OGCT True Believers Bullshit Excuses, Need help to sink OGCT True Believers BS Excuses Options

[1976]

[Thread title edited by d from "Non Believers Bullshit Excuses, Need help to sink Non believers bullshit excuses" for clarification]

OK... I am a member of a gaming site at OGN http://forums.ogn.com.au/forumdisplay.php?f=886

And I've been posting links to videos and sites in a thread I started there http://forums.ogn.com.au/showthread.php?t=54722 in the hope some ppl will see the truth.... anyway since I'll have to research this info which I really should do I thought some of you guys could just pump this info out off the top of your heads.

This is a quote is response to me saying tower 7 is the smoking gun, how can you overlook that this... he came back with this...

Speaking as an engineer, and having done a quick bit of reading to familiarise myself with the Tower Seven situation, my thought is "Damn, it took that long for that building to collapse?"

The damage to the building was significant. That's significant from an engineering point of view, i.e. it would have severely compromised the load bearing paths within the structure. While it's true they're still not sure why the thing collapsed, it's also true that there is only very sketchy information as to the extent of damage to the structure caused by falling debris from WTC1. The fact that they've identified a 10-storey high "gash" in the building, that completely destroyed a large chunk of two of the five rows of colums in the structure (and probably severely damaged the third) suggests some seriously unbalanced loads were acting on the building before it collapsed. It wouldn't take much to push that over the edge.

And I wouldn't call uncontrolled fires that burned from 10am until the building collapsed at 5pm "2 little spot fires"...

Not to rain on your parade or anything, but I don't see the need for explosives in any of the building collapses that day. Based on my knowledge of structural design (which is admittedly limited, as I majored in mechanical engineering, not civil), I can easily see how the structures failed in the way that they did.

Can someone destroy this guys narrow sighted conclusion so I can post a undeniable response. Its just a request and theres absolutely no obligation. thx guys

This post has been edited by dMole: Jan 29 2009, 03:01 PM

[Carl Bank]

video: WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739


And from "Architects and Engeneers for 9/11 truth http://www.ae911truth.org/

Lots of links in the original text.
(Frontpage, right column)

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1.

Rapid onset of “collapse”
2.

Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
3.

Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
4.

“Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
5.

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6.

Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (What could have produced all of that molten metal?)
7.

Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
8.

FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9.

Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
10.

Foreknowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1.

Slow onset with large visible deformations
2.

Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3.

Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4.

High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

[1976]

WOW... I mean wow... you are a legend Carl, thank you so much... I'm sitting here giggling to myself (perm-a-grim) at the speed of your response and wealth of knowledge... thoroughly impressed (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/handsdown.gif)

[lunk]

It wasn't even in the same block as the rest of the buildings in the WTC.
If there was a 10 story gash taken out of the building, (which there wasn't,) what did it? A piece of one of the towers that "fell" down, and just happened to fly over to the next block?
Building 7 is rarely mentioned in the popular media, to the point where many people asked, haven't even heard of it, and believe that only the twin towers collapsed that day.

imo, lunk

[grizz]

The famous NYPD photo of the gouged corner of WTC7 is fake, of course. You can tell that just by looking at it. And if it was real, then the building would have fallen over, not down, right?

I can't find it, but somewhere there's a post by waterdancer, our resident photo sleuth. He managed to find another photo of the same corner. A side by side comparison shows a complete lack of damage to the upper floors of the 'gash'. Lower is obscured by smoke.

If the tiny raging fires, which were never below the sixth floor according to FEMA, caused the collapse, why have other steel framed buildings that were literally engulfed by fire for many more hours (like around the clock) not collapsed?

You can also refer to Dr Steven Jones' recently published 'Fourteen Points of Agreement...' paper.

Just a side note about discussing 9/11 on social forums. You will wake some people up, but most of them will remain silent. There are paid agents that inhabit all message boards of any substantial size. They pose as regular people who share the primary interest of the forum, but are actually there to derail any discussion of truth. They use all the disinformation tactics available. There will be flame wars and, depending on which way the admins go, eventually you will be banned. Just so you know, Brother.

