9/11

[PolyNewbie]

Col. Karen Kwiatkowski was at the Pentagon the day it happened, others at the Pentagon that day have come out.

Riverwind:Why should anyone believe the ridiculous theories that you have cooked up without testimony from some of the people that would have to do it? Your are awfully arrogant if you think your 'evidence' is conclusive proof - it is all unprovable opinion backup by hearsay.

There are far more scientists and engineers that think the evidence is undeniable proof than ones actively supporting the official version. The ones actively supproting the official version will not answer their questions.

Riverwind:They could not stop pictures from Abu Ghraib from hitting the media but they can control information about the murder of 3000 Americans?

They have to let some things out to keep some semblance of credibility in the media to make some people think the media is honest. The important stuff never really comes out. An example of this is the Kennedy Assasination - the media reported it but gave no mention of the possible primary motive which was Kennedys orders to print off 4 billion dollars worth of debt free currency. The bankers did not like that which was why he was killed and the banker controlled media that reports conspiracy theories isn't going to tell you about that motive. That is much bigger than any war with Cuba.

Riverwind:It doesn't count because it does not mean anything. So what if someone issued a stand down order? It is not evidence of a conspiracy or a cover up. All it shows is that someone screwed up somewhere in the chain of command.

No, it means they knew Hijacked planes were headed troward the target and Cheney ordered defences to stand down so the plane could reach its target. No one is that stupid to order a stand down of defence when they are being attacked.

[Riverwind]

Col. Karen Kwiatkowski was at the Pentagon the day it happened, others at the Pentagon that day have come out.

Here is exactly what she said:

Having walked from the Pentagon into the vivid sunlight the morning of 9-11, to stare in disbelief with thousands of my coworkers at the burning gash in the structure, I’d like to understand more about the events of the day itself. Why the Towers and the Pentagon or other governmental buildings would be targeted by al Qaeda or any other adversary is self-evident; why American policies and practices create enemies around the world is also no mystery. The slow and highly debatable rate of improvement in our ability to defend the country – while the cost of doing business for Americans everywhere has skyrocketed – is also predictable. George W. Bush himself admits the truth as he almost happily notes this week "We are a nation in danger."

You better believe it, Mr. Bush. We have an incompetent, bankrupt, obese federal government bureaucracy led by ignoramuses who dream of empire, with continued zero accountability to either the facts on the ground or to the people who pay for it all.

I actually agree with much of a what she says but you are dreaming if you think she supports the controlled demolition/missle theory. If you read what she says it is clear she believes that terrorists caused the buildings to collapse and that a plane did hit the pentagon.

There are far more scientists and engineers that think the evidence is undeniable proof than ones actively supporting the official version. The ones actively supporting the official version will not answer their questions.

If there was technical merit to the truthies arguments who would see a long list of respected professors in engineering and structural design from around the world signing their name onto a declaration stating that. What we have is a few yahoos most of whom have no experience in building design. The fact is almost no one qualified to have a opinion on the matter believes the truthie interpretation. You should stop repeating these unfounded statements.

They have to let some things out to keep some semblance of credibility in the media to make some people think the media is honest. The important stuff never really comes out.

Yeah, right. People with that kind of control over information would never allow themselves to be embarrassed no matter what the reason. Furthermore, Abu Grahib and the missing WMDs in Iraq were extremely important events and we found out about them. You can believe in these fantasies if you want but you have to realize that they are irrational and that no one else will believe them without concrete proof.

[Rue]

BTW, Jews live in every middle eastern country and have no problems. They are respected amoung others and live and walk about Arabs peacefully.

People don't like Zionists because of what they have done in Palestine. I say its a water war and its hard to judge people from here. I think they should build desalinization plants instead of bombs, but I know a lot more about this than you do.

I just read the above idiocy. You are talking about a subject you do not understand and have completely misrepresented the situation as to which Jews find themselves. That would be the subject of another thread.

As for your comment that "people don't like Zionists because of what they have done in Palestine" you are again showing your complete lack of knowledge of the Middle East conflict. The hatred is not just about Zionists, its about Jews world-wide and for that matter Christians, Bahaiis, Hindus, Buddhists, Gays, feminists, Zoroastreans, communists, and so on. Your attempt to simplify it as simply being a misunderstanding with Zionists is ridiculous and again the source for another thread.

Your comment about it being a water war is actually bang on. Its always been about water.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:If there was technical merit to the truthies arguments who would see a long list of respected professors in engineering and structural design from around the world signing their name onto a declaration stating that. What we have is a few yahoos most of whom have no experience in building design. The fact is almost no one qualified to have a opinion on the matter believes the truthie interpretation. You should stop repeating these unfounded statements.

I've linked more than four structural engineers that think 911 was an inside job + multiple other physicists - very well published & respected physicists and they are more qualified than engineers because scientists are by nature investigators. Engineers build things - engineers do not have the in depth knowledge of materials and molecular behaviour necessary to do investigations. We are half scientists and half applied linear mathemeticians.

