What do you guys think about 9/11

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Moved by popular demand.

Keep the name calling and crap to a minimum and it will stay open.

[D-Maxima]

Let just hope something like it never happens again. Ever.

[wynnEZ]

Looks like I missed out on the party.

[dusred]

The party is over and the civil discussion has begun.

First off, I'm neutral in the matter of 9/11. I'm not on anybody's side yet.

Lets take a few facts about what happened on 9/11.

First, the 2 most obvious:

-2 buildings were destroyed-Thousands of people were killed

Okay, next questions:

-How were these planes allowed to go of course un-noticed that long?

-The planes don't appear to be passenger planes; explain this.

- Why is everything blown to pieces? It seems like if buildings collapsed there would be some evidence left like desks, chairs, filing cabinets, etc.

Discuss?

I don't think anyone could tell for sure weather the plane was a passenger plane or otherwise.

It may be possible for everything to be blown to tiny pieces but it seems unlikely.

[barrigas14]

The party is over and the civil discussion has begun.

First off, I'm neutral in the matter of 9/11. I'm not on anybody's side yet.

Lets take a few facts about what happened on 9/11.

First, the 2 most obvious:

-2 buildings were destroyed-Thousands of people were killed

Okay, next questions:

-How were these planes allowed to go of course un-noticed that long?

-The planes don't appear to be passenger planes; explain this.

- Why is everything blown to pieces? It seems like if buildings collapsed there would be some evidence left like desks, chairs, filing cabinets, etc.

Discuss?

I don't think anyone could tell for sure weather the plane was a passenger plane or otherwise.

It may be possible for everything to be blown to tiny pieces but it seems unlikely.

Jesus Christ, are you kidding me?

-How were these planes allowed to go of course un-noticed that long?

The planes just didn't disappear, they lost contact with them. The controllers didn't know what was going on, and when they did it was too late. If the Airforce was scrambled every time a plane lost contact, we'd be up to our ears with problems.

-The planes don't appear to be passenger planes; explain this.

Please look up the pictures, please. They are commuter planes moving at 400+ mph. You try to find a high quality, digital still image of them. Try it. Also read some of the evidence out there that PROFESSIONAL image analyst state that those were commuter planes. Just try it for once.

- Why is everything blown to pieces? It seems like if buildings collapsed there would be some evidence left like desks, chairs, filing cabinets, etc.

Well, when millions of tons of concrete land on top of chairs, cabinets, computers etc, what do YOU think happens? Last I checked, my computer wouldn't survive a 5 foot fall. I doubt anyone at the time was looking for pieces of computer and chairs.

"I don't think anyone could tell for sure weather the plane was a passenger plane or otherwise."

Yes it can, and it has. YOU choose NOT to read the reports or the EVIDENCE and rather listen to wackos.

"It may be possible for everything to be blown to tiny pieces but it seems unlikely."

Btw, NOT everything was blown up, there are other things found around the sites, but to say that a computer would survive a fall from 500 feet is retarded.

Also if anyone says Thermite, there was no melted steel or anything else stupid, I will lay the hammer of evidence against you and make you out to be a huge, huge fool.

[1unar3clipse]

Also if anyone says Thermite, there was no melted steel or anything else stupid, I will lay the hammer of evidence against you and make you out to be a huge, huge fool.

Evidence? go on... looks like this thread could actually go into some debate seeing as the thermite excuse is the most commonly used by loose change and other 9/11 conspiracy vids.

ALSO if any military personal have thermite experience/weapon dismantling experience please chime in with your experiences on the current common military usage for thermite.

[AZhitman]

Do you guys have any idea what happens to thousands of pounds of jet fuel when it ignites in a small, confined space?

The heat in the vicinity of the impact (several floors up AND down) was intense enough to liquefy steel and iron girders, and glass. LIQUEFY.

Paper, desks, thin metal filing cabinets? Didn't stand a chance.

Even if it WAS something other than a plane (LOL), the lack of recognizeable debris doesn't cast any doubt on what happened... hell, we WATCHED IT happen.

[dusred]

Jesus Christ, are you kidding me?

Remember we are having an INTELLIGENT discussion here. I'm simply putting before you guys the questions being asked. Remember I'm neutral.