If you choose to carry on the fight, I suggest posting The 25 Rules of Disinformation and referring to it and bumping it from time to time. It might help a little with some readers.

http://www.matriots.com/bh/25.html

Generally on social forums the discussions are not about the evidence. That is the job of the agents. It's hard to rise above the bullshit, but if you can control your temper and just keep steering the discussions back on topic, you will help a few people.

Good luck! It would probably take weeks to read everything here, but this place is well organized and finding solid evidence regarding whatever you need does not take long.

[Sanders]

Fires - I don't care how long they burn, do not bring down steel-framed buildings. FIRES DO NOT BRING DOWN STEEL-FRAMED BUILDINGS! There have been numerous tests, in Germany, Australia and other places over the years, the one in Australia, conducted by BP, where they stoked the fires to insane temperatures and yet wound up with such minimal damage that they were allowed to erect their office building without any fireproofing. I don't have quick access from my notes from a few years ago when I looked into this, but there have been some incredible fires over the years that were thoroughly looked into - the conclusion? Open air fires have little affect on structural steel. Your "friend" the "engineer" is full of it. If the fires in the towers were hot enough to adversly affect 200 thousand tons of steel in the towers (which was all bolted and welded together, so the heat would have been dissapated throughout the building) then how can Edna Cintron be leaning on a perimiter column, waving for help? How can Fire Chief Orio Palmer radio from near the crash site a few minutes before the collapse of the South Tower to say there's a couple of fires & that he thinks he can dowse them with a couple of hoses?? And how can structural damage (of which there is very little documentation) to WTC7 on ONE corner cause the building to collapse symetrically, straight down, at free-fall speed?? All I gotta say is, give me a break. Anyone who has looked at the evidence and still parrots the official account is in denial - and just simply can't bring themselves to accept that the government could be involved in such a crime. Their counter-arguments are not driven by science or an empirical review of the evidence, but on a world view based on a lifetime of conditioning that they lack the courage to let go of. And, as Carl pointed out, the BBC report is the nail in the coffin.

[lunk]

Here is an experiment that anyone can do;

Hold an iron nail over top of a candle
and see how long it takes to melt.

If the nail doesn't melt,
try lighting the candle.

You will find that, after ignition,
a little bit liquefies, then burns.
...the candle, that is.

The nail just gets hot.

Iron is a poor conductor of heat
so be careful, don't burn your fingers,
or catch something else on fire.


imo, lunk

[dMz]

Speaking as an engineer, and having done a quick bit of reading to familiarise myself with the Tower Seven situation, my thought is "Damn, it took that long for that building to collapse?"

The damage to the building was significant. That's significant from an engineering point of view, i.e. it would have severely compromised the load bearing paths within the structure. While it's true they're still not sure why the thing collapsed, it's also true that there is only very sketchy information as to the extent of damage to the structure caused by falling debris from WTC1.

Hi 1976,

"Anonymous Engineer Dude" does an admirable job of "debunking" himself above, unless you've got a different definition of "sketchy" down under.

As lunk alludes to above (he has been known to speak in Hmmm...), shouldn't North Tower debris fall down, not horizontally across Vesey and/or Washington Street(s) in a gravitational field? I've heard rumors/jokes that you have funny-swirling toilets down in Oz, but I always assumed that your gravity pulled toward the Earth's center of mass, just like mine. Of course the photo and video evidence shows "gravity?" doing something else drastically different in Manhattan on Sep 11, 2001...

And I wouldn't call uncontrolled fires that burned from 10am until the building collapsed at 5pm "2 little spot fires"...

Good point- why exactly did Rudy G., FDNY, and Larry Silverstein "pull" the firemen from WTC7 in the morning? What about the radio demolition countdown and police/fire "that building's about to come down" statements caught on various videos? Someone else probably has those video links handy. BBC "Solomon Brothers Building has collapsed" video?

This post has been edited by dMole: May 20 2008, 01:47 PM

[nicepants]

The famous NYPD photo of the gouged corner of WTC7 is fake, of course. You can tell that just by looking at it. And if it was real, then the building would have fallen over, not down, right?

So the NYPD is in on it too?

Skyscrapers don't behave like trees ;-) I highly recommend you consult a physics professor about your theory.

[nicepants]

Here is an experiment that anyone can do;

Hold an iron nail over top of a candle
and see how long it takes to melt.

