No, because its based on pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. It is to such a ridiculous level that aMaddox even covered it. You can find [thebestpag...iverse.net] numerous [loosechangeguide.com] refutations [popularmechanics.com] if you take 3 seconds to search.
It's always a tough choice: examine the substance of someone's argument and respond with your own substantive points, or ignore it completely and make an irrelevant comparison to an unrelated issue. Good job on choosing the Slashdot Way!
I've seen enough lies come from the government to consider them every bit as credible as the your conspiracy theorists. I don't believe the buildings were demolished, but there is no reason to believe the government's position either. With all the dirty dealing going on, there's every reason to believe that this was at least allowed to happen. None of you can prove that these guys weren't hired. And you certainly don't know by whom. You like to think all these suicide bombing are random. Well they're not. E
None of you can prove that these guys weren't hired.
They were hired. By a guy named Osama. They were recruited, trained, paid, and directed by this man and his associates. When we invaded Afghanistan, we found records planning this very attack.
If you think this isn't what happened, kindly cough up at least ONE THING that supports your theory to the contrary.
Yeah? and who's Osama been working for for the last 25 years? And probably STILL is? Nothin' but a middleman he is. The general contractor responsible for gathering up the crew. Needed someone that speaks the language..and not gay (Heh, so they think). And Who was Saddam working for over roughly the exact same period? All the way up until the end? Witness protection is gonna work good for this guy. Nope, playing it smart this time Not going leave no tapes lying around like 72. These "Pentagon Papers" are be
I think it's just wonderful that one can spin an entire story, without any substantiation, based solely on the well-known fact that the government is run by a bunch of shitheads. Let's follow this logic:
1. The government lies about everything.
2. Something happened.
3. Therefore, whatever the government says about that thing must be a lie.
Of course, the problem with using logical premises to make empirical determinations is that empirical reality doesn't lend itself to the generalizations of logic (
The Pentagon Papers and Iran-Contra never happened. Nope, not at all. Just a figment of my vivid imagination. Nor all of it before or since. The hostage deal is on paper. You can look it up yourself. I already saw it. I don't need to re-read it. Kinda funny how the same names pop up...since the 60s! Rumsfeld, Cheney. They were liars then too. But now they're all reformed an' stuff, huh? Yep, your government is nothing but little angels, wouldn't hurt a fly. A real stand up bunch you got. Except the democrat
The Pentagon Papers and Iran-Contra never happened. Nope, not at all.
Good thinking! "The government has a history of doing bad things, so whatever bad thing I suggest must be true, and anyone who objects must be brainwashed and ignorant."
Let me try one: I posit that the U.S. government will soon throw sniff out all the drug users and throw them into camps. This is based on the following:
1. At the government's encouragement, drug screening is now widespread in private industry and schools. [nbcsandiego.com] 2. The govern
Like I said, believe what you want. I got history on my side. I don't know much, nor care about your silly theories. I'm dealing with simple animal psychology. 2 and 2 still equals 4 in my world. Don't know how it works with you kids and your new new math [wikipedia.org], but it seems to be messing with your brain.
# No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns.
# WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just.6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" Jones asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lowe
Oh hell, I don't know. Let's just build another set out there in the desert, fly some radio controlled planes into 'em, and see what happens. No other buildings had 250 tons fly into them either. Maybe somebody wanted to knock them down because they thought they were butt ugly. If you wanna see something really freaky, watch the Simpsons episode where they had 'N Sync on, and they shot a cruise missile at the Mad Magazine building. It fell exactly the same way. I can only draw my conclusions from the proven
# WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just.6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" Jones asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors--and intact steel support columns--the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass.
It is there. It was.6 seconds, which was 10% of the time of
If a tall building can fall to powder and small pieces, in a symmetrical pile, I would never go into one. However, such a thing has never happened before or since, in the history of the world.
I saw some photos of the extremely heavy steel columns in the center of the WTC buildings. What caused them to get out of the way, so that the collapse could be symmetrical?
