than believe in something unpleasent. There will never be a consensus, people will never come together and agree on what happened.

If you contradict the party line you're immediately called "conspiracy theorist" which is like being called retarded. This is what i call demonstration of ignorance #1. Let us simply say there were 12 men who hijacked seperate aircraft. I would imagine that they spoke to each other, i would imagine they even discussed the details amongst each other. That, by definition is a conspiracy. I want to shout at everybody, "Get a dictionary!"

"Conspiracy" can be precise legal term; but basicly it just means you talked to someone about what you're going to do. You can argue about who talked to whom, but the fact that persons conspired is undeniable.

Demonstration of ignorance #2, is the idea "Government (officials) could not have been involved in something that horrible". And i call it ignorance 'cause you have to ignore all of human history to think that way. Is this the first time ever that a Nation-State sacrificed their own people to suit their own purpose? 'Well other nations may do that, but the U.S. would never do it'. It's not the first we've done this!

"Here's a history book, read it before i smack you in the head with it."

We've got the commission, we've got the lying president, the destruction of evidence, the propaganda films, the propaganda books; and 50 years from now people will still be arguing about it. It's like Dallas all over again.

And that's so depressing.

anon,

Randy

I think you are absolutely right about the parallel between the JFK assassination and 9-11.

I also believe the same cast - allowing for 'generational change' - were responsible.

After the shock of discovering that such a dramatic event, seemingly carried out in the "full glare of publicity", is not what it is purported to be in the least, the next thing that boggles the mind is the behaviour of the mass media. Individual journalists may honestly plead ignorance, but this simply does not wash for the mass media as a whole. Far from being an accidental bearer of false information and analysis, key elements of the western media are clearly at the very centre of the web of deception.

The cavalcade of nonsense and lies just goes on and on... Last year, Britain was traumatized by '7/7' - another rather obvious false flag attack on the Moslem world, using innocent Londoners as sacrificial fodder. Within weeks, here in Australia, the Government was ready with yet another swag of civil liberty-eroding legislation, as a 'response' to the latest 'terrorist incident'. Yet the British Government hasn't even held a public inquiry into 7/7. Talk about jumping to conclusions... but then, of course, that was the intent of these murderous, conniving villains all along...

Today I hear a spirited debate on the BBC World Disinformation Service about whether Bin Laden is dead or alive. One bright spark, arguing Mr Punch is actually dead, adduces as evidence the claim that its two years since Bin Laden last launched a (strategically-timed) video. Two years? How time flies!

Of course, no one in the entire discussion mentions the strings or the man behind the curtain. Pay no attention, children! Concentrate only on nasty Mr Punch and his evil fulminations!

[Len Colby]

there's just the 2 camps: A) we believe what the government tells us, and we don't believe what the government tells us.

Actually there are numerous bitterly divided camps amongst the so called " 'truth' movement" from those who believe the administration knew the attacks were coming and intentionally did nothing (but accept that Atta and 18 others hijacked 4 Boeings, that those planes crashed into the WTC, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville etc) to those who believe that the Twin Towers weren't hit by planes at all.

Even among those who in general accept that the administration neither orchestrated nor intentionally let 9/11 happen there are differences. Some still believe the Iraqis played a role, I believe the commission ran political cover for Bush, (to a lesser extent) Clinton, various government agencies and the role US Middle Eastern policy had a role in the attacks. Some believe what they do because they believe what Fox and the government tell them other because they have done their own research.

"You trot out your experts, i'll counter with my experts. Gosh this is familiar. Am I the only one who thinks this is like the JFK murder all over again?"

This points out a major difference between the two case. There actually are qualified experts who don't believe that LHO or LHO alone killed JFK. The " 'truth' movement" on the other hand doesn't really have any experts. They don't have any architects, civil engineers, or mechanical engineers with expertise in building construction nor any fire engineers, forensic engineer or demolitions experts who back there theories. They do have a couple dozen of software engineers and liberal arts professors though. Oh yes and they have two particle physicists, a mechanical engineer who specializes in dental fillings (she recently called the better known physicist (Dr. Jones) an incompetent fraud, an octogenarian civil engineer who has spent the last few decades running a 9 hole golf course and a structural engineer who admitted he hadn't closely studied the case and spent his entire career working on a deep sea oil platforms Oh I almost forgot they do have ONE demolition expert but he only believes that WTC 7 was demolished.

