That's rediculous!!  (but funny).  I suppose you also think electronic voting machines (and purely electronic votes for that matter) will never be a valuable tool in the voting process.

Haliburton & Diebold in 2008

Out of curiosity, avatar, have you ever READ any of those alternate 9/11 theories? While I admit that many conspiracy theores can be QUITE off-the-wall, these have some a far GREATER sense of plausibility than you'd expect. I read them, and was extremely intrugued. My younger brother, who admits to great skepticism, read them...and told me later that he had trouble sleeping that night.

I encourage you to check them out for yourself. Before you scream "It's just a waste of time!", think about how many others have said that...and STILL were shaken up by what's said.

Here you go:
http://911review.com/
http://www.letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/

As a suppliment to Square Tex's post, I'd like to make some aware of these:

Loose Change (2nd Edition)
Very well put together...  I learned about this documentary on Facebook's "9/11 Truth Movement" group.

Alex Jones
Martial Law -Part 1-
Martial Law -Part 2-
Martial Law -Part 3-

This makes Fahrenheit 9/11 look like the fuckin' Care Bears.

Kenology: You seem to me like you're of the blame America first crowd. Do you paint America to be a bad guy when it takes a stance on something? Something(s) the U.N. will not do like holding some people accountable? The U.N., an organization which does very little to uphold justice in the world. The U.N., which failed to do something about a Saddam who would not cooperate with inspectors, violating countless mandates.

The same Europeans that did not want us to invade Iraq was because they had deals with Saddam. Look into the "Oil for Food Scandal" to find out about more about the inept U.N. (apart from them not doing anything about the current Darfur genocides, which they claimed was not genocide). Let's also factor in that most European (and Canadian, see: CBC) media is government-controlled - most of it is anti-U.S. sentiment which doesn't help our image to most regular, moderate people. Before you claim how bad America is, realize that we have given countless blood and treasure to better others around the world. We are not perfect, we make mistakes, but our intentions are noble.

Yuvraj: Yes, you're correct and I will concede your point that Christianity, as all religions, has extremists/fundamentalists as well as reasonable people who just want to live their lives. I understand what has happened in the past with the dogmatic Catholic church for centuries and that Protestantism was designed in the image of Catholics denegrating the teachings of Jesus. However, I disagree that Christianity is something we need to worry about today.

Today, it's in fact Muslim fundamentalism that is in scope. Here we have a religion that, even in it's moderate believers, doesn't do a whole lot of condemnation in the community of those extremists who bomb themselves and sight Islamic beliefs religion to be very rigid and intolerant. Please let me hammer the fact that the violence in the world is being sanctioned by Muslim extremists - this includes various terrorist bombings in Europe, and the genocide which has been going on against Christians in Africa.

I do not subscribe that Muslims are evil people and that all believers follow their book literally and are tought to cast death upon all non-believers. I really want to be proven otherwise, by those moderates, in greater number by having the sane people of the religion speak against the crazies who saw off heads on camera and suicide bomb.

The media, worldwide, also isn't inclined to condemn Muslims (just one example is the New York Times) because of the clear fact that the dominant Christian community, harmless, turn the other cheek while Muslims tend to take more extreme measures of hate and intolerance. If you don't believe me, just look at the reaction in regard to that silly political cartoon about Allah with the bomb in his turban.

And yes, I will say it. America is the best country. Why? Because we are a fusion of nations that brings out the best in all people of all nations, working together. We are all free to believe what we want, and pursue what we want. I have not travelled abroad, but rarely do I ever hear testimonies of those not proud to come back to the country after being away for a while. This is not to say I am ethnocentric, I greatly respect the contributions of other nations (I listen to game music in excess for one).

Would you like Saddam Hussein or Amadenijad to be in our place? How about Hitler if we never stopped him? I think the mere fact that America's flawed, yes, but successful system exists really bothers the mostly Socialist Europe. Do you question why so many immigrants come here (which includes the influx of illegals)? Clearly, America offers more than any other country in the world and I am thankful everyday for being lucky enough to be born in this country and express my thought freely.

First, let me point out that I make a distinction between the American people and the American government.  I don't blame the American people for anything.  Most of the people are opposed to what's going on and have been for most of the country's short history (although you wouldn't know this thanks to the media blackout).  However, the American government is to blame for many, many things.  Hell, the government went to war without the consent of the majority of the U.S. population.  Obviously popular opinion doesn't matter to it.

