here's a new conspiracy: The wtc still stands! Using sophisticated cloaking, hologram, and teleportation technology the gov't was able to make everyone think the towers were attacked. All the people (and the buildings themselves) who were on the planes and in the buildings are safely living out their lives on an island along with elvis, JFK, Tupac, and Kurt cobain! Belive me, I sit on the internet searching for anything that goes against what the gov't (or common sense) says, and we all KNOW the internet DOES NOT LIE! Still don't believe me? Let me go find a pic real quick and show you a minute detail that doesn't prove a damn thing, brb.

I'm not sure why, but I hadn't expected such an asinine response. That sounded like a mix of science fitction, L. Ron Hubbard, and a dose of World Weekly News thrown in for good measure. As much as I love all arguments childish, that was pretty sad. "0h n0z! I d0n't b3liEve it s0 It mu$t b3 teh f@ls0rz!". Seriously...if you had an argument you would've presented it. Your "common sense" approach doesn't fly because it lacks sense and you obviously can't counter anything I've posted with anything truely concrete. Holy shit man...at least Wren tried.

sorry, it just amazes me that someone who can sound so smart can be swayed into believing anything as long as it shows the gov't is out to get us.

I've presented arguments but you pretty much just ignore them...tell me how explosives can survive being crashed into by a jumbo jet and sit in an inferno without going off? They had to have been on that floor, that pic/vid I posted shows the collapse beginning at that exact point. The pic also shows that the top part of the tower did lean as it fell, but not enough for you I guess. So not only did these explosives survive a plane crash and subsuquent fire, but they also were able to go off and bring the building down at exactly the same time, AND they went off starting at the impact point in order to make the top part of the tower lean as it fell.

And I guess 911 call centers have no idea what time they receive a call? The first time I heard it it was just audio, I had to do a search real quick and found it w/ that video, sorry if that somehow makes it hard for you to hear the building collapsing with out explosives going off first.

Your open mindedness seems to go out the windw when the issue of the gov't not being out to get you is at hand.

here are a couple of websites that you might enjoy, read up on "free falling buildings" and "pull" and whatever other conspiracy about 9/11.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
http://www.911myths.com/index.html

i liked that one with the math to back what the argument was, showing how the laws of physics can explane it, not what someone thinks they might know about how skyscrapers collapse with a jet full of fuel burning inside of it. i didnt read the second site cause im lazy and i dont believe there was a huge conspiracy against the american people from the gov't. that was a good point you made however about the plane not setting off explosives from the impact. yeah c4 is inert to fire, but there was alot of everything going on real fast in the building where a spark or shock could have easily done it in. and initial collapse being in the same area, like we should expect with a plane hitting it makes me not beleive conspiracy was to blame. it would be near impossible to pick the floor you want to hit with the plane, sine they came in very fast in a big jet

You know Rob...I really think you misunderstand where I'm coming from. It doesn't have anything to do with the government being "out to get us". That's ridiculous because without the people, what would they govern. I do, however, think that this administration wants a lot more power than it has and has gone to some amazing lengths to get it (see: PATRIOT Act). There's a big difference between not trusting the government and thinking they're out to get little 'ole me. It just so happens that, in this instance, that distrust doesn't make it hard for me to believe that they're capable of terrible things.

As for your explosives at crash sight theory, what doesn't make sense there? As Chris pointed out, certain explosives are inert in fire. And even if they weren't, if you went ahead and planned that far in advance, how hard would it be to put some insulation around the shit?

And I think you missed my point about that call. Without any hard data to back it up, it loses any context. I mean...if you listen to the audio only, it's much easier to draw your own conclusions. However, if you put the audio over a video and time it just right so that everything happens the way YOU think it should then it takes on a whole new meaning. I'm not saying that it didn't happen that way...I'm saying that without proper conext the audio is useless.