If the nail doesn't melt,
try lighting the candle.

You will find that, after ignition,
a little bit liquefies, then burns.
...the candle, that is.

The nail just gets hot.

Iron is a poor conductor of heat
so be careful, don't burn your fingers,
or catch something else on fire.


imo, lunk

How much weight is the nail supporting in your experiment?

[grizz]

nicepants opined:

So the NYPD is in on it too?

Typical nicepants strawman obsufication. The post is about the photo, not the police.

[nicepants]

nicepants opined:


Typical nicepants strawman obsufication. The post is about the photo, not the police.

Aren't you referring to the photo that was taken by the NYPD?

Naaa, my physics is pretty good actually.

Did well in highschool, College and common sense.

Common sense? You mean personal incredulity. ("I believe X, therefore X should have happened")

Camp fires don't bring down steel buildings.

I agree. Good thing we're not talking about camp fires.

Gravity doesn't eject 200 ton beam formations 300 feet horizontally that were once welded and bolted to other steel beams.

Not directly...How much energy would it take to "eject 200 ton beam formations 300 feet horizontally"?

WTC 7 could only have had damage facing toward the Twins. Do you care to tell us how the middle, side and rear core columns would have been damaged?

The fire had something to do with that, as did the system of transfer trusses. Only a few core columns would need to fail and as the additional load overwhelmed the other columns, they would quickly fail as well.

Buildings topple from side to side, or front to back (Much like trees do when cut.
)...not straight down.

Do you have an example of a 47+ story building behaving in this manner?

Why don't you bring your Physics Prof here so I (we) may have a word with him.

Before you call him/her over please answer my question in bold. Thanks.

I've graduated college and my old physics professor has no reason to come to this message board and argue with people about 9/11. You, however, could go to your local university (or even community college) and sit down for 5-10 minutes with a professor in person and have many of your questions answered. That would be far more beneficial and would clear up any of these assumptions you attribute to "common sense".

This post has been edited by nicepants: May 20 2008, 10:13 AM

[lunk]

How much weight is the nail supporting in your experiment?

None at all.
I was just seeing if I could melt it with a candle flame.
It didn't work.

I did manage to light some steel wool on fire, though.
There was no melted iron left underneath though.
Does that count?

For my next experiment,
I shall attempt to melt concrete into liquid lava,
using a match.
...for lack of a candle.

"Fire temperatures were so intense
that the concrete melted like lava
around anything in its path."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9-11guns/

cheers, lunk

[nicepants]

Don't be deceived, just because people disagree with your views on 9/11 doesn't mean they're "bush supporters". I can't stand Bush, can't wait until he's replaced. The difference is, I don't need to invent other things to blame on him, he does enough stupid stuff on his own.

How much energy is needed to move a 200 ton object a certain distance, in a certain amount of time?

That can figured using an equation is its simplest form: Power = Distance / Time

By omitting factors such as:
- fluid/gas resistance (travel through air)
- energy required to remove the steel assembly from the tower structure
- acoustic energy loss
- the energy required for the steel beam/assembly to sever WTC 7 columns

We can calulate the power (energy) required to move 200 tons a fixed distance in a specified amount of time.

Should we use approximations, or would you like to provide time, weight and distance?

For a quick calculation, we can use the following:

Steel Beam Assembly weighs 200 tons
Distance traveled about 300 feet
Time from point A to point B , 5 seconds (using 50 feet per second)

The Energy to move said beam 300 feet in five seconds is 5.433469663e+10 Kilojoules

Let me add that once you figure in the points listed in the omitted factors, the energy becomes much higher.
So...with the stripped down , basic version of the equation we already see that gravity alone cannot produce
that energy with the scenario presented on 9/11/01!

200 tons for this beam assembly? Where are you getting that number?

So you've also figured out the potential gravitational energy of each tower, and found that to be less than the number you came up with for the movement of the beam assembly?

Maybe a bit bigger than camp fires, but hey...we all know fires can't melt, or weaken structural grade
steel. Correct? As already stated above, the fires do not play into this equation because they were too small, and not hot
enough. More to the fact, fires can't melt structural steel.

