911 Mysteries

[Blighty Skins]

The lobby wasn't blown out...I know that for a fact...unless I'm going completely mad and just imagines it. In the documentary I saw, they reach the lobby and it's perfectly intact...just a bit of debris (papers and general rubbish) here and there. They even set up the initial command post in there.

The lobby was intact. FACT

edit: Ok, if you mean the lobby being "blown out" by the windows having gone "outwards"...that was a combination of the numerous elevators falling and some of the force from the initial explosion having blown them out via the shafts. If you think something fragile like glass would survive that...:doh:

[Kilmer17]

Wait, are their actually people who believe this stuff?

I thought this was just a joke thread.

[Baculus]

Not really. When one crackpot theory gets obliterated, they just latch onto some other one all the more tightly, like Wile E. Coyote clinging desperately to the edge of a cliff while Road Runner plucks his fingers from the rock once by one.

Blighty Skins ran away with this thread several pages ago. It's all over. As is the conspiracy movement. Turns out, the absence of total information doesn't equal the existence of widespread conspiracy.

JFK, Moon landing, Jimmy Hoffa, 9/11, Roswell. Who knew? :doh:

No, there is not an absence of total information. It's just an absence of information if you don't read and observe the information: just because you do not see this information does not make it non-existent.

The so-called "conspiracy" movement isn't over: how can it be when conspiracies happen *every* day? After all, isn't the U.S. making the claim that Iran is conspiring to build a nuclear weapon, or has hostile intentions? Isn't the official story of 9-11 based upon a conspiracy by Bin Laden and Al-Qaida?

You just appear to be oblivious that people are conspiring all the time.

And are you saying that JFK and Rosewell are all wrapped up? A single shooter and weather balloon? Just because something is considered a "conspiracy theory" doesn't mean that it is baseless or it has been "solved."

Some folks know my opinion on this matter. Even if you remove some of the points of contention surrounding 9-11, e.g. the collapse of the WTC, then you still have unanswered questions. And questions that are not as neatly answered as suggested by some folks on this thread. For example, even the 9-11 commission, which the Bush administration had attempt to prevent its creation, stated that the White House had actually distorted information that was presented to the commission. Why would the White House do this? Why would the White House stonewall and attempt to block the creation of the commission?

The problem is that any debate of 9-11 tends to concentrate on a few key events, while questions pertaining to other details of the attack are ignored. One could concentrate just on the reaction of the FAA and the military and produce a number of questions, which are still unanswered to this day. After all, some of these questions are related to the security of this nation, and iof we cannot answer these questions, then it brings into question the capabilities of the current administration to defend this nation.

[Kilmer17]

"One could concentrate just on the reaction of the FAA and the military and produce a number of questions, which are still unanswered to this day."

Which is exactly the problem with Conspiracy Theories. You can always come up with more crazy questions every time one of the others is obliterated with facts.

Show me hard proof and evidence that something OTHER than the official explanation occurred, and then and only then, will this crazy ***** have any credibility.

[TradeTheBeal!]

No, there is not an absence of total information. It's just an absence of information if you don't read and observe the information: just because you do not see this information does not make it non-existent.

The so-called "conspiracy" movement isn't over: how can it be when conspiracies happen *every* day? After all, isn't the U.S. making the claim that Iran is conspiring to build a nuclear weapon, or has hostile intentions? Isn't the official story of 9-11 based upon a conspiracy by Bin Laden and Al-Qaida?

You just appear to be oblivious that people are conspiring all the time.

And are you saying that JFK and Rosewell are all wrapped up? A single shooter and weather balloon? Just because something is considered a "conspiracy theory" doesn't mean that it is baseless or it has been "solved."

Some folks know my opinion on this matter. Even if you remove some of the points of contention surrounding 9-11, e.g. the collapse of the WTC, then you still have unanswered questions. And questions that are not as neatly answered as suggested by some folks on this thread. For example, even the 9-11 commission, which the Bush administration had attempt to prevent its creation, stated that the White House had actually distorted information that was presented to the commission. Why would the White House do this? Why would the White House stonewall and attempt to block the creation of the commission?