"People will rather ignore reality than believe in something unpleasent."

This is true in general but in this case the overwhelming evidence is that the alternate theories are baseless and that the towers collapsed for the reasons spelled out by NIST and that things happened more or less as spelled out in the 9/11 Commission Report.

"There will never be a consensus, people will never come together and agree on what happened."

The number of people who believe Elvis is still alive is comparable to those who believe the towers were felled with explosives. I suspect there is significant overlap.

"Demonstration of ignorance #1, Let us simply say there were 12 men who hijacked seperate aircraft…"

Uh, 19 men if YOU are that ignorant of the case 1) you have no right berating others for theirs 2) how valid is your opinion?

"Demonstration of ignorance #2, is the idea "Government (officials) could not have been involved in something that horrible".

Straw man, this is not the counterargument normally used, once again you reveal your ignorance. Did you even bother to read any of the 9/11 threads on this forum before starting this one?

"50 years from now people will still be arguing about it."

People, including members of this forum, still argue that man never set foot on the moon and that the Holocaust never happened (or that it was nothing like common believed) not coincidentally these people also believe 9/11 was an "inside job". I doubt there is a historic event or scientific principle that a number people don't have alternate theories for no matter how matter how weak their "evidence".

Len

Last year, Britain was traumatized by '7/7' - another rather obvious false flag attack on the Moslem world, using innocent Londoners as sacrificial fodder.

Perhaps you should start a thread and spell out your "evidence", think you'll be able to make a stonger case than you have for Holocaust revisionism?

Edited September 24, 2006 by Len Colby

[Sid Walker]

there's just the 2 camps: A) we believe what the government tells us, and we don't believe what the government tells us.

Actually there are numerous bitterly camps amongst the so called " 'truth' movement" from those who believe the administration knew the attacks were coming and intentionally did nothing (but accept that Atta and 18 others hijacked 4 Boeings, that those planes crashed into the WTC, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville etc) to those who believe that the Twin Towers weren't hit by planes at all.

Last year, Britain was traumatized by '7/7' - another rather obvious false flag attack on the Moslem world, using innocent Londoners as sacrificial fodder.

Perhaps you should start a thread and spell out you "evidence", think you'll be able to make a stonger case than you have for Holocaust revisionism?

Perhaps you should start posting properly formed sentences in English.

Then again, it must be tough to meet productivity quotas, Len.

A xxxxx's lot is not a happy one.

[Ron Ecker]

Isn't there some kind of missile defense system protecting the Pentagon?

According to the 9/11 literature, yes and no. I don't think anyone actually knows. Rumsfeld would conceivably know, but no one from the media asked him and no one is going to ask him.

[Len Colby]

Isn't there some kind of missile defense system protecting the Pentagon?

According to the 9/11 literature, yes and no. I don't think anyone actually knows. Rumsfeld would conceivably know, but no one from the media asked him and no one is going to ask him.

Umm, no

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_missile_batteries.html

http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile...he_Pentagon.pdf (If you have trouble opening the article online, download it and open it on your computer).

Part of the excerpt from Richard Clarke cited in both articles above can also be read here http://www.slate.com/id/2097803/

"Scholar" Griffin claims the batteries were on the roof of the Pentagon; His source was Meyssan who didn’t cite any sources himself.

This high resolution aerial photo was taken December 28, 2000

http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/i...sa_pentagon.jpg

Higher (2.5 MB) copy of above photo http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/i...agon_before.jpg

This one was taken July 2001

http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/i...sa_pentagon.jpg

This was taken September 12, 2001

265 K version http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/i...n_after_800.jpg

1.5 MG version http://www.directionsmag.com/gisresponse/i...tagon_after.jpg

Ok it’s time to “Hunt the anti-aircraft batteries”

Edited November 7, 2007 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

Perhaps you should start posting properly formed sentences in English.

Then again, it must be tough to meet productivity quotas, Len.