No. Fires can (and do) weaken structural grade steel. If your assertion was correct, there would be no need to fireproof it.

Too small: Source?
Not hot enough: Source?
The steel doesn't have to melt, it loses strength as it heats long before it reaches a molten state.

If you have studied WTC 7 blueprints, or the alleged damage to the columns from the NIST report, you will
see that very few of the total columns were damaged.

How does a building fall straight down symetrically if only a few columns fail?

- Why do truthers insist on claiming that the collapse was "symmetrical", it wasn't.
- If a few columns fail, the loads they were bearing transfer to other columns, if this additional load exceeds the capability of the other columns, they will also fail.

Maybe you should run to the NIST panel and tell them the secrets that have eluded them for 7+ years because
their so called experts still DO NOT HAVE A VALID EXPLANATION

They've got a pretty good summary on their FAQ. It's not that "secrets are eluding them", it's that their final report requires much greater detail.

You are simply guessing and holding onto a dream my friend. Ifyou have the answer, the publish this for
the world to see and structural engineers to verify.

Why do you expect me to do something that you aren't willing to do. I'm content to wait & see what NIST has to say on the subject.

Further to the point, if a building loses a percentage of support columns on one side, or mostly one side,
the laws of physics and common sense tell us that the building falls toward the failure point!

Please explain how the laws of physics dictate that WTC7 should have fallen to the side. (Or is that belief only based on what you consider to be "common sense"?)

In Addition, fire does not reduce a building within seconds.

WTC7 burned for hours.

If steel melts, it sags, and begins to deform slowly. It does not spontaneously disappear and fall straight into its
own foot print.

Who claims that the steel spontaneously disappeared? And which building fell "into its own footprint"? All 3 severely damaged surrounding buildings.

Do you have an example of a 47+ story building behaving in this manner?

See above. Wake up my friend.

So that's a no?

[P45]

The famous NYPD photo of the gouged corner of WTC7 is fake, of course. You can tell that just by looking at it. And if it was real, then the building would have fallen over, not down, right?

I can't find it, but somewhere there's a post by waterdancer, our resident photo sleuth. He managed to find another photo of the same corner. A side by side comparison shows a complete lack of damage to the upper floors of the 'gash'. Lower is obscured by smoke.

Zafar pic comparison.

http://wtc7corner.blogspot.com/2007/04/con...-7s-corner.html

[nicepants]

Great, I'm happy you brought up these questions as you are beginning to think.

Instead of debating all of the points in that reply simultaneously, let's stick to this one shall we (for now)?

Let's forget the 200 ton figure for a moment. We will pretend that a baseball was used in place of the steel assembly. OK?

We know for sure;or can easily find the data to support the distance from the Twin Towers to the face of
WTC 7.

I've read and heard figures of about 300 feet. Does this seem correct to you?

What sort of gavity force can move a baseball 300 feet horizontally?

I don't claim that gravity alone caused the object to move horizontally, but a vertical force can cause a lateral acceleration (like pushing down on a spring, it can go sideways).

The lighter the projectile, the greater the force required to penetrate WTC 7. Correct?

The heavier the projectile, the more energy required to move it over a distance. Correct?

The heavier the projectile, the more vertical kinetic energy gained due to gravity.

You take your pick. Give me a weight, a distance and a time.

Either way, you are going to contradict physics.

The smaller and lighter object still needs to travel the distance and cut through at least one core column
of WTC 7.

Ok, how about 300ft, 2tons, 8 seconds.

The lateral component of force is not the only force that can damage neighboring structures. As that object falls, it gains kinetic energy from gravitational acceleration. The object could have a horizontal speed of 0 by the time it hit WTC7 and, depending on the size of the object, still cause a great deal of damage.

I would imagine the core columns in WTC 7 were pretty strong to supprort 47 stories.

Pretty strong? Absolutely! But as columns weaken, the other columns must bear an increasing amount of the weight.

Just the thought of this being possible with gravity alone is pretty damn funny!

Whether you find it funny or not, it's the numbers that will tell you whether it was possible or not.

[grizz]

nicepants:

Aren't you referring to the photo that was taken by the NYPD?