I've seen enough lies come from the government to consider them every bit as credible as the your conspiracy theorists.
If anything a third party conspiracy theory is likely to be slightly credible than a conspiracy theory put out by the US Government. Unless that third party is also a habitual lier. Then the theory can be examined on it's own merits and how well it fits the facts.
More! Dammit! I'm almost there! C'mon you wimp! What the hell's the matter witcha?! I don't feel a thing! I want my money back! Jeeze! Tom Foley's more exciting.
The fact they also reference the Lancet studies to back up their claims of unreported atrocities clearly shows the authors bias.
Many of their underreported stories are underreported simply because they can't find a second source to back up the claims made. Even in the most politically biased news rooms they like to cover themselves with some verifiable facts.
Maddox is not a physicist, but when something reaches that critical mass that even Maddox has to call it stupid, then you know it must really be pretty fucking stupid.
With respect to jet fuel, I'll quote you directly from the NIST page [nist.gov]:
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
The tanker truck was carrying gasolene, which would have about the same flame temperature as jet fuel. Good point in bringing that up with respect to the WTC conspiracy theories.
The tanker truck was carrying gasolene, which would have about the same flame temperature as jet fuel. Good point in bringing that up with respect to the WTC conspiracy theories.
Yeah, I got a journal entry to that effect. Something to note though, jet fuel is much like diesel. It burns much hotter than gasoline. Also, fully loaded airliners carry much more than what you would find on a tanker truck.
I would think a tall building with a jet sized hole full of fuel would be very torch-like since the hole on the side would provide a constant supply of fresh air to keep a strong oxygen supply going to the fire
besides, if this administration can't leak an agent's name or fire some nosey attorneys without getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar, why should we believe they are capable of pulling off the second greatest fraud in human history.
I agree, have a look at what happens in an oil-rig fire, the steel rigs are reduced to a twisted pile metal. AFAIK the towers buckled because they did not have a "central column" (not because the "central column" had explosives strapped to it)....
Putting conspiracy crap like that on the same list as the world-wide collapse of fisheries says more about journalistic ignorance than it does about censorship.
That's all fine and good, but how exactly do you explain the molten pools of steel [wtc7.net] that were present for several weeks after the collapse of the towers? Oh... you can't explain those? I didn't think so.
I know I'm burning Karma on this one, but I'm truly tired of hearing know-it-alls completely dismiss anyone who doesn't tow the party line when it comes to the explanation of what happened to all the WTC buildings.
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but something just doesn't feel right when it comes to the explanati
"That's all fine and good, but how exactly do you explain the molten pools of steel"
You have that the wrong way around, the question(s) should be along the lines of:
1. Where is the (non-anecdotal) evidence that such "pools" existed?
2. How do we know the "pools" are made from steel and not some other common metal with a lower melt point, eg: tin or zinc?
3. Why do "molten pools" of metal imply "secret explosives" when a burning jumbo jet has been observed sticking out the side of the building?
4. B
Yeah, I've been through the NIST numbers a few times. Regardless of the reason the buildings fell: Poor work. They set their model inputs to give them their expected outputs. If I had done that in the Pentagon and published it, I hope they would have shot me.
1) Less than a gallon of jet fuel per *ton* of steel. The steel was interconnected and would dissipate heat rapidly. That's like throwing an oil lamp in the back of my truck and watching it come apart.
2) No evidence whatsoever that the fires were that hot for any length of time, especially near to the time of collapse. Their numbers assume steady oxygen flow, which a hole in the top of the building and thick, black smoke does not indicate. Nor does a fireman climbing past the level of the impact and radioing down that the fires were controllable (in one of the two towers). In their 'test', they provided oxygen to get it to the temperature they wanted. They spend no time whatsoever justifying their assumptions or showing how their model responds to different regimes. When the model generated what they wanted, that was 'proof'. The reason they did not is because their numbers don't work without those assumptions. Why would all three buildings be driven into the same failure mode? Why would differences in temperature, structural damage, contents, construction, etc., not cause different failures? Perhaps their model could be made to work, but they never *tried*. What process (or flaw, other than the foam, which was just a redundancy anyway) forced all three buildings into that failure mode and prevented them from failing in other ways? It's the difference between a diagnosis and a description.