Civil and structural engineers instantly lose jobs in 99.9 % of cases for expressing opinions against governemnt because they are most highly dependent on government work. Many do only gov work all their lives and know if they speak against Bush then they lose big time.

There is only a handful of engineers that actively support the official version. The guys that wrote the FEMA report just had a pile of questions and said that the official version of events had "only a low probability" wrt wtc7. They also point to evidence of demolition in the FEMA report. They ask questions like (paraphrased) "if this happened, how did it happen ? like it seems impossible for the supports to break". The FEMA report does not say what mainstream media says it says - same with NIST.

If you listen to what this colonel woman says on other places than that list you will find her views on what happened to be quite a bit different than her questions on that site. Read what Bowman says on that OfficialsQuestion911 vs what he says on his own site. That Colonel woman has quite a few questions and doesn't think a plane hit the Pentagon but does not state that in her questions because in politics you get to the truth slowly. You can search out what she really thinks. I don't have a link.

Riverwind:What we have is a few yahoos most of whom have no experience in building design.

We are not asking anyones advice on how to build a building. Invetigating evidence is not building design - its a totally different thing. They are far from "yahoos". Bowman is not a "yahoo" - working for an engineering firm designing scrapers would be a giant step down for him. He directed SDI and had billions for a budget, , not millions, and branches of NASA under him. Steven Jones is not a "yahoo" having done most of his work at JPL and has done many papers in respected journals. These guys are head and shoulders above Gene Corely.

I agree with what the woman colonel says here:

"Why the Towers and the Pentagon or other governmental buildings would be targeted by al Qaeda or any other adversary is self-evident; why American policies and practices create enemies around the world is also no mystery. The slow and highly debatable rate of improvement in our ability to defend the country – while the cost of doing business for Americans everywhere has skyrocketed – is also predictable. George W. Bush himself admits the truth as he almost happily notes this week "We are a nation in danger." "

But that does not exclude 911 being an inside job. I am sure that especially now many people would like to hurt the USA. Problem: its exactly what USA wants to happen and thats why they left the mexico borders open. If the USA gets attacked then Bush, Cheney, Clinton and the rest make billions for themselves in weapon sales.

Politics is just a vehicle for these people to make money. Hillary Clinton was worth 500K before becomming a senator now she has 50 million. She invested 30 million in her most recent re - election. She will make a lot more if there are more wars.

[Rue]

Well now, I waited until what seems to be the end of this post to make my real comment. What this post shows is that some people desperately need to believe in conspiracies. It helps them come up with a system to define who they think are the elites and sinisters and bad guys, so they can then blame them for everything ranging from war, to economic destruction to world social conspiracies.

The true agenda here is not that there is a 9-11 conspiracy, but that there are bad guys we should blame things on. So who are the bad guys? Well gosh that's easy, just ask Lyndon Larouche.

See if its not 9-11 it will be something else, and Lyndon can tell us all who the bad guys are and why we should follow him instead.

Now me, I find there are just so many Lyndon Larouches and conspiracy theories to follow out there. There's no shortage of prophets and their followers.

I personally am part of the Paris Hilton Group and Lindsay Lohan Group. These new think tanks are at the cutting edge in conspiracy theories and how aids and herpes are being spread and who is behind it.

Its the Olsen Twins of course.

[Canadian Blue]

I stated that I would not discuss Jews or the ADL because what I actually say is irrelevant when charges are brought forward, what matters is someone elses interpretation and I can be held responsible for that. And I would not expect to get a fair trial in a Canadian court on this (or any other) matter.

I think CanadianBlues pathetic & lying behaviour provides a bit of insight as to what I could be in for and proof of what I am saying.

You are a sniveling, lying, manipulative, pathetic little weasel for attempting what you are doing. The only way you can win an arguement is to attempt to paint someone as an anti semite.

First things first, on one thread you gave a link to a WHITE NATIONALIST website.

Second, the fact you said you would be charged with a hate crime is proof enough that you would be considered either an anti-semite or racist similar to Zundel who has been charged with a hate crime.

Politics is just a vehicle for these people to make money. Hillary Clinton was worth 500K before becomming a senator now she has 50 million. She invested 30 million in her most recent re - election. She will make a lot more if there are more wars.

Do you have any proof of this besides making once again a falsified argument. So Hillary Clinton is now behind all the wars, what ever happened to the Rockefellers or the bankers?

[Canadian Blue]

No matter what happens, no matter who says what, it is always the best thing to stick with the truth. There are many people that know it was an inside job from looking at the evidence but have decided to just keep quiet (and asked me to) because although we are being lied to we must trust these people. I never will trust a liar like this. If the people have some kind of grand plan to improve mankind they would have brought it into the light.

You'd think people would learn from history. Once again I've noticed some anti-semitic traits in the truth movement, right now the truth movement has been able to unite neo-nazi's, anti-semites, left wing radicals, and socialists, all into one common cause.

