911 Mysteries

[Baculus]

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 never said Clinton was blameless. But he was NOT President when this happened. In your entire rant, you do everything possible to avoid any responsibility for Bush and his administration to accept any blame for what happened.

To me, that is insane.

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.

I am not a Clinton neophyte; I despise him a great deal. But HE ISN'T PRESIDENT. And he didn't ORDER the FBI to QUIT investigating members of the Bin Laden family, like Bush did with order W199i.

http://propagandamatrix.com/us_agents_told_to_backoff.html

This is now well known. So maybe, JUST maybe, if Bush hadn't ordered his men to quit investigating his buddies in the Bin Laden family, maybe that would have had a different outcome. Do you think?

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.

I will say this: Terrorism exists. I have stated before that one of the dangers with conspiracy theories, and this includes investigation into conspiracy (which is a crime, btw: to conspire....), that you sometimes miss the real threat. For example, in our attempts to take down Saddam, who was conspiring to create a nuclear weapon, according to the Bush White House, we missed our chances to close the door on Afghanistan and to catch Bin Laden, since that was our target, right?

And that anger should also be directed to our own government, who helped to fund and train the same radical elements that we are fighting in the Middle Eastern region. Maybe if Bin Laden hadn't visted the United States, maybe if we had really investigated this man, maybe if we hadn't funded the Taliban, then perhaps 9-11 never would have happened.

I believe your anger is misplaced: The American publican can only do so much. That is why we elect leaders to do what is supposed to be right. And that includes the man, Bush, who you seem to take pains to avoid criticizing.

[Baculus]

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.

I KNEW you were going to say that. LOL. Instead of actually responding to the point of contention, you attack the source. That shows that you CANNOT say that the images are of the same person, so you resort to attacking the source.

So you can't even rationally respond to the question of the authenticity of Bin Laden in this video: Correct? If I provided you another link with these images, would you then respond, or create another reason why you cannot?

[Blighty Skins]

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.

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.

"The science doesn't work". And I suppose you're a scientist?

And yes, the bombings in Africa and the USS cole have everything to do with it, meaning if they can organise something like that, they could just as easily organise something like the WTC attacks. Unless you think it's easy sneaking up to a warship and detonating a boat full of explosives or orchestrating the total and simultaneous destruction of important buildings such as embassies. :doh: These two attacks, Africa and Cole, prove Bin Laden had the resources, the organisational skills and the intelligence (meant as intel) to perform such an attack as WTC.

[Jaded-Dragon]

"The only mystery here is why we take our queue's from a dick in a neckerchief."

A cookie to whoever names that movie.

Ok, point blank, what bugs me more about the towers falling the way they did, thermite, the burning temperature of kerosene, yadde yadda, my question is... why have we seen no video of a plane hitting the Pentagon? I used to drive by the Pentagon everyday on my way to work, I used to drive right by the side that faces the Arlington National Cemetary. There are surveilence cameras at a little gas station right across the street from the Pentagon, there's a Sheraton right across the street, and there's traffic cameras.

Where are the videos from these cameras? Why is it the only footage released are still frames where you can't even see anything ecept a speck heading for the Pentagon, and then in the very next image you see a ball of fire. Yet, after emergency personel arrive, they go from still images to full motion video?

That, more than anything, smells fishy to me.

[Skins24]

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

So....you're saying the dozens of hijackings around the world before 9/11 were also part of some conspiracy?

Yes it does seem sane. This is America, stuff like that doesn't happen. That caught everyone off guard. They probably could have pulled it off with just one or two people per flight.

Care to explain what you meant further?

[Baculus]

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.

You do realize that they actually had scenarious where this actual event happened? And, in fact, on 9-11, there was an actual military exercize taking place, on that exact fateful day, and part of that exercise involved a plane striking a building? That is why, in one of the 9-11 audio recordings from that day, you hear one of the FAA controllers asking if what was happening was "real world" or part of the exercise.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060718232126585

Yes, folks did think this could happened and had created plans for such instances. Just because Bush and Rice, who somehow were oblivious to such planning, declared that "no one could have planned this attack," do folks now believe that, indeed, no one ever planned for this!

Which is false.

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.

Hey, just because I have a Grateful Skin signature doesn't mean...Oh, you mean my Cheney signature? Well, I don't care for Cheney, but have I even mentioned this man in any of my posts? And have I ever said that the Bush administration ever carried out these attacks? And wasn't Cheney indeed VP during 9/11/2001?

I am not sure what my signature has to do with my views on 9-11 - I mean, my "Cheney is an evil diety out to crush or take the world" signture must invalidate my arguments, right?