The problem is that any debate of 9-11 tends to concentrate on a few key events, while questions pertaining to other details of the attack are ignored. One could concentrate just on the reaction of the FAA and the military and produce a number of questions, which are still unanswered to this day. After all, some of these questions are related to the security of this nation, and iof we cannot answer these questions, then it brings into question the capabilities of the current administration to defend this nation.

Superb Post.

[Mad Mike]

The lobby wasn't blown out...I know that for a fact...unless I'm going completely mad and just imagines it. In the documentary I saw, they reach the lobby and it's perfectly intact...just a bit of debris (papers and general rubbish) here and there. They even set up the initial command post in there.

The lobby was intact. FACT

edit: Ok, if you mean the lobby being "blown out" by the windows having gone "outwards"...that was a combination of the numerous elevators falling and some of the force from the initial explosion having blown them out via the shafts. If you think something fragile like glass would survive that...:doh:

I have further info on this since my cousin worked in the second tower that was hit. In fac his office was near the floors that were hit. After the first tower was hit he gathered his people and headed for the stairs. They were about 20 stories up when the plane hit their building and he said he fould feel it hit. By the time they got to the lobby he said the floor was buckled in places and there was debris everywhere. The worst part was the blood covering the ground outside. By the time he got out many in the floors above him had jumped to their death.

This whole conspiricy thing angers me because it takes away from the war against the fundimentalists and their ideas that attacked us. And it's not just al Qaida. Many of those people were not long term members. They were recruited to attack us. We need to teach a lesson that will reverberate throughout the middle east... that if you attack us, you will pay with twice the damage that you inflict. THAT is how you prevent it from happening again.

[Baculus]

About the lobby being blown out...false. I saw a documentary of the WTC made by a reporter who was filming the firefighters and they go into the lobby and it's perfectly intact. The only time it's "blown out" is when the building collpases. Some survive because part of a stair well holds up. If you've seen the video you'll know about it because it's the one where the firfighter priest dies...

There was an explosion in both the lobby and the basement portion of the WTC. Even firefighters have talked about this event: I don't think by "blown" out" it should mean that the entire lobby was destroyed.

Everything you say I am 100 per cent sure I can find a reasonable explanation for...even the Gulliani one. But you knwo what? I'm not bothered...

No, everthing does not have a 100% explanation. That is the whole point.

...why don't you answer me one thing...why would someone (i.e. the government) make up 9/11 considering Americans are famous for their conspiracies (JFK anyone?)

Do you seriously believe that is some sort of deterrent? "Well, our fellow Americans are famous for their conspiracies, so we better not committ this action!" This never stops anyone from planning any sort of conspiracy.

Nobody in their right mind would risk it...especially bringing down a building with planes.

Ummm...are you missing the official story that Al-Qaida risked it? Obviously SOMEBODY risked it, didn't they?

It's absurd. And why did Bin Laden admit he did it.

Are you talking about the obviously fake Bin Laden video in which the fake Bin Laden talked about 9-11? That is what's absurd. Sure, Bin Laden indeed may be involved with 9-11, but do not base it upon that falsified video.

BTW, for being a engineer, Bin Laden really did not know that much about the WTC. In this video, he talked about the "iron" supports of the WTC: Steel, not iron, was used in these structures.

Here is a comparision of the real Bin Laden with the "fake" Bin Laden:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

It is odd.

And why is it alright for people like you to except that the 1993 bombing of the WTC was the work of terrorists but not 9/11? And why bother with planes? Wouldn't it have been easier to just blow the towers up and say it was a truck bomb considering people like you say explosives were used in the first place?