Oh...and I'm still waiting on an explanation for the prescence of thermate.

well thank goodness you don't think they're out to get you, just the thousands who died in the towers..

so not only do they resist fire they also resist the impact of a boeing jet?

presence of thermite or the by products of thermite? did you know all the ingredients for a thermite reaction were already in the wtc, like aluminum from the aircraft, rust, gypsum, and concrete? so yes there might've been thermite reactions.

so which is it? were explosives used to take down the building or were strategically placed packages of thermite used?

oh and it was a B25 that hit the empire state building (not a B52) which is around 1/10th the weight of a boeing 767, and with about a tenth the fuel as well and a speed of probably half that of the boeing jets. 1/10th the weight, 1/10 the fuel and half the speed probably means much less damage.

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? "Well...the ingredients were there, so that explains that". That's like saying "well...there's a huge mess is my kitchen, but I had baking soda and vinegar and they could react together so that must have been it". That's not even to mention that to create a proper reaction between the components of thermite or thermate all of the ingredients have to be extremely finely ground. Merely having chunks of the ingredients around won't work.

And does it really matter what kind of plane hit the Empire State building? Whether it was a B25 or a B52, you're talking about a large plane that crashed into a building built in the 1930s and not at all built to withstand such an impact. Both towers were over-engineered to withstand a hit from an extremely large commercial airliner. Not only is the Empire State building still standing, but you'd never know it was hit by anything, let alone a large military plane.

You know it just occured to me that I've gone through all of this and haven't even mentioned the Pentagon. Haha. I could do this forever.

no its like saying if I took a few ingredients in my kitchen and emptied them on the floor and 2 of them happened to be baking soda and vinegar would i get a reaction...probably. chunks? molten aluminum is a liquid, and thats enough. but keep your mind shut to this though, there are many more conspiracies for you to go fill it with.

lets see, YES it does matter, one is a small plane relative to the other and boeing commercial jets. Oh because you say it doesn't (with your EXTENSIVE knowledge on the subject) then you must be right.

Don't you have some conspiracy forums to go spend time on? Your lame, I'm right cause I say so, arguments are getting annoying.

EDIT: oh looky here : * Molten metal in contact with water/moisture or other metal oxides (e.g., rust). Moisture entrapped by molten metal can be explosive. Contact of molten aluminum with other metal oxides can initiate a thermite reaction.

from here(which has nothing to do with 9/11): http://www.alcoa.com/alcoahomes/obje...S/MSDS1028.pdf

hmm, rust...nope NONE of that in a building made of metal.

then last but not least. WHY go through all the trouble and the possible detection to bring the towers down? the 4 planes crashing, 2 into the wtc, 1 into the pentagon, and 1 in a field just isn't enough for the gov't, and isn't enough for americans to get royally pissed. nope making sure those 2 towers fell was key. so where was the plane that crashed in a field going? we should scour its propable targets for either explosives or thermite devices.

why stop with the buildings falling? why not add in some biological or nuclear mess to REALLY get the point across. hell then we could go to war with anyone we wanted. nah, lets keep it low key and get those mother f'ers in afghanistan.

Well you and I had better hope there wasn't a bunch of rust just sitting around in those buildings. I'm sure you know what happens when a load bearing structure starts to rust. Then again...that's why UL grade steel is resistant to such things.

As for the second post, I'll refer you back to your question about planting WMDs just to make things look better. Why did we make it worse? Did we need to? It was the only thing on TV for 3 solid days...literally. It galvanized people together into fighting a war that didn't need to be fought in a way the world had never seen before and will hopefully never see again. It had nothing to do with going into Afghanistan because, if you'll remember back to the start of all of this (which may take a few days and possibly require some napping), Afghanistan was just a precursor to Iraq. That's when we found "links" between Al Qaeda and Iraq that, for lack of a better term, didn't exist. To borrow a line from a movie, the buildings are symbols, as is the act of destroying them. You don't need to make it all fancy with the bells and whistles and whatnot. Plus, if you take into account the sheep factor that is so rampant in this country, it's a no brainer.

lol, did you see the wreckage of the wtc? you didn't see ANY rusted metal?

oh ok, thanks for that explanation, you said it, it must be right...