Also, under the Freedom Information Act, a lot of documents have been declassified that I guarantee will blow your mind, man.  You should check them out.  Or even go to the Library of Congress in DC and read all this shit for yourself.  It's all there.

Gimme an example, please.

Personally, I think the U.N. is a joke.  I've said this earlier.

Man, whatever!  Examples please...

Noble intentions?

Have you read the Bush Administrations' Strategic Defense Plan?  I'll summarize some of it for you:

1).  It openly states that the US is the most powerful country in the world and that it won't let another country become as powerful.

2). Any nation opposed to U.S. hegemony, in any region of the world begins to acquire nuclear weapons, the U.S. will use preemptive strikes to wipe them out.

3).  The U.S. will attack unilaterally, by itself, if necessary.

You need to read the Patriot Act.  It's kinda long, but still... see how "free" you are now that it Mario butt-stomps so many of your constitutional rights.

Wow, I'm going to react like Kenology here: Oooh phuuuleaaase.  You mean, took millions of liters of blood. *refers to civilian casualties in Irak reaching numbers of half a million*.

Christian community turns it's cheek, hahah, don't make me laugh. You are confused with Gandhi here. Oh and that example of the denish cartoon is a bit dated dude. Obviously it was absurd, but you should at the same time ask questions why they reacted like that. They feel cornered, and the one thing that keeps them going is their fate. If someone makes fun of that, well they feel threatened. And it shows how powerless they feel. I'm suprised that even now, months later your thoughts on this are so simple.

Dude, we are talking your govornment here. You are free to think whatever you want, though Im not sure what and who you mean with 'the best in all people of all nations'. 

Oh and this:

You didn't travel abroad did you...it's all clear then.

If I were in charge, I'd gather up the world leaders and put them in a large room and lock the door. They would be allowed food when they start behaving. In my opinion, little school children are calling the shots, for some reason.

I took a look at the websites you provided, and I am now, more than ever convinced that these theories are a load of crap!  Just to give you an example, one youtube video provided was supposed to show the government coverup by showing an explosion.  In the (poor quality) video you saw some people talking, the camera moving, and then in the background a sudden increase in brightness.  This is supposed to be proof?!  And the thing was, the people (supposedly Australian cameramen) continued talking despite the supposed explosion!  I don't know about you, but if there was an explosion anywhere near me, I sure as hell would look to see what was happening! 

Another part of those websites showed images "confirming" that one plane that hit the tower was not the plane the media claimed it was!  They showed images which they claimed are indisputable, but how can it be indisputable if you can barely see the blurred image??  The resolution of the image is so poor that there is no way it's convincing, and expanding a poor quality image only makes the "zoomed in" part worse...but apparently if you take an image, zoom it, put some arrows here and there, that is supposedly truly convincing!!

Then of course there are all the self contradictions in these websites, which seem to be as numerous as the stars!  In fact, there are conspiracy websites which bash other conspiracy websites...  I guess even conspiracy artists have to battle for attention!

If you try hard enough, you can make a case for anything, no matter how stupid and imbecile. 

From Wikipedia:
Alternative theories are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation (Barkun, 2003). A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, has suggested they "use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[145] Eagar's criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. "I've told people that if (the argument) gets too mainstream, I'll engage in the debate." This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue. The basic assumption is that conspiracy theories emerge a set of previously held or quickly assembled beliefs about how society works, which are then legitimized by further "research". Taking such beliefs seriously, even if only to criticize them, it is argued, merely grants them further legitimacy.

The German magazine Der Spiegel summarily dismissed all skeptical accounts of the 9/11 attacks as a "panoply of the absurd", stating "as diverse as these theories and their adherents may be, they share a basic thought pattern: great tragedies must have great reasons."[146]

Scientific American,[147] Popular Mechanics,[148] and The Skeptic's Dictionary[149] published articles that challenge and discredit various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists have jumped on the fact that the Popular Mechanics article was contributed to by "senior researcher" Ben Chertoff, which conspiracy theorists claim is cousin of Michael Chertoff -- the current head of Homeland Security. No evidence for the connection has been revealed and Ben Chertoff has publicly denied the allegation.[150][151]. Popular Mechanics has published a book length version of their article[29]. Michael Shermer writing in Scientific American described 9/11 conspiracy theory scholarly rigor as "the mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics)." [30]

-avatar!