Many of the invovled folks in both 1993 and 9-11 had some U.S. government connections in one way or another. Of course, in the world of espionage, one's hands sometimes become dirty when you involve yourself with seedy characters....

Here is the thing: The "truck" bomb explanation has been used before in Oklahoma city. Here is the detail that many folks do not know: bombs were found INSIDE the federal building that was bombed in OK. There is footage of reporters stating that bombs were found and they were being removed by police crews. Behind him there are police clearing the area because of the explosives that were indeed located. What's weird is that this information, and the footage, has been surpressed, and the official story become the truck bomb theory.

Why bother with planes? Well, there are different reasons, I suppose. But a few months before 9-11, there was a TV show pilot for the Lone Gunmen, in which a radical group of government insiders were going to remotely control an aircraft to crash into the WTC. This show aired a few months before the event at the WTC.

Pretty weird stuff.

[Baculus]

"One could concentrate just on the reaction of the FAA and the military and produce a number of questions, which are still unanswered to this day."

Which is exactly the problem with Conspiracy Theories. You can always come up with more crazy questions every time one of the others is obliterated with facts.

Show me hard proof and evidence that something OTHER than the official explanation occurred, and then and only then, will this crazy ***** have any credibility.

Crazy questions? What crazy questions? We aren't asking about giant purple butterflies shooting fireballs out of their arse and onto New York City. That would be crazy.

Personally, I find it crazy that 19 dudes with box cutters would have been able to carry out this plan. To me, THAT is crazy. To me, what's crazy is that cave lurker Bin Laden was reportedly about to plan and carry out this attack. That is crazy.

I don't know about you...

How is it crazy when questions are being asked about the lack of FAA procedure and the lack of military air response? Oh yeah - crazy questions!

The problem is that if you are shown any information or "proof" which deviates from the official story, then you just dismiss it as being crazy. So really, what's the point?

[Kilmer17]

Crazy questions? What crazy questions? We aren't asking about giant purple butterflies shooting fireballs out of their arse and onto New York City. That would be crazy.

Personally, I find it crazy that 19 dudes with box cutters would have been able to carry out this plan. To me, THAT is crazy. To me, what's crazy is that cave lurker Bin Laden was reportedly about to plan and carry out this attack. That is crazy.

I don't know about you...

How is it crazy when questions are being asked about the lack of FAA procedure and the lack of military air response? Oh yeah - crazy questions!

The problem is that if you are shown any information or "proof" which deviates from the official story, then you just dismiss it as being crazy. So really, what's the point?

This is a perfect example of the looneyness.

Bin Laden went to the caves AFTER 9/11. But nutcases twist the facts JUUUUUSSTTTT enough to try and throw doubt into the mix.

Show me ONE piece of evidence that actually PROVES something other than the official explanation actually happened.

Not a question. But an actual fact.

Show me a bomb. Dont show me a picture of nothing and ask me to explane why there isnt evidence of something OTHER than a bomb.

[Baculus]

This is a perfect example of the looneyness.

Bin Laden went to the caves AFTER 9/11. But nutcases twist the facts JUUUUUSSTTTT enough to try and throw doubt into the mix.

Looneyness? Umm, references to caves and Bin Laden are pretty common. Oh yeah, this SURE IS A SIGN OF MY LOONEYNESS since I referenced to Bin Laden being in a cave.

Maybe I should have referred to Bin Laden being in a tea house. Or Bin Laden in a tent. Or in the middle of an outhouse. Maybe THAT would have been better, amirite?

But I like how, in the whole display of my looneyness by the Bin Laden-cave comment, you missed and ignored the entire point of my statement.

Show me ONE piece of evidence that actually PROVES something other than the official explanation actually happened.

Not a question. But an actual fact.

Show me a bomb. Dont show me a picture of nothing and ask me to explane why there isnt evidence of something OTHER than a bomb.