Thanks AZ for taking the time to argue this with him, I don't have the time or patience; its like trying to convince a colorblind toddler that the sky is blue. I quit trying long, long ago... but sometimes just can't keep my mouth shut when I hear some of the more absurd assumptions and "explainations". I love how he got beat on the technical issues so quickly switched topic back to motive... *sigh*


Yeah, it makes perfect sense that the government planted explosives into the buildings and the boeing jumbojets going 450+ mph hit the *exact floors on which the explosives were placed; different floors on each tower, mind you. In addition to that, it makes perfect sense that said explosives could remain in-tact and un-detonated after being hit by many tons of 450+ mph metal and tons of jet fuel... and it makes sense that the remote detonating devices could also remain in tact... I know how well wiring holds up to burning jet fuel. Oh, remote control you say? Yeah, that holds up in jet fuel too. Encased strong enough to withstand impact and the burning? Well, the encasing would simply be too good for the explosion to cause any damage, even IF it were able to be detonated post-impact, which it wouldn't be. And of course the Empire State Building incident is exactly like this one, because after all, everyone knows a B25 that this:



flying at 200mph and carrying maybe 300 gallons of fuel

equals



this, flying at 450-500mph loaded down with tons of jet fuel for a cross-country flight

Oh, but the picture of the 737 is smaller, so surely that means the gov't is up to something... :rolleyes:

737:
~145,000lbs, 530mph cruising speed
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737...f_600tech.html

B25:
33,510 lb, 230mph cruising speed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25

Now, if I remember correctly...

Momentum = mass * velocity

So for the b25, momentum = 7707300

For the 737, momentum = 76850000

Thats just about 10x the momentum of a b25, not to mention the larger size and larger load of jetfuel onboard. Your facts didn't add up yesterday, don't today, and won't tomorrow. Sorry, welcome to reality. Enjoy your stay.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I touched on the techincal issues. Even if I didn't touch on them to the extent that would've shut you up, quite a few posts back I linked to a paper written by a physics professor at BYU who is, I'm sorry to say, largely better equipped to draw a conclusion than any of you or myself for that matter.

I'm also pretty sure I never insisted that explosives were placed at the level of the impact. Actually, if you'd read more carefully, you'd notice that was the argument Rob was making. I'm pretty sure that's not what happened. I really need to find the first photos I saw of cutter charges...they were a lot better than what I found in a 5 minute google search since they're very clear and nowhere near the impact zone.

And again Wren...reading comprehension. The only reason I touched back on motive is because...you guessed it...it was a direct reply to what Rob posted. We can all talk motive, means, and opportunity until we're blue in the face. I can think of half a dozen viable motives off the topof my head, but that doesn't really matter.

What I find ridiculously amusing about all of this is that you're both so hell bent on proving me wrong (which you can't because these are just theories and no member of the public will ever really know one way or another) that you're scowering the internet for sites with points that counterpoint what I've posted. That in and of itself is sort of an anti-conspiracy conspiracy theory. Ironic, huh? "0h n0z! What we're posting is logical!!1! LOLZ!" Wrong...you're just as "crazy" as me. :nana: That, and the fact that you constantly (and mockingly) chanted "if it's on the internet it must be true". Yet all of the information posted is from INTERNET sites just as biased in opinion as anything I could pull up. That's some wicked circular logic right there. It must be bullshit...unless it supports your views, huh? Way to be a hypocrit. Oh...and please, don't ever reference Wikipedia. You know they fail people in college if they site Wikipedia as a source of information on a paper? If that doesn't tell you something about the reputation the site has in the academic community, I don't know what does.

actually that professor helped a project on cold fusion, his partners were labeled as frauds. whats the saying about the company you keep? never mind ALL the other scientists that worked on the invesitgation, nope this guy got some sample sent to him by john and jane doe who have no idea how to handle evidence. one sample was supposedly just pulled out of the dirt at the memorial but thats not really important i guess, he's a professor!

his own colleagues down the hall from him don't even agree with him:
"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." - A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering"

again you ignore the fact that a small thermite reaction could've taken place, I even show proof that molten aluminum could react with rust. nah there's absolutely no rust on the metal of the wtc in wreckage photos right?

so the building begins collapsing at the point of impact buy you don't think the explosives weren't on that level? and wow, you think they had it down so good that they knew what FLOORS they were gonna hit/cause damage to and knew not to put explosives there.

and then yet again, you ramble on and on about nothing that has to do with the facts...

wikipedia out, conspiracy websites a O.K! gotcha, i'll keep that in mind from now on.

you said the towers were designed to take the impact. Now i have to go check the vids but they did! how long did they stand afterward? an hour or so, maybe more for one of them.

sounds like they did take the impact, its the hit combined with the huge ass fireball thats a bitch though. can you show me the study of the effects of an inferno on the structure of a building that has been hit with a commercial jet? and then show me how engineers took those findings and applied extra safety measures to the wtc to handle that situation? I'd like to see it.