Hey, I hate Al Qaida: My questions do not mean that I don't despise terrorists. That is quite a strawman to suggest otherwise.

[Mad Mike]

I KNEW you were going to say that. LOL. Instead of actually responding to the point of contention, you attack the source. That shows that you CANNOT say that the images are of the same person, so you resort to attacking the source.

So you can't even rationally respond to the question of the authenticity of Bin Laden in this video: Correct? If I provided you another link with these images, would you then respond, or create another reason why you cannot?

LOL! Your entire point of contention is a blurry video tape and some guy saying it doesnt look like bin Laden. Brilliant.

But you know what? As a photographer and graphic artist that deals with video and photoshop images of people ALL THE TIME. I can say yes, that absolutely looks just like him. Now please tell me why the clown on that website is more of an expert than me. :laugh:

[JMS]

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.

Actually I've never read any creditable objection to the video of bin laudin confessing.

Didn't he also confess in a latter video when he explained to Bush why he attacked America. He said something like he didn't attack America because we were free. He didn't attack sweeden or norway, they're free!!... I thought that was funny at the time.

As for Bin Laudin not knowing sky scrapers were made with steel and not iron. That's pretty bogus. As I said before I lived in a sky scraper in Ryadh Saudi arabia called the Al Faisaliah, which was built by the Bin Laudin group.

They are the largest constrcution company in the Kingdom. I think they know the difference between iron and steel.

PS you didn't use the FBI link. On the FBI most wanted page which lists Bin Laudin's offenses they don't list 911 as one of the reasons he's wanted. No joke.. look it up..

[Blighty Skins]

"The only mystery here is why we take our queue's from a dick in a neckerchief."

A cookie to whoever names that movie.

Ok, point blank, what bugs me more about the towers falling the way they did, thermite, the burning temperature of kerosene, yadde yadda, my question is... why have we seen no video of a plane hitting the Pentagon? I used to drive by the Pentagon everyday on my way to work, I used to drive right by the side that faces the Arlington National Cemetary. There are surveilence cameras at a little gas station right across the street from the Pentagon, there's a Sheraton right across the street, and there's traffic cameras.

Where are the videos from these cameras? Why is it the only footage released are still frames where you can't even see anything ecept a speck heading for the Pentagon, and then in the very next image you see a ball of fire. Yet, after emergency personel arrive, they go from still images to full motion video?

That, more than anything, smells fishy to me.

Right. I'm sure when they fitted the surveillance cameras at the little gas station, they intentionally pointed it at the Pentagon just for such an attack, heaven forbid they actually installed the camera pointing at the plonkers filling their cars with gas in case one of 'em intentionally runs off without paying.

They probably went from "still images" to "full motion pictures" because camera crews probably heard the comotion and ran there with their cameras. Don't you think?

Answer me one question. If a plane never hit the Pentagon, what was a bloody big plane engine doing on the lawn of the Pentagon? Who put it there? Cos in the footage I never saw a UPS truck deliver a big **** of a plane engine and plonk it on the Pentagon lawn, so unless someone threw it outta window...how the effing hell did it get there?

[PleaseBlitz]

I KNEW you were going to say that. LOL. Instead of actually responding to the point of contention, you attack the source. That shows that you CANNOT say that the images are of the same person, so you resort to attacking the source.

So you can't even rationally respond to the question of the authenticity of Bin Laden in this video: Correct? If I provided you another link with these images, would you then respond, or create another reason why you cannot?

I think you should probably expect people to question your sources when they are websites called whatreallyhappened.com and propogandamatrix.com.

I mean, thats just me, but I think a link to a site with some credibility might help you advance your argument. :2cents:

[Baculus]

So....you're saying the dozens of hijackings around the world before 9/11 were also part of some conspiracy?

No. Why do you ask?

Yes it does seem sane. This is America, stuff like that doesn't happen. That caught everyone off guard. They probably could have pulled it off with just one or two people per flight.

Care to explain what you meant further?

Why do you mean that "Stuff like this doesn't happen"? What "stuff" are you referring to? If you are talking about the government plotting against its own people, well, you need to look no furthr then Operation Northwoods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Now, as I said before, IF 9-11 indeed as some sort of insider job, and I have stated this before, it doesn't even have to involve the "government," per se. After all, as you said, maybe it didn't have to take a lot of people to conduct this attack: And that is the entire point. Folks always suggest that for the government to have been invovled in some capacity, then it would have invovled hundreds of people and multiple departments. Why is that? The 19 hijackers didn't need that, did they?

Don't ever, EVER think that your government is incapable of harmings its people. Governments, like people, are not nfallible - that was entire reason why we have checks and balances in the Federal system. And, again, I don't know if it would have been our "government," per se, that indeed would have perpetrated this act.