Well, it depends upon what evidence you want to see. Physical evidence? I mean, that is probably what you are expecting. That's hard when the twisted remains of the WTC were even hauled away before this physical evidence could be tested. But here is a video of Prof. Steven Jones talking about WTC steel and clues pointing to use of thermite:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904

But this is just a video, and we are still left with the question of evidence. And, as the debate is currently framed, it is entirely on the 9-11 questionners to produce evidence, while the 9-11 official is accepted, WITHOUT question or any evidence to support some of the claims that have been made to what happened on 9-11.

I can point to pages that have strong information to perhaps what happened. We can examine the collapse of WTC 7 and see that it is a controlled demolition. Some may take that as evidence, some may not.

But let me ask you this: have you seen all of the evidence, other then computer created demonstrations, of exactly what happened on 9-11?

The lack of concrete information in the first place helped to produce these questions!

And asking me to show you a bomb is absurd - as if my inability to show you a "bomb" is counter-point to the questions I have framed in this thread.

[Mad Mike]

Are you talking about the obviously fake Bin Laden video in which the fake Bin Laden talked about 9-11? That is what's absurd. Sure, Bin Laden indeed may be involved with 9-11, but do not base it upon that falsified video.

Prove it is fake or drop this insane argument. And yes you do have to prove it not rovide your opinions why you THINK it was a fake if you expect others to back up their arguments with proof as well.

It reall makes me sick when people will go to any length and believe any insane theory other than the obvious truth. I mean really, there are MILLIONS of REAL engineers in america who beleive the the WTC came down because of the planes, but a couple of hobiests make a video and nutjobs everywhere call it proof. Get a freakin life.

[JMS]

So you have an explanation but NIST doesn't?

I'm listening...

NIST? Natioal Instistitue of Standards and Technology?

You think it backs up your argument because the folks to design the nuclear clocks for the navy don't have an opinion about 911?

Geeeeeeez...... I bet the FairFax county police are out of the picture too. What does that prove?

[JMS]

Hey, ever wonder why the BBC and CNN both prematurely said that WTC 7 fell before they fell?

I mean the BBC reporter was reporting it with the building burning in the background.

JUST FYI, NIST has not been able to explain how the building fell. Don't portray that this is a simple thing.

I was watching CNN live when the first building went. I was watching with the second building went. I don't recall them reporting either event as fact before it happenned. I do remember some confusion when the second plane crashed into the second tower. They weren't sure if a second plane crashed of if it was a tape of the first plane. The reporter had to correct himself on air, suggesting the second plane was a tape of the first.

Nist is more involved in accurate time pieces and how to accurately measure a quart than they are in structural failures in buildings.

[Baculus]

This whole conspiricy thing angers me because it takes away from the war against the fundimentalists and their ideas that attacked us. And it's not just al Qaida. Many of those people were not long term members. They were recruited to attack us. We need to teach a lesson that will reverberate throughout the middle east... that if you attack us, you will pay with twice the damage that you inflict. THAT is how you prevent it from happening again.

Don't get angry at the conspiracy thing - folks who are asking questions about 9-11 weren't at the helm of the Presidency of United States when this happened. You have more reason to be angry at this nation's security apparatus that did nothing to prevent 9-11 then folks who question about 9-11 inconsistencies and unaswered questions.

I am angry that 9-11 happened in the first place. You should be angry at your government doing nothing to prevent this event, then afterward, NOBODY WAS EVEN FIRED. No heads rolled, no blame was laid, nothing. That was that. THAT makes ME angry.

Your anger is in the wrong place.

[JMS]

Just a comment on experts vs experts, because nobody can deny the fact that both sides have undisputable 'experts'- BOTH SIDES.

Although, I found it interesting a guy, Mr. Ryan from UL, gets fired for challenging the NIST report. I would like to see the vested interests of each sides 'experts'. I'm afraid I wouldn't like what I find.

Very many questions have unacceptable answers in the official story.