EDIT: where are the explosions!!!!!!!!!!???????? it obvious the building just collapses. watch closely now at the point it collapses, don't just play it and say "hey its pretty loud when the building is falling, it must be explosions"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=WTC&pl=true

I must admit I'm getting quite bored with the whole argument. but now its obvious what's far more likely based on the info presented. steve can't even stay with one conspiracy (thermite or explosives) let alone provide facts to back it up.

I agree with you. In fire fighting school, we learned about the construction of the buildings and what those airplanes did to the structural stability of them once they hit the buildings and what the air plain fuel does to metal.

Sweet jesus man...try and contain it all in one post. I can't reply to three posts in one (or rather I won't simply because you lack the skill to make a cohesive statement). No...I said they were built to withstand an airliner hit. Withstand meaning to SURVIVE a hit from an airliner...not just to hang around for a while and then collapse. But hey...if you don't wanna believe the guys who built the damn thing, that's your call. You can't seriously think that the fire had much of anything to do with it. Even if it had been some huge inferno fueled by tons of jet fuel (it wasn't...the vast majority of the fuel exploded on the outside), that steel is built to withstand 2,000 degree temps for 6 hours without softening with a melting point much higher than that. Jet fuel is essentially kerosene...it burns at 1,800 degrees. But the buildings came down in about an hour followed a few hours later by a building that had sustained little to no damage at all. Seems like simple math to me. I'm also not sure why the two ideas I've presented can't be synonymous. But no...it has to be either/or, can't be both.

And lemme tell you...that's one interesting video. Here's a few others.

Clearly, CNN is crazy, too (oh...and "coup de grace" means a blow of mercy...a killing stroke. There's your language/culture lesson for the day)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...rey.beatty.wmv

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_split.wmv

A split screen view. Notice the inset camera (a stationary one) get slightly jilted about 5 second before smoke appears at the BASE of the building (WTC 1) in the main shot

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM....explosion.wmv

This woman, an eyewitness survivor, is also clearly insane. Explosions in the lobby? The hell you say!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM..._firehouse.wmv

These firefighters (who happen to be eyewitnesses)...also clearly insane

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...arol.marin.wmv

This bitch is also obviously coo-coo bananas (listen to what she says about the "fireball" about 13 seconds in)

I think you get the idea.

this is an experiment not easly reconstructed in lab situations to test it. so its real hard to say that despite the fact there was the needed ingredients for thermite and in the random chaos from the crash that it couldnt happen. thermite isnt hard to make, any fool at home could do it, and the mixing of melted metal that melt at lower temps, int he range we're initially dealing with.... along with the needed ingredients its very possible. we have no idea what structure dmg the plane did. whos to say their rating was right? theres 5000 different possibilities of what happened maybe a beam was dented, had unnatural stress not in line with how its supposta take a load, then it snaped.. made a bang and fell. maybe probobly not but maybe. i'd believe that over thermite explosives in the building. and while we're on the subject, even if there is a huge thermite wtc conspiracy thermite dosnt explode, making that "earthquake" reading a variable you can spin to make it seem like an explosion, when in truth either way, the noise was probobly the sound of either beams snapping the first bit of building collapse or anything... i could thing of quite a few ways the building would send a sesmic wave moments before it started falling that dont involve a explosion. but then again, we're gonna think whatever we want for our own argument, right?

Well...it's true that different factors could've triggered whatever jiggled that camera, what would account for the smoke seen at the base of the building. I suppose it could've been falling debris, but I don't see anything falling at all...let alone anything big enough to cause that kind of smoke. Also, that camera appears to be some distance away from the tower. I doubt something as simple as falling debris (which was minimal at that point) would've been enougn to jar it around like that. Plus most of those eyewitness reports are talking about an explosion at street level or lower (i.e. a "fireball" going up rather than coming down).