I am not sure what you asking for me to explain further...

[Mooka]

Here's the NIST FAQ on their report on the attack.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Seriously folks, if you're going to question how the towers fell, how about you take the word of thousands of highly qualified engineers, scientists, and technicians? How about you read their detailed report that took 3 years to complete? Or you can take a crash course on demolitions and structural engineering from one "hobbiest." Or one professor somewhere, or whomever...

Questions like, "The towers were designed to withstand impact from a 707..."

Ok...

Lots of things are designed a certain way, it doesn't mean it holds true. I'm sure Firestone designed their tires so they work. It doesn't mean I can argue that my shredded tire was some conspiracy because the company claimed their tires worked.

If you want to argue that our government is hiding things, then fine. But, don't sit here and try to argue with thousands of people, a thousand times more qualified then you are. :2cents:

[Mad Mike]

"The only mystery here is why we take our queue's from a dick in a neckerchief."

A cookie to whoever names that movie.

Ok, point blank, what bugs me more about the towers falling the way they did, thermite, the burning temperature of kerosene, yadde yadda, my question is... why have we seen no video of a plane hitting the Pentagon? I used to drive by the Pentagon everyday on my way to work, I used to drive right by the side that faces the Arlington National Cemetary. There are surveilence cameras at a little gas station right across the street from the Pentagon, there's a Sheraton right across the street, and there's traffic cameras.

Where are the videos from these cameras? Why is it the only footage released are still frames where you can't even see anything ecept a speck heading for the Pentagon, and then in the very next image you see a ball of fire. Yet, after emergency personel arrive, they go from still images to full motion video?

That, more than anything, smells fishy to me.

Surveilance cameras dont run 30 frames per second as other cameras do. they run a frame every few seconds at most. Some are even set to run when something moves in front of a simple motion sensor (which would be pointed to the ground). Drive a car past your typical surveilance camera at 50 MPH and see what you see. Now try to capture and aircraft moving at 400 mph. Simple really.

The fact is there are hundreds of eye witnesses that the conspiricy teorists choose to ignore. Just as there are millions of engineers and achitects that accept the "official" explanation of the WTC collapse, there were hundreds od people who saw the plane hit the pentagon. But let one person say something that does not match what 99% say and THAT is the story conspiricy theorists accept without question.

[Blighty Skins]

I'm going to set all you conspiracy lovers a task. If you don't answer me how this piece of a plane ended up on the lawn of the Pentagon, I will label you all loons. Because my definition of a loon is someone who ignores reality in order to live in his own delusional world.

So your task is to answer this question:

HOW DID THIS PLANE PART END UP ON THE LAWN OF THE PENTAGON?:

[Baculus]

LOL! Your entire point of contention is a blurry video tape and some guy saying it doesnt look like bin Laden. Brilliant.

But you know what? As a photographer and graphic artist that deals with video and photoshop images of people ALL THE TIME. I can say yes, that absolutely looks just like him. Now please tell me why the clown on that website is more of an expert than me. :laugh:

There is NO WAY that those two men are the same men. I mean, look at them - their facial structure is 100% different. I don't care if "some guy" is saying that these men look different: *I* am saying that they look different, because they do.

Here is a clue - study the nose length between the two mean, as well as the cheekbones.

The thing is, I have a feeling if someone came out and said something such "this video proves that we got Bin Laden!" that you'd probably say, "Yes, this is obviously a fake!"

Once again, I am unsure what a faked video means, but, watching the video, that isn't him. But Bin Laden HAS made videos - the sample images taken from that page are indeed from a real Osama video. But the point is around this particular video.

[Baculus]

I'm going to set all your conspiracy lovers a task. If you don't answer me how this piece of a plane ended up on the lawn of the Pentagon, I will label you all loons. Because my definition of a loon is someone who ignores reality in order to live in his own delusional world.

So your task is to answer this question:

HOW DID THIS PLANE PART END UP ON THE LAWN OF THE PENTAGON:

We aren't even talking about the Pentagon.

And, btw, I see part of something. If I was going to debate the "missile" theory, I would say that is simply a painted piece of aluminum. Where do you see the plane?

I am not going to debate this point, because it is a red herring, and it is silly to suggest that this piece of material is going to prove this debate one way or another. You obviously haven't read my posts well, in which I stated that you can remove theories, such as the "missile" theory, and still have a large body of questions to ask.

And who to say that your world is "reality"?

[Skins24]

Why do you mean that "Stuff like this doesn't happen"? What "stuff" are you referring to?

Hijackings. Since that's what we were talking about....