The video has experts in it. But not experts who agree with them. They show an MIT professor who tells them how the buildings went down. kenetic energy of the plane pluse the heat of the fire. Then they try to disprove him with unsubstanciated "color of the flame" and "what the color of the smoke means" type stuff.

I don't think the other side has any experts. Please post the credentials of ten creditable experts suggesting the buildings were blown up. They are probable outnumbered 100 to one against the. If they exist.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Don't get angry at the conspiracy thing - folks who are asking questions about 9-11 weren't at the helm of the Presidency of United States when this happened. You have more reason to be angry at this nation's security apparatus that did nothing to prevent 9-11 then folks who question about 9-11 inconsistencies and unaswered questions.

I am angry that 9-11 happened in the first place. You should be angry at your government doing nothing to prevent this event, then afterward, NOBODY WAS EVEN FIRED. No heads rolled, no blame was laid, nothing. That was that. THAT makes ME angry.

Your anger is in the wrong place.

Another superb post.

[Blighty Skins]

Sorry, I've changed my mind. People who believe in the 9/11 conspiracies are a mixture of complete loons and people who have other agendas and generally hate goverment (i.e. anarchists).

You lot harp on about "open minds" yet come up with the most insane arguments and dismiss anything rational which goes against your theories. :laugh: Completely mental, if you ask me.

So did the real Bin Laden or the fake one blow up the embassies in Africa just before the WTC attacks? Same with the USS Cole...was it the fake or real Bin Laden?

If it wasn't so absurd, I'd be laughing.

[Blighty Skins]

Don't get angry at the conspiracy thing - folks who are asking questions about 9-11 weren't at the helm of the Presidency of United States when this happened. You have more reason to be angry at this nation's security apparatus that did nothing to prevent 9-11 then folks who question about 9-11 inconsistencies and unaswered questions.

I am angry that 9-11 happened in the first place. You should be angry at your government doing nothing to prevent this event, then afterward, NOBODY WAS EVEN FIRED. No heads rolled, no blame was laid, nothing. That was that. THAT makes ME angry.

Your anger is in the wrong place.

Were the London bombings prevented? Were the Madrid bombings? All this after 9/11 I may add. You're being unrealistic and absurd. Not everything is preventable. Was Pearl Harbor? It's hard to predict the future and unless you'd like to live under a Stalinist regime, attacks such as these which set a precedence are unavoidable...liberty has it's price.

Be realistic, mate.

[Baculus]

Prove it is fake or drop this insane argument. And yes you do have to prove it not rovide your opinions why you THINK it was a fake if you expect others to back up their arguments with proof as well.

Did you even look at that video tape? Are you telling me that the man in this video is really Bin Laden? Look!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

Anyone with a critical eye can see that, in a side by side comparision, that the man in this video is not Bin Laden. They don't even have the same facial features.

How come Bin Laden "experts" have stated that this is NOT Bin Laden.

Prove to me that it IS Bin Laden? Can you do that?

The thing is, I don't even know what it means if this isn't Bin Laden. Maybe it means he is dead...I dunno. Maybe he was sick. It could mean many things - do you realize that?

It reall makes me sick when people will go to any length and believe any insane theory other than the obvious truth. I mean really, there are MILLIONS of REAL engineers in america who beleive the the WTC came down because of the planes, but a couple of hobiests make a video and nutjobs everywhere call it proof. Get a freakin life.

To be honest, I am not sure if there are millions of engineers in this nation. And I am not sure if everyone has taken a look at the collapse of the WTC.

And that is besides the point: As I mentioned earlier, there are questions above and beyond the collapse of the WTC that are yet unaswered. I could completely remove some of the debates which frame 9-11 questions, namely the WTC collapse and the Pentagon attack, and still have a bunch of questions.