So the conclusion I would draw from that is under the circumstances you have a building that would have survived a plane crash that is essentially brought down from the inside out. You take a building whose structure has been weakened by an impact, but is still intact, and destroy it's main support columns at a foundation level (and likely elsewhere along the way up) and it just can't hold itself up anymore.

steve, why do you keep showing the weakest evidence there could possibly be for an argument? really, you are trying so hard, but failing so bad.

steves new conspiracy: thermite devices AND explosives just for good measure (inaudible on camera yet eye witnesses explain loud shit crashing as explosions so there must be bombs!)


i'm so sorry, it just seems like I keep finding more and more shit to post proving you have no clue what you're talking about. I suppose I'll just edit the post to help you out from now on.

it did survive the hit.

what was the bridge (or bridges) designed to survive the wind, but swayed and fell anyway?? do you get it? you can design something to do what you think it will, and then in reality it doesn't quite go as planned.

cohesive statement? because I don't rattle on and on with bullshit not really pertaining to the facts I lack some kind of skill. stfu.

i thought these booms and shakings were documented on sesmographs, not what some camera pointing at the towers saw. the buildings are under hundreds of thousdays of pounds of force and when it initially gives way all that energy is released. you cant just have it destroyed, it has to be released as something. steve your in left feild now think about what your really arguing. not everything is behind the same smoke screen

that isn't steves new conspiracy theory that is a theory that has been circulating our country and probably every other country..there were a lot of factors that don't ake sense and don't add up. if you can ever find it watch a film called "loose change" it's a great watch and explains many key discreptencies dealing with 9/11.

and intersting factoid.
in the Bin laden confession tape look at the details
bin laden is seen writing a note using his right hand and is wearing a gold ring

Osama Bin Laden was left handed and in islamic law it is illegal for one to wear such jewelry. dont beleive me? go watch the bin laden confession tape..plus the Osama Bin Laden in that confession tape looks absolutly nothing like Bin Laden



ABCD - All osama Bin Laden
E -....not Osama Bin Laden..looks nothing like osama Bin laden

Notice the real Bin ladens face is long and has very prominent cheek bones...where are those features on the Confession Bin Laden?...not there..and not Bin laden...so if it wasn't Bin Laden...then who confessed?....could it be?!...GASP...someone paid off to do it?

you can only refuse to beleive so much, there is a point where you can become ignorant and naive

oh and the smoke... same idea as a car on dirt road. you have an object moving through the air and the current it creates spirals up the loose debree. well the WTCs had store basement parking garages from what i recall, thts 70 feet of BUILDING falling, broken concrete is very dusty when its being pulverized by millions of tons of force.

haha bringing up loose change. have you read this whole thread? I get the feeling the answer is no. you are exactly the type of person steve is talking about when he refers to sheep.

why even bother with planes if there were planted explosives? why not just blow the damn thing up and say it was another bombing like in, what was it, 92? Oh, I guess the gov't tried it then and it didn't work so they had to come up with a better idea so they could listen to your phone calls and enforce UN resolutions. that makes sense.

funny you say that, I just finished catching up.

so instead of insulting me, did you read the facts? yes i mean facts about the bin laden confession tapes because I saw them and common sense tells me it is a hoax.

beleive it or not I have much more important things on my mind (like preparing because my girlfriend is most probably pregnant with my child), so I beleive that me reading all of this has anything to do with my integrity.

this is where steve rambles on and on about how it HAD to be like this, more wasn't necessary and less wouldn't have been enough because he knows these things. supposedly all just so we could go into Iraq.

I suggest you worry about that, cause this argument is over. the evidence has been put out, now the 7 or so people who will view this thread can make an informed decision.

Why not do that? Do you really think we could've sold the public on the idea that a small group of terrorists would have the strategic and engineering knowledge to bring either building down? Hell...they're having a hard time selling this mess of bullshit they've come up with so far.