No. I'm referring to the photo that is marked NYPD. As always, you are jumping to conclusions. There is no proof that the photo was taken by a NYPD officer or that it was manipulated by the NYPD. And so what if it was?

Are you saying that we should treat the photo as though it's real and holy just because it supposedly comes from the police? Is your implication that any government authority would not attempt to deceive us, especially not the police?

Look, nicepants, you are getting nowhere here. We're way too smart to fall for your sophomoric linguistic tricks, and that is the only weapon you have. We don't care if the dog ate your homework.

[Sanders]

Turbo-fan, forgive me for speaking out of turn, I can't resist.

Nicepants, you're so full of it.

- Why do truthers insist on claiming that the collapse was "symmetrical", it wasn't.

WTC7 fell straight down. Have you ever watched the footage? What would it have to do to meet your definition of symetrical?? And by the way, how would you explain how the BBC knew the building was going to come down 20-odd minutes before the fact???

Don't be deceived, just because people disagree with your views on 9/11 doesn't mean they're "bush supporters". I can't stand Bush, can't wait until he's replaced. The difference is, I don't need to invent other things to blame on him, he does enough stupid stuff on his own.

Are you implying in any way that all, some or any of us here think that Bush was behind 9/11??? LoL. I'd be surprised if he even knew about it. Cheney obviously did, he participated. But no one around here thinks that Bush, or even the Bush administration per-se was really behind 9/11, Nicepants, you haven't been paying attention. It really irks me when people say stuff like, 'Bush can barely tie his own shoes, how can you believe for a second that he could pull off something as big and complicated as 9/11?' I don't, we don't, no one who has done a lick of research into this does. Nor is George Bush in charge of the United States of America, not by a long shot.

Fires can (and do) weaken structural grade steel. If your assertion was correct, there would be no need to fireproof it.

Structural steel is said to lose half of it's strength at about 1200 degrees F, the building, as best as I and other people have been able to guess, was rated for 6:1 loads, and worst case it was built for 5:1 loads since that's the rule of thumb for commercial buildings. (In other words, 1200 F degrees doesn't do it - you gotta heat the steel up enough so that the columns and beams lose 80% of their strength.) Not only that, but the fires just being that hot isn't enough either, you gotta get the steel itself up above that temperature ... steel conducts heat away from the source, so you gotta keep cranking up the heat fast and hard enough to get the temperature of the steel up faster than it can carry the heat away to other parts of the building. There have been many field tests and investigations into actual building fires and opportunities to measure the effects of fire on steel-framed buildings that attest to the fact that open air fires just do not get that hot, and steel framed buildings do not fail from fires.

A few of those tests and investigations are:

One Meridian Plaza (Philadelphia) ... fires raged througout the building for 18 hours. According to the report, the exterior granite joint sealant, which melts at less than 500 F, was not severely charred or melted. While the fires did get very hot near the windows where oxygen was prevalent, the fire within the building was estimated not to have exceeded 600F.

Several field tests done in (un-fireproofed) steel framed parking garages in several countries, (source: Corus Construction), fires were hydro-carbon based, steel temperatures fell between 438 and 680 degrees F.

Broadgate Development (investigation), London. Very hot fire, may have reached 1800 F, according to the report, unprotected steelwork was unlikely to have exceeded 1100 F. Some warping of beams, but no significant structural damage and no danger of collapse.

BHP - full scale fire tests done in Australia. Beams un-fireproofed, fires were stoked to atmospheric temperatures of (maximum) 2242 F, maximum steel temperature measured was 1167 F, no significant damage, no danger of failure. (The structural damage observed in the test was so minimal that as a result the insurance company who had paid for the tests was allowed to erect an office building without fire proofing the steel beams.)

Others: Williams Street and Collins Street in Melbourne, and a full scale fire test in Stuttgart, Germany. Same kinds of findings, atmosperic temperatures between 500 and 1000 F, maximum measured steel temperatures about half of that.

Don't ask me for sources, I investigated this in 2002 and wrote it all down in a book I never published, the links are all dead now, I just checked. Just google the names of the buildings and fire tests if you really want to double check my information.

200 tons for this beam assembly? Where are you getting that number?

That's a well-published number, I have read it many many times in many places. I'll bet you can find it somewhere in the NIST or ASCE reports (I could be wrong).