HOW are these theories insane? Answer me that. Don't say that it is because our government would never do this: Our govermnent has been seen, in Operation Northwoods, to propose attacking American citizens with fake terrorist cells. And not only that, but we don't even know if the government would have been involved to a degree - I have stated before that folk's hatred of Bush gets in the way of this argument, since 9-11, if it invovled elements other then the 9-11 hijackers, doesn't have to involve Bush himself, or members of his administration. The Lone Gunmen episode involved a group of "super patriots" who were attacking the WTC with a remote controlled airliner.

Why IS IT insane for some of these ideas to be produced?

And sorry, but there are professional engineers that have disagreed with the official explanation of 9-11 - Steven E. Jones is one such noted professer. Now, unto itself, as I mentioned, to me, this isn't necessarily proof, and that is why I have explored different areas of 9-11.

Sorry, but most of us DO have lives, thank you. :-)

You do realize that much of the 9-11 "conspiracy" theorizing wouldn't have happened if the U.S. government had been more forthcoming, and if the White House hadn't attempted to block the investigation of 9-11.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Sorry, I've changed my mind. People who believe in the 9/11 conspiracies are a mixture of complete loons and people who have other agendas and generally hate goverment (i.e. anarchists).

The conclusions of the "9/11 comission" are as far-fetched as anything I've heard. "Pancaking"? Nope, not buying it...the science doesn't work.

So did the real Bin Laden or the fake one blow up the embassies in Africa just before the WTC attacks? Same with the USS Cole...was it the fake or real Bin Laden?

If it wasn't so absurd, I'd be laughing.

Embassy attacks in Africa and the Cole bombing have no real relevance to this discussion, anymore than the Kennedy assasinations or the US Maine.

Is it "absurd" to feel that some gov't officials may be covering up info related to 9/11 for their own benefit? I don't see how.

[Mad Mike]

Don't get angry at the conspiracy thing - folks who are asking questions about 9-11 weren't at the helm of the Presidency of United States when this happened. You have more reason to be angry at this nation's security apparatus that did nothing to prevent 9-11 then folks who question about 9-11 inconsistencies and unaswered questions.

I am angry that 9-11 happened in the first place. You should be angry at your government doing nothing to prevent this event, then afterward, NOBODY WAS EVEN FIRED. No heads rolled, no blame was laid, nothing. That was that. THAT makes ME angry.

Your anger is in the wrong place.

Really? then lets start with Clinton who watched the threat grow for 8 years rather than Bush who had just 6 months to form a counter terror policy before 9/11. Unless you think bush came in and the CIA went from briliant to stupid in 6 months, how are you going to simply blame him? I mean if you want to blame Bush for not stopping 9/11, Clinton must be a REAL moron for not stopping the 8 attacks before then. That isn't to say Bush is without fault. But he is only one of many and Clinton, IMO get's the biggest share of the blame for not killing bin Ladden the moment he declared war on the US in 1996 . And yes I'm still pissed at the Republicans and their "wag the dog" posturing when they should have been pusshing for more effort to kill bin Laden.

But you know what? I'm REALLY pissed at the american people for not being more aware of the threat and demanding that ALL of our leaders do more. Don't tell me there was no way for the american people to know because I DID. Bin Laden was on my radar for years before 9/11 simply because I paid attention. The american people unfortunately are by and large, too self absorbed to notice world events untill they come here and bite.

[Baculus]

Sorry, I've changed my mind. People who believe in the 9/11 conspiracies are a mixture of complete loons and people who have other agendas and generally hate goverment (i.e. anarchists).

Uh...Ok. You sure answered some of the questions that surround 9-11 by smply dismissing them as "loons"! That's a good way to answer, eh?

You lot harp on about "open minds" yet come up with the most insane arguments and dismiss anything rational which goes against your theories. :laugh: Completely mental, if you ask me.

What insane arguments? Once again, does the idea of 19 guys with box cutters causing 9-11 seem sane?

Again, what are insane ideas?

So did the real Bin Laden or the fake one blow up the embassies in Africa just before the WTC attacks? Same with the USS Cole...was it the fake or real Bin Laden?