And actually, when I say sheep, I'm refering to you, Wren. People like you and Rob who just kind of went "well George Bush goes to muh church so I surely do believe him" and then claimed it's all common sense. You know...like there's anything common or any sense involved with bringing down 3 very large buildings.. You both claim that I'm close minded, but instead of taking anything I've said with even a grain of salt, you immediately had to search for something to counter the idea...something that fit into what you believe is reality. You keep saying my arguments are weak and whatnot, but anything you've posted is just as speculatory. If anyone had any real concrete facts, no one would have any grounds to argue any of this.

And you're right Rob...the evidence has been put out...on the towers. The pentagon is a whole other story.

Nice assumptions about mine and Rob's character, Steve. For the record, I haven't been to church in 5-6 years and don't really think Bush is doing that great of a job. 9/11 has nothing to do with whether or not you support Bush, it has to do with members of an organization that hate us and have repeatedly called for jihad against America and Americans hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings. I do look at every argument you present, and when it doesn't fit together with your other arguments, I find online *factual* websites and post *statistics* proving your discrepencies, no whatreallyhappened.com websites and obvious propoganda bullshit. I look at the *facts* of who hijacked the plane, what they did with it, the effectiveness of the plane as a weapon, and the result. I don't know how that could be any more concrete. From that I draw my conclusions.

Just out of curiosity, what would it take for you to believe that terrorists hijacked the plane and brought down the towers? Would you like non-stop video footage of the people shaking hands with bin Laden, coming into the US, going through flight-school, going through airport security, hijacking the plane and flying it into the buildings... then you'd need a camera on every weight-bearing beam in the WTC to ensure they crumpled under the hundreds of tons of weight after being weaked by a giant airplane crashing into them and the jet-fuel burn afterwards. Please answer this question with a real answer and not a "Bush is bad, bad man" answer.

Ask and ye shall receive. Let me start by saying that although Al Qaeda claims to want to declare a jihad on America, they simply don't have the means to pull off an effective attack. The media constantly reported that some dipshit wanna-be pilot crashed an airliner into the pentagon in manuevers that most top gun pilots couldn't pull off (500mph, just feet from the ground).

Actually, the websites you look at are just as suspect as anything I could provide. Face it...everyone has an agenda and they will bend facts to meet their agenda. Any site you could pull a "fact" off of (including government website) is nol ess "propoganda bullshit" thatn anything I could site. You know why facts don't matter here? Because there are no facts readily available to the public...it's ALL speculation. You can accuse me of not knowing the ins and outs of structural engineering (I'll readily admit I'm not a scholar in the subject), but you claim to know better than me. You don't. My guess is that you're a business major which would include nothing in the fields of structural engineering or architecture. No one in the public really knows what brought those buildings down. Not me, not you...no one. So my speculation as to why they came down is as much "common sense" as yours. The reason I asked that no one include Wikipedia is that any poor dumb son of a bitch can add an entry there. There's no filter on what goes up and what doesn't. Sure...if you submit bogus shit it will get deleted...eventually. Until then it's open for anyone to see. If you don't like whatreallyhappened.com (a site I have actually never really looked at aside from those videos), I can find a miriad of others.

What would it take for me to believe the government's account of 9/11? Nothing short of a miracle. Dimes to dollars even if they aren't lying about the official cause (which is virtually implausible), you just know they're lying about something. You know all of that bitching people did about the pantagon attacks? All the government would've had to do is release a few surveillance tapes. At the very least, 3 cameras should have caught the event, but all tapes were confiscated and we were given 5 (count 'em...5) frames of footage that are so distorted it could be anything. Shit...I could chuck a cardboard box at the pentagon and acheive the same results. Somebody somewhere is lying about something and the entire administration is sticking with the lie because if they don't then they all go down.

You don't have to listen to me...just look at some things collected by some people with a LOT more free time than I have:

http://www.rense.com/Datapages/ess911.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

Nope, I don't "just know they're lying about something." The sequence of events dating back to the creating of Israel makes perfect logical chronological sense... to me, at least. Another question to you: what war did we start in reaction to 9/11? If you say Afghanistan, I'm going to ask what we have to gain by being in Afghanistan. If you say Iraq, I'm going to point you to a UN resolution that could have been upheld using force regardless of the existance of 9/11. Oh, it was just used to get popular support for a war? Well, it was NEVER a popular war; even before entering Iraq the country was split on whether we should go or not. So, since we can't see eye to eye on the physical evidence, I guess the motive argument can now be addressed.