3) Even if the temperature were that high at the top, how does a weakening at the *top* of the structure explain the complete disintegration of the rest of the structure? Their numbers and their model completely ignores most of the integrity and redundancy of the design, particularly in sections *undamaged* by fire or impact. It's like a model of dominoes, except that, in real life, the dominoes are glued together. There is no explanation whatsoever for the fall straight down, into the intact structure, instead of the damaged section falling to one side, where there was no resistance. In one building, without further explanation, that might be a fluke. In three buildings, that's worthy of serious questions. Anything is possible, but *why*? Again, what process, action, or flaw, forced the buildings into that failure mode and barred all others?
Even without being fodder for conspiracy theorists, the study is obviously shoddy and incomplete. Even without positing additional sabotage, the fact that the failure of every redundancy and every safety system of a building *designed to withstand aircraft strikes* was not better investigated is criminally negligent. Buildings are still being constructed essentially the same way worldwide. If the NIST report is right, then there needs to be a massive overhauling of building codes and material standards (exactly what many industry comments to the report stated) because a fundamental understanding of construction is flawed. The fact that only minor changes have resulted says to me that the government doesn't believe the results either.
As far as talk of demolition goes, it explains the collapse as well or better than NISTs simulation, if only because NIST did such a half-hearted job and because, at this point, there is no longer any physical evidence to examine. It's not just "conspiracy nuts" criticizing them, but also qualified professionals. The way the buildings fell is a legitimate question; some people go too far looking for answers and the people paid to do it did not look far enough.
The big problem is that the incident was not a single collapse, but a series of collapses with an identical progression and only two of them sharing an initial cause (yes, I am aware of the generators in Building 7). NIST approached it the same way doctors often approach a single, isolated death ("It was raining a
They should have thoroughly analysed the effects of different parameters, looked at the maximum conceivable damage, the minimal damage, and just how likely any of the possibilities were. It doesn't take any wild conspiracies to be able to point out that the investigation was shoddy, and putting the genuine questions in the same pot as crackpots who say it was Jews with nukes is is an insult to humanity.
Yes, and to emphasize LordVader's comment, there is no guarantee their model is the correct one. If there is a large range of probable input parameters which was does not show the observed output, then it is likely that the *chosen model* is not the correct one. Perhaps the theory can be improved to not be as sensitive to inputs. More work can be done to show that those inputs are correct (for all three cases). Other theories or models can be developed which better explain the phenomena. Choosing your param
I work with metallurgists in a place where metals are subjected to all kinds of testing. You don't need to melt it to make it fail. If you get it hot enough, the crystalline structure will change enough to lose it's strength. If you've got hundreds of tons on steel beams that have lost their structural integrity, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the result will be. I seek to remain an open-minded skeptic. So, I guess that it's possible that there was some 9-11 conspiracy, but no one has
IANAP, but I have some training and hands on experience with structural integrity under adverse conditions. First, metal doesn't have to melt to be weakened. Blacksmiths do not reduce iron to a liquid, they ruin the structural integrity with heat, then use pressure to deform it. Steel columns could easily buckle under the given stresses. Aluminum will melt at lower temperatures than iron or steel. Pooled and running metal was expected, but it was aluminum from the airplane. Also, if there was enough hea
IANAP, but I have some training and hands on experience with structural integrity under adverse conditions. First, metal doesn't have to melt to be weakened. Blacksmiths do not reduce iron to a liquid, they ruin the structural integrity with heat, then use pressure to deform it. Steel columns could easily buckle under the given stresses.