If it wasn't so absurd, I'd be laughing.

Well, a "fake" Bin Laden doesn't mean those attacks didn't happen. And that is the point that appears to go entirely over your head. A video of a "fake" Bin Laden doesn't disprove his existence: It just shows that something is fishy with that video. *I* don't know what a fake video if Bin Laden means: I can just demonstrate that the man in this video does not appear to be who he is - from that point you can draw your own conclusions. Indeed, the official story of 9-11 could 100% true, and this video would STILL be fishy.

But apparently, since it is INSANE to propose that, in no way shape or form, a video with a fake Bin Laden is IMPOSSIBLE, that you won't even consider that theory. So, in short, it is useless do discuss this subject with you since you won't even consider any arugments other what you accept since any deviations are insane.

So this entire point is useless as adding to the debate. But at least I got some typing practice on my new keyboard.

[PleaseBlitz]

Were the London bombings prevented? Were the Madrid bombings? All this after 9/11 I may add. You're being unrealistic and absurd. Not everything is preventable. Was Pearl Harbor? It's hard to predict the future and unless you'd like to live under a Stalinist regime, attacks such as these which set a precedence are unavoidable...liberty has it's price.

Be realistic, mate.

Yep, everyone was taken completely by surprise by this. The element of surprise is a rather large advantage. Its easy to judge what happened on 9/11 by todays standards, which needless to say are much more conscious of this kind of thing. On 9/10/2001, no one ever thought something like that could happen, and didnt prepare for it.

But judging Baculus by his sig, lets all lay the blame at the feet of the current administration for not being prepared for an unthinkable event instead of at the feet of the men that actually perpetrated the act.

[Mad Mike]

Did you even look at that video tape? Are you telling me that the man in this video is really Bin Laden? Look!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

Anyone with a critical eye can see that, in a side by side comparision, that the man in this video is not Bin Laden. They don't even have the same facial features.

How come Bin Laden "experts" have stated that this is NOT Bin Laden.

Prove to me that it IS Bin Laden? Can you do that?

The thing is, I don't even know what it means if this isn't Bin Laden. Maybe it means he is dead...I dunno. Maybe he was sick. It could mean many things - do you realize that?

To be honest, I am not sure if there are millions of engineers in this nation. And I am not sure if everyone has taken a look at the collapse of the WTC.

And that is besides the point: As I mentioned earlier, there are questions above and beyond the collapse of the WTC that are yet unaswered. I could completely remove some of the debates which frame 9-11 questions, namely the WTC collapse and the Pentagon attack, and still have a bunch of questions.

HOW are these theories insane? Answer me that. Don't say that it is because our government would never do this: Our govermnent has been seen, in Operation Northwoods, to propose attacking American citizens with fake terrorist cells. And not only that, but we don't even know if the government would have been involved to a degree - I have stated before that folk's hatred of Bush gets in the way of this argument, since 9-11, if it invovled elements other then the 9-11 hijackers, doesn't have to involve Bush himself, or members of his administration. The Lone Gunmen episode involved a group of "super patriots" who were attacking the WTC with a remote controlled airliner.

Why IS IT insane for some of these ideas to be produced?

And sorry, but there are professional engineers that have disagreed with the official explanation of 9-11 - Steven E. Jones is one such noted professer. Now, unto itself, as I mentioned, to me, this isn't necessarily proof, and that is why I have explored different areas of 9-11.

Sorry, but most of us DO have lives, thank you. :-)

You do realize that much of the 9-11 "conspiracy" theorizing wouldn't have happened if the U.S. government had been more forthcoming, and if the White House hadn't attempted to block the investigation of 9-11.

Oh you really got me there... Pull out a loon website to back up your insane theorys and I'm supposed to believe? My god, you have gone over the deep end.

[Dan T.]

It is pitiful and sad that these grand conspiracy theories continue to take hold in the minds of some people.