The only possible motive I can see is that it has led to an expansion of federal and executive powers, but that also is not popular and could've happened without 9/11 due to the SCOTUS being loaded with federalists. Here is where you say "No it couldn't have happened" like you know for sure... well, legally speaking, it still could have happened. If anything, there is going to be a huge backlash against federal power because of all of this... and you don't think that if this is a long-plotted conspiracy, that these conspiracy plotters would think long-term about the political and social consequences?

why can't the conspircy theorists agree on what their conspiracy is? if this was all put together by the gov't why did they crash the 4th plane in a field? just to make us scratch our heads?

why question what crashed into the pentagon? if the gov't had control of 3 planes why couldn't they have control of another to crash into the pentagon?

I like how steve likes to belittle those who are religous, yet his famous professor is a mormon who's greatest work is "Proof that Christ visited central america".

To your first question, I actually think of Afghanistan and Iraq as the same war. I look at one as build up to the other. I think we were promised both would be quick and clean..."shock and awe" and whatnot...and both turned out to be miserable. People have pretty much forgotten about Afghanistan these days, but a friend of mine stationed in Iraq said you couldn't pay him enough to transfer to Afghanistan. Yeah, we could have gone into either country without everything that happened...but who would our allies be? I don't even think England would've back us if all we had was a U.N. resolution. I also think both events just fueled the bias and, in many cases, hatred of islam as a whole in this country. I'm not one of those people who go against racial profiling...I mean in the hypothetical if 19 guys hijack planes and do nasty shit with them and they all happen to be arab, I think it's fair to lean on arabs a bit. But people have used islam to justify a lot of things and they've perverted the religion to suit they're needs. Sure, there are people who'll go crazy with religion, but that's true of just about any religion (and that goes double for this country).

As for motive, if it's not war then it's, as you pointed out, expantion of powers or the suspension of civilian rights. True, we could have done it without any fireworks, but it's amazing how compliable people become with a good dose of fear and an even bigger dose of ethnocentrism and nationalism. Suddenly people looked at the PATRIOT Act...arguably the most unpatriotic document ever written...and just accepted it. Hell...some people even supported it and still do, all in the name of the "greater good". Do you really think this would've flown without the fear of terrorism? You think Jonh Q. Dipshit would think it's ok to suspend habeus corpus and tap people's phones without court orders or the presentation of any evidence? I mean essentially it makes the constitution null and void. I honestly don't think any of that could've been accomplished without a severe catalyst.

And Rob...I'm not exactly sure what you have issue with. Are you asking me why different people have different ideas? That's really beyond me. I know you're not used to people having differing opinions, but it really does happen. And yes...I do enjoy belittling religion because it breeds this sort of sheep-like following where "if he said it, it must be true. Ok...well...I don't have any proof at all really, but HE said it".

I have issue with this supposed conspiracy that not even the conspiracy theorists themselves can agree on. How can you present an argument to what the gov't says happened if you don't even know what you are trying to say. We get that they(you) think the gov't had something to do with it, but if you're going to provide an alternative at least agree on what the hell that alternative is.

"if he said it, it must be true. Ok...well...I don't have any proof at all really, but HE said it"

LOL says the one who, with no proof of his own and very weak evidence provided by others, is arguing that the gov't killed thousands of its own people just to get a little more power and get a couple of allies to help us (as if we need it) attack Iraq.

way to dodge the questions, and make up replies to something that wasn't even asked.

I'm not getting into this argument but I just wanted to state that GT was almost completely correct saying that it'd be rare for a building as tall as that to come crashing down in a perfect line.

Yet, I'm not saying it is impossible. Almost everything is possible just give it time, but in a physics calculation that building might as well have been made of wood to not put up with that resistance (besides the fact that wood wouldn't hold shit, just something weaker than metal to say).

You also have to think about the strength of the plane's initial impact on the building. That first connection with a steel beam could make the entire building structurely unsound, depending on the level of engineering each floor was put into mind.