If you are talking about the government plotting against its own people, well, you need to look no furthr then Operation Northwoods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Now, as I said before, IF 9-11 indeed as some sort of insider job, and I have stated this before, it doesn't even have to involve the "government," per se. After all, as you said, maybe it didn't have to take a lot of people to conduct this attack: And that is the entire point. Folks always suggest that for the government to have been invovled in some capacity, then it would have invovled hundreds of people and multiple departments. Why is that? The 19 hijackers didn't need that, did they?

Don't ever, EVER think that your government is incapable of harmings its people. Governments, like people, are not nfallible - that was entire reason why we have checks and balances in the Federal system. And, again, I don't know if it would have been our "government," per se, that indeed would have perpetrated this act.

I am not sure what you asking for me to explain further...

wtf are you talking about?

You asked "does 19 people with boxcutters seem sane to you" suggesting you think that happening is likely.

So why is 19 hijackers hijacking 4 planes "insane" to you?

btw, why do you think they never carried out anything like Operation Northwoods? You people sure like bringing it up.

I'll answer it for you...

Because something like that would never work.

It would never be approved.

And there's no way you can keep something like that a secret for long.

[Mad Mike]

Here's the NIST FAQ on their report on the attack.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Seriously folks, if you're going to question how the towers fell, how about you take the word of thousands of highly qualified engineers, scientists, and technicians? How about you read their detailed report that took 3 years to complete? Or you can take a crash course on demolitions and structural engineering from one "hobbiest." Or one professor somewhere, or whomever...

Questions like, "The towers were designed to withstand impact from a 707..."

Ok...

Lots of things are designed a certain way, it doesn't mean it holds true. I'm sure Firestone designed their tires so they work. It doesn't mean I can argue that my shredded tire was some conspiracy because the company claimed their tires worked.

If you want to argue that our government is hiding things, then fine. But, don't sit here and try to argue with thousands of people, a thousand times more qualified then you are. :2cents:

THANK YOU. :notworthy

[Baculus]

Surveilance cameras dont run 30 frames per second as other cameras do. they run a frame every few seconds at most. Some are even set to run when something moves in front of a simple motion sensor (which would be pointed to the ground). Drive a car past your typical surveilance camera at 50 MPH and see what you see. Now try to capture and aircraft moving at 400 mph. Simple really.

The fact is there are hundreds of eye witnesses that the conspiricy teorists choose to ignore. Just as there are millions of engineers and achitects that accept the "official" explanation of the WTC collapse, there were hundreds od people who saw the plane hit the pentagon. But let one person say something that does not match what 99% say and THAT is the story conspiricy theorists accept without question.

Yes. It is amazing how all these cameras apparently missed everything that happened, other then "blur --> explosion." Amazing!

And why do you keep mentioning "millions of engineers"? And there are eye witness - the thing is, this has NOTHING TO DO with some of the questions that are asked about 9-11. Just like I mentioned before, the debate all of a suddent becomes framed around the Pentagon, and any other questions are ignored. The Pentagon - missile issue is a red herring to a degree. By proving, or disproving, what happened around the Pentagon, that all of a sudden serves to invalidate any deviating questions to the events of 9-11.

BTW, you seem to accept explanations with question, so I am not sure if you have much room to talk here, do you?

[Baculus]

Hijackings. Since that's what we were talking about....

You still lost me...

wtf are you talking about?

You asked "does 19 people with boxcutters seem sane to you" suggesting you think that happening is likely.

So why is 19 hijackers hijacking 4 planes "insane" to you?

Because it is 19 guys with BOXCUTTERS defeating the entire security apparatus of the United States. Are you saying that the notion seems "sane"?

I really don't know how to explain why it still seems like a crazy, absurd event, even if it did happen.

btw, why do you think they never carried out anything like Operation Northwoods? You people sure like bringing it up.

I'll answer it for you...

Because something like that would never work.

It would never be approved.

And there's no way you can keep something like that a secret for long.

Why wouldn't it work? It wouldn't have been that difficult to have executed. Of course it could have worked - being the government makes it that much easier. Kennedy thought it was a bad idea - that is why it didn't happened. Not because it couldn't be executed, but he thought it was just a bad idea. Of course, Kennedy was assassinated: Hmmm....

And what does secrets have anything to do with it? Do you realize that the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened, and yet, it has been kept a "secret" for a long time. There is no need to worry about secrecy if folks merely deny this could happen. Plus, especially if a plot like Northwood was executed, it wouldn't take a great number of folks to have carried out the plan. The need for secrecy is reduced by each operating team being unaware of their part of the "jigsaw" puzzle: that is usually how fifth column attacks are conducted.