Quote »The planes just didn't disappear, they lost contact with them. The controllers didn't know what was going on, and when they did it was too late. If the Airforce was scrambled every time a plane lost contact, we'd be up to our ears with problems. [/quote]All planes have GPS and other very complicated tracking gear on them. They have backups, double backup, and triple backup on all communications with large aircraft. Explain REASONABLY how they can just lose contact and then we'll move on to the next question. I believe there could be a reasonable explaination but I'm not seeing it yet and your word isn't enough proof.

Quote »Please look up the pictures, please. They are commuter planes moving at 400+ mph. You try to find a high quality, digital still image of them. Try it. Also read some of the evidence out there that PROFESSIONAL image analyst state that those were commuter planes. Just try it for once.[/quote]Please, please post some links to said pictures. If a bullet can be still imaged going hundreds of MPH why couldn't a MASSIVELY large aircraft?

Also post some links to reports of said professionals so we can discuss them also. They very well could have been commuter planes or cargo planes which is one of the items in dispute.

Quote »Well, when millions of tons of concrete land on top of chairs, cabinets, computers etc, what do YOU think happens? Last I checked, my computer wouldn't survive a 5 foot fall. I doubt anyone at the time was looking for pieces of computer and chairs. [/quote]Well, I'm not sure what happens since I've never tried it, but to the common mind it seems like if a block of concrete was dropped on top of a metal filing cabinet it would be squished as flat as a pancake not demolished into tiny tiny pieces. The same for desks and chairs-all their pieces should be somewhat intact. Lets say you take a wood chair and drop a block of concrete on it (remember the floors pancaked down on each other) once you remove the block of concrete there should be pieces of a chair, and maybe I'm wrong but that's what it seems like.

Computers, phones, and other plastic cheap stuff could easily have been smashed and blown into nothing. You're right there.

At the time, of course nobody was looking for chair's etc. but looking at pictures afterword there does seem to be an absence of such things as it seems should be there. . . and maybe we're wrong, maybe they were all blown to bits that's what we're having this discussion to prove or disprove the 9/11 terrorlst attacks.

Quote »Yes it can, and it has. YOU choose NOT to read the reports or the EVIDENCE and rather listen to wackos. [/quote]Only information from "wackos" have been posted here so far. Post evidence from the other side and we'll discuss it as we are discussing this now.

Quote »Btw, NOT everything was blown up, there are other things found around the sites, but to say that a computer would survive a fall from 500 feet is retarded. [/quote]Who ever said a computer would survive a 500 foot fall? Of course it wouldn't, that is retarded. However, like I said before if a large concrete block was dropped on one the pieces would however remain under the block.

Quote »Also if anyone says Thermite, there was no melted steel or anything else stupid, I will lay the hammer of evidence against you and make you out to be a huge, huge fool.[/quote]I'm not familiar with "thermite" and would have to do some more research to get a full view on what it is and what causes it.

Remember folks, lets keep it civil and discuss facts like adults would.

[dusred]

Do you guys have any idea what happens to thousands of pounds of jet fuel when it ignites in a small, confined space?

The heat in the vicinity of the impact (several floors up AND down) was intense enough to liquefy steel and iron girders, and glass. LIQUEFY.

Paper, desks, thin metal filing cabinets? Didn't stand a chance.

Now folks, THAT makes sense .

However what about the few hundred floors below the impact? Could they have been affected? Maybe, or maybe not. Most likely not.

Quote »Even if it WAS something other than a plane (LOL), the lack of recognizeable debris doesn't cast any doubt on what happened... hell, we WATCHED IT happen.[/quote]I didn't hear anyone say it wasn't a plane. Did you? Maybe on the Pentagon attack but not the WTC. That's another discussion.

[Cold_Zero]

I find it ironic that people claim that the Bush Administration is utterly incompetent yet competent enough to pull off coordinated attacks on 9-11 and blame Muslim Extremists from Saudi Arabia.

[srellim234]

While I'm concerned about the current administration trampling all over our rights, falsifying and/or spinning the "evidence" it presents on other topics to Americans and the world, I have no doubt that 9/11 was real, conducted by foreign terrorists.