I'm not sure how the building was crafted so I leave no remark on it. Maybe those "terrorists" knew where it's weak points were (from some anonymous person(s)). Everything has it's possibilities until proven otherwise.

first off it didn't fall completely straight, the portion above the crash did tilt. so the crash obviously messed something up. secondly what do you expect, it to just lean over like the leaning tower of pisa and then fall? its not a jenga game, i'm sure it had an extremely strong base to prevent it from just tipping over.

you know what's funny? if the gov't would've said not only did terrorists crash into the towers with planes they also planted explosives and thermite devices, Steve would be arguing some other crack pot point of view, like the gov't used a ground shaking device to bring the buildings down. "you know how much explosives and thermite it'd take to take down a couple of buildings like that!?" he'd ask, and then explain how it'd be impossible to follow through with such a plan w/ out being found out. Its not the evidence to the contrary that made up his mind, its the fact that the gov't told him it happened a certain way so he just can't accept it.

Actually, what's really funny is that you've really begun talking way out of your ass in a (once again) complete lack of a cohesive thought process. If the government could take a serious and unbiased look at everything that happened, I'd shut my mouth. They had that dog and pony show that they called the 9/11 Commission, but there are no less than 115 pieces of evidence either omitted or ignored. Most of this evidence is well documented and not anywhere close to the conspiracy fringe (although some of it is admittedly suspect). Much like the joke that was the Warren Commission (you know people run out of ideas when they turn to magic), the government pretended to search for the truth but ended up feeding the public the most feeble explanation they could come up with. Every time I see a "commission" being formed, I just have this sneaking suspicion I'm about to be fed a load of bullshit. Now that I think about it, all the government would've had to do to shut people up is say "yeah, they put those explosives there before hand". Since they haven't and it would have significantly bolstered their case, I'm guessing they don't have any answer for it.

And to quickly touch on your reply to Gone, if the top of the tower (all floors above the effected area) toppled over sideways, where's the impetus for the rest of the building to fall straight down? I mean...the effected area should either pull the whole building over with it or it would relieve structural pressure on the lower floors leaving them intact. What you're talking about is a building essentially falling vertically in an almost upside down "L" shape. I'm no structural engineer, but I really don't see that happening.

As I said back on the first page of this thread, this is exactly why it's so hard to have any reasonable discussion on this topic or any subject like it. I could provide you with independently verified video of Bush with his finger on the button and you'd still call me a "crack pot" or whatever colorful yet useless euphamism about me being crazy simply because I question what I've been told. If you can live with what you've been told, plot holes and spelling errors included, that's cool. I can't. It doesn't make me or anyone else crazy. It makes me curious and inquisitive. And really, for every "weak" piece of evidence I've presented, you've come back with something equally as inconclusive...so why the hell am I still getting this "weak argument" bullshit? Face it...you can't prove your end of it any more than I can prove mine.

I don't stick my head into public issues since I hardly care, so I was not informed of how the buildling fell. I was just stating that from what was said in this thread. Don't mind me.

with that said I think this thread is pretty much done for. I'm sorry I brought it up in the first place...haha wait didn't this thread start with a focus on NorKor?....interesting..

but like steve said you people can't prove your side anymore than we can prove ours.

our pesky gov't is at it again!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060810/..._the_big_one_8

quick steve scour the internet and write a big huge post whining about how whatever we're being told is a lie!

This was clearly orchestrated by the government to remind the people why they should be afraid and why they should trade their liberty for security. Duh.

For reals! Didn't you see V for Vendetta?

Why the hell would I do that? That's a much more plausible course of events given the capabilities of a bunch of limey brits. Besides, since those flights would've blown up over the ocean going from the UK to the US, sounds like it was aimed more at UK citizens. Let that puppet Blair deal with it.

I just hope I don't get the rubber glove treatment before I board my plane this saturday...

"Sir, you do know this generic hair gel is against the rules and in bad taste right?"

"Sorry I forgot, what do you mean bad taste?"

"Spread 'em"

What if you're already wearing the hair gel? Theoretically you could just blow your head up mid flight, couldn't you? I'd like to know a little more about what these people were carrying exactly. All the news said was that it was in liquid form.

yeah really, haha they had nitroglycerin..thatd be insane O_O