Actually, no, they couldn't. That's the problem.
I am a physicist, and have worked with people who have worked with Steve Jones, who describe him as "a very careful guy."
I have difficulty believing in conspiracy theories. I will always start with the assumption that things could be an accident, and then try to find how that could be. I realize that this is a scientific weakness of mine, but there it is. Bias exposed, here are more possibilities: 1) Some of the steel was substandard. 2) Given the ease of beating airport security, especially pre-9/11, some of the pieces of luggage were explosives or high-end incendiaries. 3) One of the more solid pieces of the airplane, proba
I have difficulty believing in conspiracy theories. [...] I have not taken a serious look at the WTC collapse. [...] We know the hijackers planned to die. We know that it would have been possible for a suitcase full of thermite or thermate to have gotten aboard, and that it's likely the hijackers would have taken these kinds of measures. And that would explain pretty much everything else.
1- You believe the theory that 19 guys conspired to take down 4 planes, and 25 new york buildings. 2- No shred of evidence exist for your theory of a conspiracy to smuggle explosives on planes on 9-11. 3- That doesn't explain everything [youtube.com].
1- This is not a conspiracy. This was an overt hostile action, albeit one that was launched by surprise. I do not claim conspiracy in the attacks on Pearl Harbor, despite the fact that many more men were involved in that. 2- I am willing to accept that the plane crashes in and of themselves may not have been sufficient to cause the damage observed. This is part of not knowing the numbers. I merely suggest a different delivery mechanism for the explosives that are rumored to have been planted within the t
My way doesn't involve treason being committed by people who would probably rather not suffer the consequences of being caught. Treason holds a death penalty, and our government has shown a desire to avoid getting killed. [...] the whole circumstance has become bogged down by the same sort of crap that cluttered the JFK assassination. No one will ever know for sure what happened.
You don't believe they did it because it would be bad if they got caught. And then you flat out say that there is no way in hell they'll get caught.
Face it, you don't want to believe. Not because of the facts, but because it is much more comfortable for you to think evil lies on the outside rather than on the inside.
P.S. Go read the definition of a conspiracy, you demonstrated that you lack understanding of that term. P.P.S. Overt? They didn't hide what they were doing until it was done? Like Pearl harbor, t
Torvaun, while many black belts don't cheat the way your friend does, let's address the point you made and that is the weakness is the speed of collapse of the two towers and Building 7. It was far too steady state and far too fast for it be anything other than an artificially-induced event. That is the crucial point in all arguments - really, the melting point is really almost arbitrary.
Also, the suggestion that Atta cranked down his window aboard that 757 he was in and tossed out his passport - to be
"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program."
-- Nigel de la Tierre
Not worth reading... (Score:5, Insightful)
God, I would like to file a bug report... [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Not worth reading... (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They were hired. By a guy named Osama. They were recruited, trained, paid, and directed by this man and his associates. When we invaded Afghanistan, we found records planning this very attack.
If you think this isn't what happened, kindly cough up at least ONE THING that supports your theory to the contrary.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Got a cigarette??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly no one, considering that there are claims that he is dead. Together with a lack of any evidence that is is alive.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's just wonderful that one can spin an entire story, without any substantiation, based solely on the well-known fact that the government is run by a bunch of shitheads. Let's follow this logic:
1. The government lies about everything.
2. Something happened.
3. Therefore, whatever the government says about that thing must be a lie.
Of course, the problem with using logical premises to make empirical determinations is that empirical reality doesn't lend itself to the generalizations of logic (
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Good thinking! "The government has a history of doing bad things, so whatever bad thing I suggest must be true, and anyone who objects must be brainwashed and ignorant."