A xxxxx's lot is not a happy one.

Gee maybe I should hire you as my proof reader, Sid! I'll go with substance over style any day, have anything of substance to add? I imagine not, because if you did you would have said it. You make all sorts of wild accusations but aren’t very good at backing them up, I normally document my claims, who’s the xxxxx? The sun’s out time for you to hide under your bridge again!

[Randy Downs]

Perhaps you should start posting properly formed sentences in English.

Then again, it must be tough to meet productivity quotas, Len.

A xxxxx's lot is not a happy one.

Gee maybe I should hire you as my proof reader, Sid! I'll go with substance over style any day, have anything of substance to add? I imagine not, because if you did you would have said it. You make all sorts of wild accusations but aren’t very good at backing them up, I normally document my claims, who’s the xxxxx? The sun’s out time for you to hide under your bridge again!

Hey Len, thank you for being a prime example of what i'm talking about. Since you weren't paying attention let me try this again: I'm not talking about 9-11, i'm talking about patterns of action that took place after each event

Quote:"Demonstration of ignorance #1, Let us simply say there were 12 men who hijacked seperate aircraft…

Uh, 19 men if YOU are that ignorant of the case 1) you have no right berating others for theirs 2) how valid is your opinion?"

I wasn't talking about "the case" Mr.-too-busy-calling-me-ignorant. I simply pulled a number out of the air to demonstrate the definition of the word: conspiracy. In order to conspire, you simply need more than one person, if you have 2 people then by definition you have a conspiracy.

I would say my opinions are quite valid, in that i've spent decades researching the machinations and atrocities of this government. And i'm always open to new input, which you clearly are not.

I find it quite telling that all your arguements focus soley on the towers; a good researcher examines all the evidence as a whole: Bush doing nothing, Bush not even looking surprised (much less angry) when someone came up to him and whispered what had happened, the quick destruction of evidence (the steel debris. Shades of JFK's limo); the relationship between the Bush family and the Saud family, the people running down the stairwells who heard a continual series of explosions on different floor levels, the goverment officials from the mayor of San Fransisco to various members of Congress and Senate who changed their air travel plans for Sept. 11 (not to mention the ones who were warned ahead of time not to fly on that day). I could go on (the stand down orders to our figher jets, and the F-16s that flew at half speed), but if you don't grasp my point by now, i'd simply be wasting my time.

Since you're a True Believer and you know so much; why are you here insulting people when you could do something productive like join the Army and ship out to Iraq? Do you know what depleted uranium is?

And Len, if you can't carry on a civil conversation don't bother to post, i don't come here to be insulted and i'll simply ignore you.

R.D.

[Len Colby]

Hey Len, thank you for being a prime example of what i'm talking about. Since you weren't paying attention let me try this again: I'm not talking about 9-11, i'm talking about patterns of action that took place after each event

By pattern of action do you mean cover up? In the case of the JFK assassination the evidence that one existed is very strong as it is with 9/11 but in the latter case the evidence points to a CYA type cover up rather LIHOP or MIHOP. The evidence for the latter (MIHOP) is especially lacking.

If on the other hand you mean that in both cases what happened has been disputed and is likely to be disputed for a long time the same could be said about just about every historic event, think of Pearl Harbor, Watergate, the Lincoln Assassination, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident etc etc.

"Quote:"Demonstration of ignorance #1, Let us simply say there were 12 men who hijacked seperate aircraft…

Uh, 19 men if YOU are that ignorant of the case 1) you have no right berating others for theirs 2) how valid is your opinion?" "

I wasn't talking about "the case" Mr.-too-busy-calling-me-ignorant. I simply pulled a number out of the air to demonstrate the definition of the word: conspiracy.

It certainly sounded like you were referring to 9/11 you could have made it clearer you were making a hypothetical example by talking about a different type of crime. And it was you who started a thread bemoaning the ignorance of those who hold contrary views.

Obviously most people who use the term conspiracy theory or conspiracy theorist are aware of the meaning of conspiracy. But the phase normally connotes a conspiracy involving powerful secret groups (or powerful known groups acting covertly) and an explanation that duffers from the commonly accepted one. I however normally avoid using the phase regarding 9/11 to avoid semantic arguments like this one.