Avatar!... you do know that people who use information from wikipedia lose all credibility, right!?

Also, you should actually read those articles.  They don't discredit anything.  Just a bunch of reporters on corporate payroll writing a bunch of fluff with no scientific evidence that refutes the so-called "conspiracy theories".

You do know anyone can write anything in wikipedia, right!?    You could write an article now if you wanted to.

Mostly been staying out of this one, but I have to admit this made me, as the internet kiddies say these days, LMAO.  Whew.  That was a good one.

I completely missed that paragraph!

Wikipedia is an excellent source for many things.  Although I would never use it for serious indepth research, for basic knowledge it is just as good as anything you will find, so long as your can check the references.  Of course it is not perfect, some of the information posted is inaccurate, but that's true for everything.  A research done by Nature, a British science journal which is considered the foremost science journal in the world, found that Wikipedia which allows anyone free access, is just as good as Enclyclopedia Britannica in terms of the accuracy! 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 8900a.html

Of course it won't surprise me one bit if you say Nature is just a dumb journal written by people who don't know anything... as far as I can tell you believe there's only one person who knows something, and that would be you.  I'm happy to report that's not true!

-avatar!

You are absolutely right on this, avatar. There are contradictions left, right and centre. And it's encouraging to see you examine that video rather than just taking it to be what they are trying to tell you it is. This 'evidence' should be examined. Part of the problem with conspiracy theories is that so often they cloud the truth rather than reveal it.

I hope you put the official story under the same scrutiny. If you did, I can only imagine how the contradictions in that stood out to you. It's a pretty crazy-ass conspiracy theory. Only clouding the truth.

You are so right.

You just love to anticipate what you feel I might think about something!  Stop trying to be the thought police or Professor X and stick to what I actually say!

And take Jay's advice, research the official story too, don't just settle for it and dismiss another view just because your leadership tells you to.

Either way, science is science.  And the fact that you would just point at a blurry photo of an airplane to refute the other side of the argument is telling.  There is much more indisputable evidence that you didn't talk about.  Can you find another reason to disagree with the "conspiracy nuts", or was the blurry plane photo enough to dismiss them?  You seem to be focusing on disproving the fact that there was government involvement instead of, as usual, objectively looking at this and then making a true rationalization without your emotions getting involved.

Scholars for 9/11 TRUTH

If this 9/11 evidence is supposedly truth withheld from the American people, why hasn't ONE media source, in America or abroad, taken it and thrown it on the front page? There are PLENTY of papers, magazines, and television programs that would *love* to see America and or Bush fall down into fiery mass.

Oh yeah and that website's credibility doesn't help when it's in association with "Citizens for Legitiment Government", an obvious agenda-led far-leftist, anti-Bush bastion. Any clear-minded person who doesn't believe the "Bush lied", "US is there for oil" foolish 2 cent arguments, you guys will probably demonize. Before you do, believe my words or not, I'm not a Republican nor am I simpatico with the President, just an independent trying to sift through the crap on both sides.

I'm done wasting my time trying to argue anything you guys about anything. If my message isn't arrogantly written off with laughter and cynicality, then it's just ignored. You're nuts. There's a place for you out of rational thought. Maybe I'll apoligize when any of these nutty 9/11 theories take some traction.

Good day.

And here's the pot/kettle moment -

Couldn't possibly be more "arrogantly written off with laughter and cynicality" than that, eh?

Plenty of media sources blew the whistle, but none of the major news sources will do it -- because they can't.  A lot of people are under the impression that the media isn't controlled.  You do know that the same people who sit on the board of directors of CBS, NBC, & ABC also sit on the board of major arms dealers.  It's in their best interest to have wars.  They make money off of them.  Media blackouts are very real.  I'll give you more detailed info on this later...

That's cool.  But I think everyone should be suspicious of the U.S.' war-machine.  This government hates democracy and it overthrows democratically elected governments all the time.  Their main targets are always liberation and nationalists movements from repressive regimes.  They sell their wars to the American people as a "War on Terror", but that's not what it is at all.  I'll even give you an example, go to google or even the CIA's own website and search for 'Operation: AJAX'.  Those documents have been declassified recently too.  It details the CIA's involvement in overthrowing a democratically elected government after its oil fields were nationalized - which is a huge NO-NO.  I won't say anything about it, I'll let you look it up yourself.