Let me try one: I posit that the U.S. government will soon throw sniff out all the drug users and throw them into camps. This is based on the following:
1. At the government's encouragement, drug screening is now widespread in private industry and schools. [nbcsandiego.com]
2. The govern
Re: (Score:1)
The physics shows controlled demolition. (Score:2)
# No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns.
# WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It is there. It was .6 seconds, which was 10% of the time of
Never before or since, in the history of the world (Score:2)
If a tall building can fall to powder and small pieces, in a symmetrical pile, I would never go into one. However, such a thing has never happened before or since, in the history of the world.
I saw some photos of the extremely heavy steel columns in the center of the WTC buildings. What caused them to get out of the way, so that the collapse could be symmetrical?
Re: (Score:2)
If anything a third party conspiracy theory is likely to be slightly credible than a conspiracy theory put out by the US Government. Unless that third party is also a habitual lier. Then the theory can be examined on it's own merits and how well it fits the facts.
Re: (Score:1)
More! Dammit! I'm almost there! C'mon you wimp! What the hell's the matter witcha?! I don't feel a thing! I want my money back! Jeeze! Tom Foley's more exciting.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of their underreported stories are underreported simply because they can't find a second source to back up the claims made. Even in the most politically biased news rooms they like to cover themselves with some verifiable facts.
Re:Not worth reading... (Score:5, Informative)
With respect to jet fuel, I'll quote you directly from the NIST page [nist.gov]:
Oakland Bay Bridge fire (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I got a journal entry to that effect. Something to note though, jet fuel is much like diesel. It burns much hotter than gasoline. Also, fully loaded airliners carry much more than what you would find on a tanker truck.
Re: (Score:2)
besides, if this administration can't leak an agent's name or fire some nosey attorneys without getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar, why should we believe they are capable of pulling off the second greatest fraud in human history.
Re: (Score:2)
you mean after the moon landing? =)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not worth reading... (Score:4, Insightful)
Putting conspiracy crap like that on the same list as the world-wide collapse of fisheries says more about journalistic ignorance than it does about censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I'm burning Karma on this one, but I'm truly tired of hearing know-it-alls completely dismiss anyone who doesn't tow the party line when it comes to the explanation of what happened to all the WTC buildings.
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but something just doesn't feel right when it comes to the explanati
Re: (Score:2)
You have that the wrong way around, the question(s) should be along the lines of:
1. Where is the (non-anecdotal) evidence that such "pools" existed?
2. How do we know the "pools" are made from steel and not some other common metal with a lower melt point, eg: tin or zinc?
3. Why do "molten pools" of metal imply "secret explosives" when a burning jumbo jet has been observed sticking out the side of the building?
4. B
Re: Steel and Jet Fuel (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Less than a gallon of jet fuel per *ton* of steel. The steel was interconnected and would dissipate heat rapidly. That's like throwing an oil lamp in the back of my truck and watching it come apart.
2) No evidence whatsoever that the fires were that hot for any length of time, especially near to the time of collapse. Their numbers assume steady oxygen flow, which a hole in the top of the building and thick, black smoke does not indicate. Nor does a fireman climbing past the level of the impact and radioing down that the fires were controllable (in one of the two towers). In their 'test', they provided oxygen to get it to the temperature they wanted. They spend no time whatsoever justifying their assumptions or showing how their model responds to different regimes. When the model generated what they wanted, that was 'proof'. The reason they did not is because their numbers don't work without those assumptions. Why would all three buildings be driven into the same failure mode? Why would differences in temperature, structural damage, contents, construction, etc., not cause different failures? Perhaps their model could be made to work, but they never *tried*. What process (or flaw, other than the foam, which was just a redundancy anyway) forced all three buildings into that failure mode and prevented them from failing in other ways? It's the difference between a diagnosis and a description.
3) Even if the temperature were that high at the top, how does a weakening at the *top* of the structure explain the complete disintegration of the rest of the structure? Their numbers and their model completely ignores most of the integrity and redundancy of the design, particularly in sections *undamaged* by fire or impact. It's like a model of dominoes, except that, in real life, the dominoes are glued together. There is no explanation whatsoever for the fall straight down, into the intact structure, instead of the damaged section falling to one side, where there was no resistance. In one building, without further explanation, that might be a fluke. In three buildings, that's worthy of serious questions. Anything is possible, but *why*? Again, what process, action, or flaw, forced the buildings into that failure mode and barred all others?