[grhqofb5]

There's really only one path to enlightenment on this issue:

Tickets go on sale this friday, 3/16. First 100 receive a 50% discount. PM me for details.

[Mad Mike]

There is NO WAY that those two men are the same men. I mean, look at them - their facial structure is 100% different. I don't care if "some guy" is saying that these men look different: *I* am saying that they look different, because they do.

Here is a clue - study the nose length between the two mean, as well as the cheekbones.

The thing is, I have a feeling if someone came out and said something such "this video proves that we got Bin Laden!" that you'd probably say, "Yes, this is obviously a fake!"

Once again, I am unsure what a faked video means, but, watching the video, that isn't him. But Bin Laden HAS made videos - the sample images taken from that page are indeed from a real Osama video. But the point is around this particular video.

Same person. I would bet my life on it.You are either in a fantasy land or your eyese are severely deformed. The only difference in the video still is that he is heavier and it makes his face look wider. Wider = his face does not look as long. Bon stucture is a little more hidden but the same.

But it's good to see you accept the fact that you THINK it is not bin Laden and that is your only proof. Maybe there is hope for you yet.

[Blighty Skins]

We aren't even talking about the Pentagon.

And, btw, I see part of something. If I was going to debate the "missile" theory, I would say that is simply a painted piece of aluminum. Where do you see the plane?

I am not going to debate this point, because it is a red herring, and it is silly to suggest that this piece of material is going to prove this debate one way or another. You obviously haven't read my posts well, in which I stated that you can remove theories, such as the "missile" theory, and still have a large body of questions to ask.

And who to say that your world is "reality"?

Not debate...blah blah blah...just a piece of aluminum...blah blah blah. See, that's why nobody takes you lot seriously. You can't explain something, you just sweep it under the carpet and pretend it never happened.

There was nothing on the lawn before the explosion. You can't deny that because we have camera pictures to back it up and anyway, someone would notice someone putting tons of debris on the Pentagon lawn. So the explosion brought the debris there. So you think it's just a piece of aluminum?

How about this:

That's a turbine from one of the engines...just a piece of aluminum.

:doh:

[Mad Mike]

Yes. It is amazing how all these cameras apparently missed everything that happened, other then "blur --> explosion." Amazing!

And why do you keep mentioning "millions of engineers"? And there are eye witness - the thing is, this has NOTHING TO DO with some of the questions that are asked about 9-11. Just like I mentioned before, the debate all of a suddent becomes framed around the Pentagon, and any other questions are ignored. The Pentagon - missile issue is a red herring to a degree. By proving, or disproving, what happened around the Pentagon, that all of a sudden serves to invalidate any deviating questions to the events of 9-11.

BTW, you seem to accept explanations with question, so I am not sure if you have much room to talk here, do you?

LOL. Right, because I dont buy into loony theorys, I "accept explanations with question" and that gives me no room to talk. Are you listenting to yourself?

Try reading this with an open mind and then get back to me. All of your questions answered by hundreds of REAL experts. Argue with that. Or is it only OK to accept conspericy thoerys without question? :laugh:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[Baculus]

Here's the NIST FAQ on their report on the attack.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Seriously folks, if you're going to question how the towers fell, how about you take the word of thousands of highly qualified engineers, scientists, and technicians? How about you read their detailed report that took 3 years to complete? Or you can take a crash course on demolitions and structural engineering from one "hobbiest." Or one professor somewhere, or whomever...

Questions like, "The towers were designed to withstand impact from a 707..."

Ok...

Lots of things are designed a certain way, it doesn't mean it holds true. I'm sure Firestone designed their tires so they work. It doesn't mean I can argue that my shredded tire was some conspiracy because the company claimed their tires worked.

If you want to argue that our government is hiding things, then fine. But, don't sit here and try to argue with thousands of people, a thousand times more qualified then you are. :2cents:

As a note, contrary to popular belief, "thousands" of engineers and experts were not involved with the NIST report. As mentioned at the NIST page: "Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia." It is disingenious to kept suggesting "thousands" and "millions" of engineers, as stated on this thread so far. It is probably suffice to say "many" as opposed to inflating the numbers involved.

There are criticisms of the NIST report, and a government report is not always gospel. After all, this is a scientific report, and science is subject to review and further investigation. I've parts of the NIST report: it is A LOT of material. And, sure, a lot of it seems plausible: After all, this is describing an event that happened, no matter the means for the collapse, so some of it IS going to be factual, either way. It is a few key points, though, that is the point of contention.

And, in all of this debate, it is ignored that it is more then just mere "hobbyists" that are examining the collapse of the WTC, but structural professionals as well.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html