I think if you look at the 9/11 evidence, you'll see.  Have you watched any of the documentaries I put up?  You can research all of this stuff yourself too.  I did, and I'm convinced that the true conspiracy nuts are the people who think terrorists hijacked airplanes.  But three red flags went up for me initially:

1).  Anyone who took a chemistry/physics class knows what temperature steel begins to melt.  Aircraft fuel doesn't burn at those temperatures.  RED FLAG

2).  Where the hell was NORAD when the planes went off course?  If any commercial or private jet goes of course even by a few degrees, F-16s are deployed.  EVEN BIGGER RED FLAG

3).  The Boeing 757 crashes into the Pentagon...?  Where is the all the debree?  Where are the skid marks?  Why is the hole so small?  Even the officially released photos that the FBI put out on two occasions show no plane.  So, what?  It had its cloaking device enabled? 

There are even more red flags.  The only people who don't see this stuff are the people who just DON'T want to.

Look at all of this and see for yourself!  I challenge you to do this!!

Too easy... it's just TOO easy!!  Allow me to destroy the pitiful, baseless argument provided above! 

1: The melting point of steel is indeed about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, however who said the steel in the WTC melted??  EVERYONE, regardless of whether they have had physics or chemistry, knows that when you heat metal it becomes more malleable.  When bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius (the temperature of jet fuel), it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.  This lead to the collapse of the towers.  Don't believe me?  Ask any structural engineer and they will say the same thing!!  Unless of course all US engineers are part of this dreamed-up worldwide consipracy...

2:Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense). Exercise planners also assumed that the aircraft would originate from outside the United States, allowing time to identify the target and scramble interceptors. The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States-and using them as guided missiles-was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11.  In fact, contrary to popular opinion, the 9-11 commission found out that NORAD didn't know what was happening on that horrible day!!  NORAD actually tried to claim that once they were alerted, they could have shot down United 93 had it come too close to the White House.  However, here is what the commission officialy said:

"NORAD did not have 47 minutes to intercept the flight; NORAD did not even know the plane was hijacked until after it had crashed.
It is appropriate, therefore, to reconsider whether United 93 would have been intercepted.

Had it not crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03, we estimate that United 93 could not have reached Washington any earlier than 10:13, and probably would have arrived before 10:23.There was only one set of fighters circling Washington during that time frame-the Langley F-16s.They were armed and under NORAD's control. After NEADS learned of the hijacking at 10:07, NORAD would have had from 6 to 16 minutes to locate the flight, receive authorization to shoot it down, and communicate the order to the pilots, who (in the same span) would have had to authenticate the order, intercept the flight, and execute the order.

At that point in time, the Langley pilots did not know the threat they were facing, did not know where United 93 was located, and did not have shoot-down authorization."

Therefore, I do agree that the country, and NORAD, were NOT prepared for 9-11.  Today if a large plane (recall that a few days ago a small plane crashed into a NY high rise, and clearly it was NOT intercepted by any fighter planes!  see:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15229778/
)

veers off course, the airforce would intercept it, however that was not something that would have happened before 9-11.

3:The notion that the Pentagon was not  damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud. Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that "the American government is lying." As Le Nouvel Observateur noted: "This theory suits everyone [who can't see the obvious]- there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality."  Apparently that also suits a number of people on this message board too!

Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project.  Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring.  Pieces of the aircraft were found all around the lawn.  For some pictures and an excellent analysis which shows how absurd the argument by Kenology really is, please see:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/co … 0265.shtml

Jeff Scott, an aerospace engineer specializing in aerodynamic analysis and conceptual design of aircraft, guided weapons, and unmanned aerial vehicles said the following: "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!"

Well, I am done destroying your argument, which was EASILY demolished!!  Of course, you (Kenology) are quite hopeless, and I am certain you will continue clinging on to your beliefs despite all the evidence to the contrary (much like people believed the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around us)!  However, for those who may have actually pondered "does he have a valid point?", I offer you overwhelming evidence pointing to the contrary.  Often, the true answer is also the most simple.

-avatar!

edit: fixed typo

Wow did you pull that line straight out of a comic book or something?  Last I checked this was a discussion forum, not an "allow me to destroy your argument" one.

You guys are welcome to go on about this topic as long as you like (I've actually found some fairly interesting information within) but don't let the fact that somebody has different reasoning on the matter than you start making it personal.

