Seems like a few of you have watched Loose Changes one too many times. I remember the special on the History Channel I believe that brought up basically every "scientific" claim made by these guys and had the people of Popular Mechanics basically destroy every single one of these conspiracy claims with logic and science.

I admit there are a few Non Scientific questions that can peak some interest of either pure coincidence or something shady going on for example the Insurance Policy weeks before and the BBC Report In London where the Reporter reported the collapse of the tower like 20 minutes before it happened and when he mentions it, the station all the sudden has transmission problems. Kind of amusing.

With that said, Do I believe the Gov't planned/caused 9/11-No
Do I believe they knew more than they have told us-Possibly

Yes, there is a very simple explanation:

1) Govt pulling this off is an circular argument based on a fallacious premise.
2) Models need to be refined over dozens, even hundreds, of experiments and STILL only describe what is EXPECTED to happen. Reality often disproves parts or all of the model and refinements are made.
3) Unique events that have never happened often leave questions with unsatisfactory answers. That's the reality and simple explanation. Saying your questions have not been satisfactorily answered doesn't disprove theories put forward much less prove any alternative hypotheses.

The most "powerful" argument in the conspiracy theorist toolbox is the carte blanche rejection of any valid counter points as part of the cover-up.

Another one I forgot about was the whole Pentagon plane thing. How come they wouldn't release the footage of the plane hitting it? I'm not really saying I do or don't think the gov. caused it but think there's a lot of fishy things going on. It was amazing how U.S. as a whole really didn't want another war them boom 9/11 and here we go everyone ready for war. I will admit I was to jump on the bandwagon then the more I learned and read and researched I had many questions about it.

Why do they have to release a picture of the plane hitting the pentagon? maybe for the sake of the families of those killed there they didnt release them right away.

Glory Days wrote: Why do they have to release a picture of the plane hitting the pentagon? maybe for the sake of the families of those killed there they didnt release them right away.

What about the thousands of people and families that they showed on live T.V. dying did they ever stop the news or take any of the videos from that? How many times did you see those jets fly into the Trade Centers?

JTizzle wrote: Well well should I even state my opinion on this matter or a few questions. Since I might be an idiot because I don't believe everything I hear! "Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear"

O.k here it goes I will spill somethings on my mind

How do you explain the building falling exactly like a controlled demolition?
How do you explain witness reports that bomb dogs were not allowed in the building days prior to collapse?
What about the missing gold?
What about the insurance policy

And the big one I bet you all really believe that the people on that United plane overtook the terrorist and crashed the plane.

Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong

But it would take a MASSIVE amount of people to pull something like this off, do you realize that? Its not like the Kennedy assassination theory, which could be pulled off by a few people, hundreds, or thousands would know about this, and you don't think that one person would slip up with evidence? All I've heard is baseless claims by Bush bashers.

Watch the name calling - LJ

JTizzle wrote:

Glory Days wrote: Why do they have to release a picture of the plane hitting the pentagon? maybe for the sake of the families of those killed there they didnt release them right away.

What about the thousands of people and families that they showed on live T.V. dying did they ever stop the news or take any of the videos from that? How many times did you see those jets fly into the Trade Centers?

that wasnt the government showing the live news. blame the media for that one.

http://www.lamebook.com/slack-attack

LMAO. The first one is super relevant to this and might bring a chuckle.

Upper90 wrote: http://www.lamebook.com/slack-attack

LMAO. The first one is super relevant to this and might bring a chuckle.

"It's chillin in the fridge"
"911 was an inside job!"

JTizzle wrote: Well well should I even state my opinion on this matter or a few questions. Since I might be an idiot because I don't believe everything I hear! "Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear"

O.k here it goes I will spill somethings on my mind

How do you explain the building falling exactly like a controlled demolition?
How do you explain witness reports that bomb dogs were not allowed in the building days prior to collapse?
What about the missing gold?
What about the insurance policy

And the big one I bet you all really believe that the people on that United plane overtook the terrorist and crashed the plane.

Skycrapers are designed to fall that way so they don't take out other buildings in the process. Obviously a controlled demolition would be even "better" or building 7 wouldn't have got hit with debris and structurally damage it. It didn't fall exactly like a controlled demo, a controlled demo is much more "clean" and straight down, but modern city skycrapers are designed to fall straight down even if its not controlled. Its done that way on purpose, talk to any civil engineer who has done this type of engineering work.

I'm not an insurance person or don't know much about "missing gold" so I'll leave those alone, I'll just deal with any scientific questions you have with regards to the fall, the fire, etc.

The building looked like they fell pretty straight down to me I'm not an expert but that is what I saw. I am just wondering I'm not an engineer and how do you build a building to fall straight down? Does it have something do to with the way they connect all of the steal framing?

JTizzle wrote: The building looked like they fell pretty straight down to me I'm not an expert but that is what I saw. I am just wondering I'm not an engineer and how do you build a building to fall straight down? Does it have something do to with the way they connect all of the steal framing?

I am not an expert in building design, only had the 1 required class in civil engineering, but I do believe I read somewhere they make "outer" weight supporting columns stronger than "inner" weight supporting columns so the "inner" ones fail first. Similar to how in a controlled demolition they blow up the "inner" columns a fraction of a second before the outer ones so the "inner" ones fall first and the building falls in on itself.

Also, a controlled demo does NOT fall straight down like the towers did, a controled demo falls in on itself. The inside goes down slightly sooner than the outside causing the outside to fall in on the rest of the building. Think of it as two walls that fall towards each other, thats a controlled demo, the towers fell straight down.

Thanks jmog I see what you are saying does make some sense.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: I'm a magna cum laude civil engineering graduate from a top 20 university, with a 99th percentile LSAT (and MBE to the extent the info is available) and a law degree from one of the "top schools", that watched the towers fall with my own eyes, one of the most surreal moments of my life was seeing firsthand the difference in timing between television and real life- you know how it happened? One of my co-workers, a young lady, about 25 years old who was a recent graduate from Penn St. from Allentown, PA, who moved to the city with her fiance sat next to me and listened in the boardroom about how folks were jumping out of the towers - her fiance, who was just an IT guy at Cantor Fitzgerald, was one of those people, few can understand how difficult the experience was. You don't forget that anytime soon, and you don't stop wondering what it is about the U.S. that we fight for.

Cool story, bro. I still think that what happened to building 7 was quite remarkable.

My hat's off to you for being utterly brilliant and sharing with us "political illiterates" why your opinion counts more than ours do or should.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "There are just as many online "sources" that debunk the official version of the 9-11 Commission report.

I'm not a scientist either...but the demise of building 7 sure seems remarkable to me. "

Well, what are you then?

Unlike you, I don't feel the need to share "what I am" on an anonymous chat board.

I may be guilty of internet hubris from time to time....but others here thrive on that sort of thing, just sayin.

This is going nowhere

Yesterday at 6 PM

LJ wrote: Let's try this one more time, being more civil and less personal.