I also recognize that many people out there do believe that conspiracy theory, though, and ridiculing them doesn't help anything. Face it, in spite of the evidence, many Japanese still refuse to acknowledge the atrocities they commited during WWII.

KPFK radio here in SoCal was still railing daily last year about how the Jews were all warned not to go to work that day and 9/11 was a function of a giant U.S.-Isreali government plot. As much as that flies in the face of conventional wisdom and reason and evidence, these people hold their beliefs strongly enough to vote based on those beliefs. That's why it's so important that we all vote, coming to a majority concensus.

[dusred]

I find it ironic that people claim that the Bush Administration is utterly incompetent yet competent enough to pull off coordinated attacks on 9-11 and blame Muslim Extremists from Saudi Arabia.

You sir, have a point.

However there is no evidence that GWB is solely responsible for the WTC attacks. Until he is proven guilty I presume he is innocent as well as the terrorists who allegedly conducted the attacks.

[HashiriyaS14]

Do you guys have any idea what happens to thousands of pounds of jet fuel when it ignites in a small, confined space?

The heat in the vicinity of the impact (several floors up AND down) was intense enough to liquefy steel and iron girders, and glass. LIQUEFY.

Paper, desks, thin metal filing cabinets? Didn't stand a chance.

Even if it WAS something other than a plane (LOL), the lack of recognizeable debris doesn't cast any doubt on what happened... hell, we WATCHED IT happen.

Well (and I am NOT a 9/11 conspiracy theorist AT ALL), the "open-air" burn temp of jet fuel is only a touch over 500 degrees. That is most certainly not hot enough to liquefy steel. Of course, it might have burned a little hotter in an enclosed area, but not by much. Obviously, the impact of the aircraft into the building must've compromised some structural integrity, so the collapse isn't 100% attributable to the fire.

You can find holes in anything, but it seems like an awful stretch to believe that 9/11 was an "inside job". It would require tons of people involved to pull off, and I can't imagine anyone orchestrating something of that complexity without the credible fear that someone, someday, might betray the entire operation. I just don't buy it, not one bit. It was a terrorlst strike, pure and simple.

[barrigas14]

The Planes Also I am finding it hard to find where the "planes lost contact." Everything I have read is that they turned off the in cabin communications and transponders but the radar still had them tracked.

The widely accepted account that hijackers commandeered and crashed the four 9/11 planes is supported by reams of evidence, from cockpit recordings to forensics to the fact that crews and passengers never returned home. Nonetheless, conspiracy theorists seize on a handful of "facts" to argue a very different scenario: The jets that struck New York and Washington, D.C., weren't commercial planes, they say, but something else, perhaps refueling tankers or guided missiles. And the lack of military intervention? Theorists claim it proves the U.S. government instigated the assault or allowed it to occur in order to advance oil interests or a war agenda.

Where's The Pod?Claim: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."

FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images — the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."

No Stand-Down OrderClaim: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked — the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

Flight 175's WindowsClaim: On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw the plane "crash into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."

Coupled with photographs and videos of Flight 175 that lack the resolution to show windows, Birnbach's statement has fueled one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories — specifically, that the South Tower was struck by a military cargo plane or a fuel tanker.

FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.

While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied — including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine — as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.

Intercepts Not RoutineClaim: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.
Modified by barrigas14 at 11:20 PM 10/10/2008

[barrigas14]

Well (and I am NOT a 9/11 conspiracy theorist AT ALL), the "open-air" burn temp of jet fuel is only a touch over 500 degrees. That is most certainly not hot enough to liquefy steel. Of course, it might have burned a little hotter in an enclosed area, but not by much. Obviously, the impact of the aircraft into the building must've compromised some structural integrity, so the collapse isn't 100% attributable to the fire.

You can find holes in anything, but it seems like an awful stretch to believe that 9/11 was an "inside job". It would require tons of people involved to pull off, and I can't imagine anyone orchestrating something of that complexity without the credible fear that someone, someday, might betray the entire operation. I just don't buy it, not one bit. It was a terrorlst strike, pure and simple.

Steel was not Liquefied. You didn't need to liquefy steel to bring down the towers...