Thanks.  And that's exactly why I won't even read his post.

IMO the biggest hole in the hole 9/11 scheme is something most people don't seem to know about and probably don't even care about, WTC7. It wasn't hit by a plane. It was a sturdy concrete building. All that happened to it was sporadic fires (and why fires could break out inside an unaffected building randomly, and why a modern sprinkler system would not work at all, who knows...). But it collapsed in what is the spitting image of controlled demolition, just like the main towers. It didn't just fall down, it was *pulverized*, just like the main buildings. Sorry, a fire or two here and there can't pulverize concrete, no matter what mental universe you live in. The animated gif of its collapse floating around the internet is picture-perfect -- how can you look at that and not see that it was demolished with careful precision?

To me the collapse of WTC7 is not explainable through any other means, you just can't do it. And once you accept WTC7, it's not a large leap to accept the other towers because their collapse is very similar. I'm still iffy on the Pentagon issue, but regardless, it certainly wasn't hit by "terrorists."

Politics (and other discussions such as religion), are by definition personal!  Furthermore, I think it's pretty clear that this discussion got personal a LONG time ago.  Nevertheless, I did NOT attack Kenology personally, I attacked his argument, which I do indeed think is silly and does NOT hold up to any scrutiny and I feel I am well within my right to attack his argument, just as he is in his right to attack mine (which he has numerous times)! 

Kenology: I am very dissapointed that you did not read my response, and I do mean that!  Although I am quite certain you would have just shrugged it off and said "conspiracy", I nevertheless would like to see how you handle the facts I presented to you, which clearly refute what you earlier posted!

-avatar!

edit: fixed typo

Oh you should at least have the courtesy to read it. I could go either way on these conspiracy theories but Avatar demonstrates something quite interesting in the way he has put forward his argument.

Building 7 was one of quite a few big red flags.  The owner of the WTC complex (who "coincidentally" took out an insurance policy on the towers a few months earlier that specific covered terrorist attacks) said on PBS that he made the decision to pull the building.  Which they did in just a few hours.  Usually planned demolitions take weeks to plan and prepare.  You notice the mainstream media never wants to talk about building 7?  A fire isn't gonna bring that building down, it had to have already been laced with explosives.  Towers 1 and 2 were easily brought down in a planned demolition too.  I don't see how anyone can not see this. 

Well, until avatar! changes his demeaning tone (both Yuvraj and Adam have said something about this), starts thinking for himself instead of just quoting something he read on some website, stops trying to anticipate what I'm going to say about something, and stops being so emotional, and learn how to cope with people who have a different "opinions" (putting that very loosely), I'm not gonna read his posts.
Besides, back on page 1 - post #22 I told him I was done with him (although I did engage him once or twice since then).  Circular arguements aren't gonna get anyone anywhere.  Some people just have to find things out for themselves.  Even though, XISMZERO got a little too fiesty in his last post, I think he carried his arguement in a much more respectable fashion.  So I'll read his posts, even though he and I don't see eye to eye.

There are no "rights" on a message board, only privileges within certain ground rules. In this case, Adam has determined that everyone is getting too overwrought on this topic, and needs to tone it down. If you can't do that, then you need to back away from the topic before that privilege disappears altogether!

People arguing about politics is like people f---ing about scuba diving.

Personally, I just don't get it.

This is right on time...

Someone just sent me this, it's called "Terror Storm".  I just finished "watching" it (I'm at work, so it's more like 'listening' to it).  In the very beginning it focuses on goverment sponsored terrorism and Mossadeq is brought up (I spoke of him earlier).  Towards the end, there's extensive discussion about WTC 7, which bluefish spoke of above.  I have to do some fact checking before I can fully endorse this, but Alex Jones usually does very good and meticulous research.  All of the declassified documents he mentioned should be easily accessible.

Best quote from the documentary (and of the year!): "I think we should give up our liberties for freedom." - some British woman

I also like the fact that Jones gives people who disagree with him a chance to voice their opinions, which I think is very important and respectable.  However, I will say, that willful ignorance is one thing, but some people are just plain dumb.  Check out the one guy at 1h & 15mins in - friggin' hilarious!