Please explain how the laws of physics dictate that WTC7 should have fallen to the side. (Or is that belief only based on what you consider to be "common sense"?)

For your information, buildings do fall over, just like trees. Granted, buildings are full of air, but they are structurally rigid, kind of like trees. Though the comparison breaks down and I don't want to suggest that buildings behave like trees, they have been known to fall over - and a good way to get one to do that might be to take out it's structural support on one side.

(IMG:http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/5846/2001986837dp9.jpg)

(I've seen other photos of moderate sized building that have toppled over - but I wouldn't know were to find them. BTW please don't try to suggest that a smallish building can topple over but a taller one can't - that would make no sense at all.)

Who claims that the steel spontaneously disappeared?

That was a figure of speech, what turbo-fan is alluding to is the fact that the core columns, which carried the majority of the gravitational load for 30 years, and are VERTICAL, had to go somewhere - had to accordion or splinter into pieces or turn to putty (from top to basement) or SOMETHING in order for the top part of the building to fall down through them at near free-fall speed.

...And which building fell "into its own footprint"? All 3 severely damaged surrounding buildings.

WTC7 fell into it's own footprint. And you're wrong, WTC7 did not severely damage the surrounding buildings.

[dMz]

I don't claim that gravity alone caused the object to move horizontally, but a vertical force can cause a lateral acceleration (like pushing down on a spring, it can go sideways).

Hi (by limited engagement) nicepants,

Errr- no- not exactly. Since you didn't state it explicitly (I've noticed this pattern here BTW), I'll assume that you mean a coil spring (since there are several types of spring). How about drawing yourself a free body diagram (it's often done in university physics- some professors require one for every problem) of your hypothetical spring and its vertical [downward] compressive force so that you can study it a bit? You might want to draw carefully and take your time doing it. HINT: Don't forget that a coil spring has a helical "pitch" . You need to look at the sums of both the vertical and horizontal forces in a "statics" problem. You might also want to keep Newton's Third Law in mind here- I'll let you look that one up yourself as you'll probably learn more from the experience than I would. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

What is it that those Randiites like to say... "Debunked!" or was that "Denied!"

EDIT: Or are you now claiming that WTC1 [and WTC2?] had springs in its structure? I'd like to see some documentable proof of that one nicepants...

The heavier the projectile, the more vertical kinetic energy gained due to gravity.

So did you just admit that the WTC1 debris was "projectiles" then? Well there you go- that explains one of many curious things about WTC7's collapse. I don't think you explained exactly what the projectile "propellant" that supplied those horizontal velocities was though. I'll wait for your answer here- I'm very curious....

And FWIW, actually the "heavier" an object [more correctly a more massive object] has more potential energy. PE=mgh you know... This potential energy can be converted into kinetic energy in some circumstances. It is those "circumstances" that we have been investigating for the last 6.5 years, and where you likely will disagree with many/most people on this forum.

On the physics professor thing, I was actually raised by one, and I majored in it myself. You might want to keep that one in mind when you appeal to your hypothetical "physics professor" as a source/evidence in the future...

Now some questions from me for you to answer:
1. What exactly is your motivation in posting here in this forum? Financial? Ego? Assignment? ,Governmental? Reading your answers above, are you just an "NIST groupie?" [I personally don't find the government scientists that I've met and worked with all that attractive myself, but whatever displaces the water underneath your boat...]

2. If the "debunkers" are such qualified "critical thinkers," then why can't they test alternate hypotheses by examining all the available 9/11 evidence with an open mind and without the rhetorical sophistry and name calling? Call me strange, but I prefer to have additional evidence beyond that "supplied" by GWB/Rumsfeld/DoD, History Channel/Hearst Publications, James Randi, and one paper written by someone named Ryan Mackey. Those "official" FEMA/ASCE, NTSB/FBI, and NIST explanations have been shown to have some serious shortcomings- possibly if you did a little reading around here and less posting, you might find a few yourself.

This post has been edited by dMole: May 20 2008, 03:23 PM

[lunk]

Picture of wtc prior to 911:

(IMG:http://www.ceo.ncsu.edu/attack/nyc-images/manhattan_pan.jpg)