The molten metal that conspiracy theorists point to are a glowing flow coming from the south tower window and molten steel found under ground zero.

"Melted" SteelClaim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

[barrigas14]

The Plane into the Pentagon

At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.

Big Plane, Small HolesClaim: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile — part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide — not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

Intact WindowsClaim: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece — even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.

FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do — they're blast-resistant.

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."

Flight 77 DebrisClaim: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

[barrigas14]

http://images.google.com/imgre...a%3DN

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05...login

http://www.boston.com/bigpictu....html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wt...round

That last site, is one of those whacko sites, but they do have some good photos.

[dusred]

Okay, first off lets have some links to where you copy and pasted the walls of text so we can see if they are reputable sites. Then we'll talk about the content included (all of which is disputed).

[dusred]

That last site, is one of those whacko sites, but they do have some good photos.

We can do without the name calling since we are having a civil discussion .

[AZhitman]

Now folks, THAT makes sense .

However what about the few hundred floors below the impact? Could they have been affected? Maybe, or maybe not. Most likely not.

IN that instance, you have millions and millions of pounds of debris, falling at terminal velocity, which would likely vaporize anything that's not solid (i.e. has air space).... This includes... well... almost everything.

Keep in mind that not only was an entire building falling on everything, pancaking its way down, but the temperatures inside were, as we've seen, combustion-level (and burned for days afterwards).

[themadscientist]

I can't believe this is still a seriously pursued discussion. We need a good Elvis sighting the kooks are bored.

[dusred]

IN that instance, you have millions and millions of pounds of debris, falling at terminal velocity, which would likely vaporize anything that's not solid (i.e. has air space).... This includes... well... almost everything.

Keep in mind that not only was an entire building falling on everything, pancaking its way down, but the temperatures inside were, as we've seen, combustion-level (and burned for days afterwards).

A few hundred people made it out alive (one on a floor next to where the plane hit). If it was so dam hot in there how did they make it out alive? They would have been literally melted.

[themadscientist]

Go light your barbecue. Wait a minute then touch the rack, get burned or is it just warm? The building was burning for some time before it dropped, not instantaneous, plenty of time to GTFO for people wise enough to do so.

[dusred]

Sheesh TMS, Calm down.

There are others that enjoy looking at facts and making a decision about stuff.

If you weren't a mod I'd probably tell you to grow up or GTFO of our adult conversation here.

But SRSLY, can't we have a real discussion here?

[themadscientist]

If you knew me better you would know I don't mind that sentiment if it's warranted. In this case it isn't. The thing has been beat to death and it's tired now. There are guys still studying the Zabruder film looking for the shooter in the grassy knoll, don't be that guy.

[Jesda]

[dusred]

If you knew me better you would know I don't mind that sentiment if it's warranted. In this case it isn't. The thing has been beat to death and it's tired now. There are guys still studying the Zabruder film looking for the shooter in the grassy knoll, don't be that guy.

I'm not the "ZOMG CONSPIRACY!1!!" type of person; however, I like to prove conspiracy's wrong (as most of them are just that, conspiracy's).

In the case with the 9/11 attacks whenever it comes down to facts it seems like everyone automatically assumes you're a retard for even mentioning it (and I'm not saying that I'm not one ). So, if there is a conspiracy facts will prove it, and if there isn't facts will prove it. T

This is a political topic and aught to be discussed on a political forum.

So, can we look at some FACTS now?

[Urabus GodofTraction]

I like to prove conspiracy's wrong (as most of them are just that, conspiracy's).

Impossible. That's why they're conspiracies. They're not approached with logic, mainly they're approached with a very egocentric view that the theorist is somehow more knowledgeable than the "duped" public.

I fully believe that Ronald Reagan flew to Iran in an SR-71 immediately after he was elected to negotiate the release of the hostages.

I don't, but you can't prove me wrong.

[themadscientist]

I would never say you are a retard, you certainly are not. The subject is tired is all.

[dusred]

I would never say you are a retard, you certainly are not.

I'll take that as a compliment .

The 9/11 conspiracy can be proved right/wrong much easier then most because of the major publicity of it.

I'm tired now and I'm going to bed. I'll do some more searching tomorrow .