I'm not going to get bogged down in this, but I did want to add my opinion in this sea of political discourse. I agree with one notion someone  brought up earlier - If any of these 9/11 conspiracy theories actually held any water at all, the mainstream media, either domestic or abroad, *would* pick it up and run as far as they possibly could with it. (I'm thinking more along the lines of Sky News or the BBC.) The main reasoning behind this being that there are so many people out there in positions of power that absolutely despise President Bush, I don't see why they wouldn't jump at the chance to bring him down, especially now that he currently has the lowest approval rating he's ever had here in the U.S. Given all the different ways of disseminating information these days, I find it hard to believe that someone more credible than those who have been cited already hasn't brought any of this conspiracy junk to fruition.

My personal view of these conspiracy theorists is that they rank right up there with Holocaust deniers and those who disbelieve the moon landing. Perhaps it's a deeprooted mistrust in the federal government (and who could really blame them?). But as I said, someone somewhere would have proven something by now. The truth finds a way of getting out. Just ask Nixon and Clinton.

And just remember, the simplest of explanations tends to be the correct one. What is more likely? A vast government conspiracy to attack ourselves, thus gaining the credibility we needed to attack Afghanistan or Iraq? Or that Islamic crazies really did hijack some planes and fly them right into some of our buildings, catching us totally off guard? Given the history of our lack of preparedness in these matters, I choose the latter.

Poll after poll shows that most people in the U.S. and the Western world believe that the official 9/11 story is complete and utter BS. 

The people who still believe the 'terrorist flew planes into a building' story they've been force-fed, are, consequently, in the minority.

Another documentary: "9/11 - In Plane Site" - focuses primarily on the Pentagon, and "conspiracy theory" criticisms.

@ Bamatone - the media is controlled.  They don't want anyone touching this.  Naom Chomsky talked about this a lot recently.  Only independent sources have the courage to and *do* report on all of this.  Just listen to the media's reporting on the day of 9/11 and then just after - it's *very* telling.  They talked a lot about hearing bombs go off *inside* of the buildings (including NYC Firefighters) and how the three towers collapsing looked exactly like controlled demolitions.  They said it on 9/11 during the event, but never again.  Why?  Because they can't!  You guys really need to research the conglomerates that own and control the media and what they stand to gain - it'll all make sense then.

You (who believe in conspiracy theories) are the minority. 

The Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 69_pf.html

notes:

"Thomas Eager, a professor of materials science at MIT, has studied the collapse of the twin towers. "At first, I thought it was amazing that the buildings would come down in their own footprints," Eager says. "Then I realized that it wasn't that amazing -- it's the only way a building that weighs a million tons and is 95 percent air can come down."

Chip Berlet, senior analyst at Political Research Associates, a Boston-based left-leaning think tank, is no fan of the 9/11 Commission. He believes a serious investigation should have led to indictments and the firing of incompetent generals and civilian officials.

But he has no patience with the conspiracy theorists.

"They don't do their homework; it's a kind of charlatanism," Berlet says over the phone. "They say there's no debris on the lawn in front of the Pentagon, but they base their analysis on a photo on the Internet . That's like analyzing an impressionist painting by looking at a postcard."

Now comes a loud sigh.

"I love 'The X-Files' but I don't base my research on it," he says. "My vision of hell is having to review these [conspiracy] books over and over again."

Let's move on to Eager of MIT. "Demolition experts say, 'Ohhh, it's all science and timing.' Bull!" Eager says. "What's the technique? If 200,000 tons gives way, where do you think it's going? Straight down.""

Here's something I like (from the same article), they note:

"The truth movement doesn't really care for Eager. A Web site casts a fisheye of suspicion at the professor and his colleagues. "Did the MIT have prior knowledge?""

basically, the conspiracy theorists say if you don't believe them, then you are either very ignorant or you are in on the conspiracy!

Again, from the Post article: "There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds [a conspiracy artist] insists. "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is."

But what about all those New Yorkers who saw airplanes hitting the twin towers? A chuckle rumbles down the phone line. "I don't believe anyone in Lower Manhattan," he says. "You hire three dozen Actors' Equity dudes and they'll say anything .""

Riiiight!  Everyone who saw the planes crash in Lower Manhattan were actors...  and the amazing thing is that a)some people actually believe this  and b)conspiracy artists really fail to understanding why the majority of Americans think they're nuts!  Complete suspension of logic and reasoning.