Even without being fodder for conspiracy theorists, the study is obviously shoddy and incomplete. Even without positing additional sabotage, the fact that the failure of every redundancy and every safety system of a building *designed to withstand aircraft strikes* was not better investigated is criminally negligent. Buildings are still being constructed essentially the same way worldwide. If the NIST report is right, then there needs to be a massive overhauling of building codes and material standards (exactly what many industry comments to the report stated) because a fundamental understanding of construction is flawed. The fact that only minor changes have resulted says to me that the government doesn't believe the results either.
As far as talk of demolition goes, it explains the collapse as well or better than NISTs simulation, if only because NIST did such a half-hearted job and because, at this point, there is no longer any physical evidence to examine. It's not just "conspiracy nuts" criticizing them, but also qualified professionals. The way the buildings fell is a legitimate question; some people go too far looking for answers and the people paid to do it did not look far enough.
The big problem is that the incident was not a single collapse, but a series of collapses with an identical progression and only two of them sharing an initial cause (yes, I am aware of the generators in Building 7). NIST approached it the same way doctors often approach a single, isolated death ("It was raining a
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting they should have been picking parameters that did not produce the observed outcome?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
I seek to remain an open-minded skeptic. So, I guess that it's possible that there was some 9-11 conspiracy, but no one has
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Aluminum will melt at lower temperatures than iron or steel. Pooled and running metal was expected, but it was aluminum from the airplane. Also, if there was enough hea
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, no, they couldn't. That's the problem.
I am a physicist, and have worked with people who have worked with Steve Jones, who describe him as "a very careful guy."
The
Re: (Score:2)
1) Some of the steel was substandard.
2) Given the ease of beating airport security, especially pre-9/11, some of the pieces of luggage were explosives or high-end incendiaries.
3) One of the more solid pieces of the airplane, proba
Re: (Score:2)
I have difficulty believing in conspiracy theories.
[...]
I have not taken a serious look at the WTC collapse.
[...]
We know the hijackers planned to die. We know that it would have been possible for a suitcase full of thermite or thermate to have gotten aboard, and that it's likely the hijackers would have taken these kinds of measures. And that would explain pretty much everything else.
1- You believe the theory that 19 guys conspired to take down 4 planes, and 25 new york buildings.
2- No shred of evidence exist for your theory of a conspiracy to smuggle explosives on planes on 9-11.
3- That doesn't explain everything [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
2- I am willing to accept that the plane crashes in and of themselves may not have been sufficient to cause the damage observed. This is part of not knowing the numbers. I merely suggest a different delivery mechanism for the explosives that are rumored to have been planted within the t
Re: (Score:2)
My way doesn't involve treason being committed by people who would probably rather not suffer the consequences of being caught. Treason holds a death penalty, and our government has shown a desire to avoid getting killed.
[...]
the whole circumstance has become bogged down by the same sort of crap that cluttered the JFK assassination. No one will ever know for sure what happened.
You don't believe they did it because it would be bad if they got caught. And then you flat out say that there is no way in hell they'll get caught.
Face it, you don't want to believe.
Not because of the facts, but because it is much more comfortable for you to think evil lies on the outside rather than on the inside.
P.S. Go read the definition of a conspiracy, you demonstrated that you lack understanding of that term.
P.P.S. Overt? They didn't hide what they were doing until it was done? Like Pearl harbor, t
Re: (Score:1)
So you're saying weakening the structural supports of a building couldn't result in those supports collapsing?
Why would anyone give you the time of day after making an obviously ridiculous claim like that.
Re: (Score:1)
Also, the suggestion that Atta cranked down his window aboard that 757 he was in and tossed out his passport - to be