"I would say my opinions are quite valid, in that i've spent decades researching the machinations and atrocities of this government."

I am well aware of the misdeeds of the US and other governments which is why I never deny Bush and Co. were capable (morally) of doing such a thing it's just that the evidence supporting such claims does not hold up to scrutiny. Based on your comments in this post you have NOT researched 9/11 that closely.

"And i'm always open to new input, which you clearly are not."

So you judge me based on minimal evidence and I'm close minded one? I have researched most of the claims about 9/11 and found them lacking. I look at LIHOP/MIHOP, debunking and neutral sites. My impression is that most "inside jobbers" look only or primarily at sites that reinforce their beliefs and do little very claims made there on.

"I find it quite telling that all your arguements focus soley on the towers; a good researcher examines all the evidence as a whole:"

That was only one paragraph of one thread; once again you reached a conclusion based on minimal and insufficient evidence. If you had even bothered to look around this section of the forum you'd have noticed I comment on various aspects of the case.

"Bush doing nothing, Bush not even looking surprised (much less angry) when someone came up to him and whispered what had happened,…"

He always struck me as a clueless idiot who didn't know what to do or say or how to act without Carl Rove or some other handler giving him a script. Don't you think if they knew what was going to happen they would have planed a photo op of him acting all presidential? He ended up getting mocked on SNL and in a Leslie Neilson movie (not sure of the title I only saw the trailer)

"the quick destruction of evidence (the steel debris. Shades of JFK's limo);"

That is largely a myth some of the steel is still in a hanger at JFK, much of it wasn't removed from GZ let alone the landfill for many months during which time people had access to it. Some forensic experts complained about this, others said it wasn't a problem

"the relationship between the Bush family and the Saud family,"

I assume you mean the bin-Ladens, they are a big family, I think Osama has something like 50 brothers. Both families were in the petroleum business. Show me a connection between Osama and Bush and you might be on to something. In any case most inside jobbers claim that bin-Laden didn't have anything to do with the attacks and that the tape in which he denied it is authentic but the ones in which he takes credit crude fakes.

"the people running down the stairwells who heard a continual series of explosions on different floor levels"

Fires tend to cause things to explode and explosion like noises are not always explosions. People reported explosions in the Windsor building too. There were explosions in the lobbies of both towers caused by jet fuel coming down shafts in the core. Elevators are believed to have dropped to the bottoms of their shafts. Many of the people have been selectively quoted. Tell me the names of people other than Rodriguez and his 3 coworkers who were in the towers who say they believe the towers were demoed. AFAIK there aren't any.

"the goverment officials from the mayor of San Fransisco to various members of Congress and Senate who changed their air travel plans for Sept. 11 (not to mention the ones who were warned ahead of time not to fly on that day)."

I'm not familiar with the supposed cases of the senators and members of the House, there is a tread here were I debunked the brouhaha over Willie Brown. The truth is that Brown a liberal Democrat was on his way to the airport that morning despite having gotten a vague warning not specifically for 9-11-01.

"I could go on (the stand down orders to our figher jets, and the F-16s that flew at half speed)"

There is a thread about that too.

"but if you don't grasp my point by now, i'd simply be wasting my time."

No I get you point, I've already heard just about all the arguments made by the "truth movement". Not only have I heard them, I've looked into them and found them wanting. "Truthers" often like to talk about the cumulative weight of the evidence but dozens of baseless claims still adds up to nothing, a million times zero is still zero.

"Since you're a True Believer and you know so much; why are you here insulting people when you could do something productive like join the Army and ship out to Iraq?"

One doesn't follow from the other, Chomsky, Edward Said and Ward Churchill among other well known leftists don't (didn't) believe 9/11 was an "inside job" either, even Carlos the Jackal said he believes OBL did it. Even Josiah "Tink" Thompson author of Six Seconds in Dallas who is still very much a conspiracist on the JFK case and no fan of Bush extensively researched the collapse of 7 WTC thinks that "inside job" theories are lunacy.

Edited September 27, 2006 by Len Colby