Furthermore, another poll taken a few years after 9-11 (see:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … iraq_x.htm

Shows that 70% of Americans believe Saddam had a direct hand in 9-11.  Personally, I'm very skeptical.  Although Saddam hated the US, I believe he knew such an attack was not in his best interest.  Currently, there has been no conclusive evidence linking him and 9-11. 
THE POINT: you can't necessarily trust polls.  Even if I were to see a poll that said 95% of Americans believe in a government conspiracy with 9-11, I would want to see some genuine evidence, and thus far there has not been one shred of consipracy-evidence which can not be contradicted with simple facts.

-avatar!

I do agree that the collapse of WTC7 is something that was unexpected, and there is not a complete answer *yet*.  However, just because we don't have complete understanding of the mechanism that caused the collapse, does not mean you should jump the gun and yell "conspiracy!"  Many experts (engineers and scientists) have noted that the collpase of a the Towers was due to the fires that burned.  They think a similar situation occured in WTC7.  It would be very easy to say "oh, we don't know exactly what did it, it looked like a demolition to me, I guess it must have been a demolition".  However, demolishing such a building is incredibly difficult.  I don't see why if so many structural engineers and scientists are confident that such a building was destroyed due to initial structural damage and then subsequent fires, why would you (and I assume you are not a structural engineer, do you have a background in science?) would think you know better??

-avatar!

There are grey areas in between fully accepting official stories and promoting conspiracy theories. You say we don't have a complete answer yet and that's just not true. Officially we have a complete answer - it caught fire and burned down. That you yourself don't seem to have fully accepted that should tell you that something stinks about that answer.

As for who are you to think differently? Thinking is all it is. There's a lot of citing interpretation as fact here. Interpretation is not fact. Which is exactly why these sources all have to be taken for what they are and you have to examine yourself not just what sits right and helps you sleep at night but what doesn't sit right and why there are so many contradictions.

Edit: Oh, and citing a poll that says people believe Saddam was linked to 911 doesn't help your cause because the reason people believe that is because that's what they were told by Bush and his cronies. He still can't have Iraq mentioned without bringing 911 in there somewhere. You want a conspiracy? There it is.

You misunderstand me.  When I said we don't have the complete answer, I mean in terms of exactly what caused the WTC7 to collapse.  Was it just the fire, or a combination of fire and structural damage, or was there some flaw in the building design?  I do not believe even for an instant that it was demolition which destroyed WTC7.  I am certain it was due to the the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers, but nevertheless it was quite unexpected for WTC7 to collapse, and perhaps it was shoddy design, or perhaps the fire itself was enough.  It's certainly worth looking into.

-avatar!

Wow.  Just... wow.

Another example of people only seeing what they want to... and disregarding any information that's contrary to what they want to believe...

First off, modern steel structured buildings don't collapse due to fire.  As evidenced by the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain - which burned for 48 hours and didn't collapse.  But the WTCs did?  Bullshit!  Here are other examples of modern steel skeleton buildings burning but not collapsing.  Even the architects who designed the Towers said that fire couldn't have brung them down.

People, Larry Silverstein, the OWNER of the World Trade Center Complex, said on national television, on a PBS program called "America Rebuilding", that WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition.  It was "pulled", he said.  HE ADMITTED IT!

You can tell who isn't watching the documentaries I'm putting up...

This contains a snippet of the interview on PBS whereSilverstein admitted that the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition.  3 minutes and 20 seconds in, he says it himself.

If anyone who sees that interview and then says that WTC 7 wasn't destroyed via controlled demolition now, he or she is most certainly out of touch with reality.

EDIT:  This is even better...  I found a :23 clip on Google video in which he admits that WTC 7 was "pulled".

Very true, you've been doing that since you started this post!

BTW, I didn't know you were an engineer!  Just because MANY real engineers, such Thomas Eager at MIT say fire weakens steel beams, and this lead to the collapse of the WTC, well clearly we should believe you...
I mean seriously, who needs real scientific evidence when you can just say that everything is "Bullshit!" 

Also, since when is "pulled" equivalent to demolishing a building??  If you order pulled pork, does that mean you want your pig to explode? Oh, as for Larry Silverstein, his spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said in September 2005 that by "pull it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building, and confirming that they should evacuate the premises.   Don't believe me?  Contact her:

7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street, 38th Fl.
New York, NY 10007
T 212 490 0666 F 212-302-6847
E-mail DMcQuillan@silvprop.com

but I'd be careful, because she contradicts your story, she's probably part of the conspiracy...

-avatar!