[Canadian Blue]

The true agenda here is not that there is a 9-11 conspiracy, but that there are bad guys we should blame things on. So who are the bad guys? Well gosh that's easy, just ask Lyndon Larouche.

Polynewbie is a hardcore Larouchite, he will tell you he has only read up on the economics, but he adopts the same beleifs as Larouche with regards to conspiracy theories.

Polynewbie has also made the claim that he will be charged with a hate crime, even though he apparently is not an anti-semite. The reason why he'll be charged is because of Lucifarian lawyers and a corrupt judge.

That basically sums it up.

[Riverwind]

Civil and structural engineers instantly lose jobs in 99.9 % of cases for expressing opinions against government because they are most highly dependent on government work. Many do only gov work all their lives and know if they speak against Bush then they lose big time.

If that was true, those concerns do not affect engineers working in countries outside the US. If there was any merit to the arguments there would be many non-US based engineers saying so.

There is only a handful of engineers that actively support the official version.

Most engineers do not have any reason to get involved if they believe the official version because the truthies are perceived as a bunch of wackos that no one takes seriously. If an engineer believed that official version was wrong and the truthie argument had merit then they would speak up. The lack of support tells me that Bowman and the small circle of people that surround him don't have a compelling case.

But that does not exclude 911 being an inside job.

Give me a break. Her most widely quoted work is called 'Hijacking Catastrophe' which starts with the premise that 9/11 was terror attack and that the Bush administration used it to justify an unjustifiable war in Iraq. She is most definately not a truthie supporter yet you claimed she was.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Riverwind,

I'll have to step in here and defend Polynewbie, to a limited degree. It is true, much of the media (or propaganda) generation is done for ulterior motives, when possible. You don't hear a lot about Henry Ford and his connection to the Nazis unless you go looking for it, they just don't seem to put the fact that Ford helped Hitler accomplish his goals with his funding, for example, in their ads.

Other things may have been overlooked as well, such as:were the steel girders actuallly up to code? or did someone pocket a few extra dollars by saying, "That sort of thing could never happen...we don't need them to 1400 degree specs, lets sell them the 800 degree ones and make a profit on the difference."

I have never heard of Larouche, except on this forum, and I never read the thread. Nor will I.

Wikipedia is a good general reference guide, usually when I have remembered an event but forgotten a name, but I never take it as a 'factual representation'. I have seen several conflicting versions of history appear there, as compareed to various other sources I have read.

[jbg]

But not the guys that were in the room with Cheney and gave congressional testimony that he repeatedly gave a stand down order on air defences when they knew a high jacked hijacked plane was headed for the Pentagon/White house area - I guess that doesn't count. Why should others come out with your attitude about this whole thing ? Should they really put their lives on the line for something that is should be already plainly obvious ?

Furthermore it was the families that did lose a loved one that pressured Bush into starting an investigation. It took 441 days before he did an investigation and many of those people think it was a white wash and also think 911 was an inside job.

*snip*

A lot of people that have come out in the intelligence community think it was an inside job and that only a handful of people would have to be in on it, the rest play a part without even knowing they are in on something like this and think they are playing a role in something different. Intelligence works on a need to know basis. Only a few really know the big picture, else there is too much of a chance of a leak and operations are strictly structured so that this is possible. It is of the utmost importance. If they really did 911 then they thought of all this.

I corrected your apparent ignorance of spelling, unless it was a poker game where a mighty good bluffer, with a jack as high card, won.

As far as the rest of your post, to quote Little River Band "Hang On, Help is On Its Way".

[PolyNewbie]

jbg:I corrected your apparent ignorance of spelling, unless it was a poker game where a mighty good bluffer, with a jack as high card, won.

Your black robe will not protect you from the rules of logic and what some people conveniently refer to as common sense. Arguing with lawyers on these forums always reinforces my already low opinion of lawyers, that is that the level of moral corruption that exists in the law profession actually causes you to be intellectually deficient. I have yet to meet a lawyer that can form a logical arguement - likely because courts are all about complex procedures and draining peoples bank accounts rather than logical arguement.

On the topic of the (alleged) hijackers:

(1) Its well known that immediately after the attacks the hijackers names were on none of the flight manifests. The stated reasons for this was that "we don't put terrorists on these lists". If they do not put terrorists on flight manifests why do they let them on planes anyway ? Flight manifest are prepared before boarding. The fact that the terrorists were not on the flight manifest after the accidents is well known and well reported in mainstream immediately after the attacks. Hijacker original flight manifests (see about halfway down this page)

(2) None of the alleged hijackers could actually fly planes. There is plenty of video interviews with the hijacker instructors explaining that these guys that were receiving flight instruction could barely fly a single engine Cessna.

(3) As reported by multiple mainstream sources, many of the hijackers were found alive after the terrorist attacks.

Waleed M. Alshehri

WhatReallyHappened / Hijackers, More mainstream reports

Why are the same pics still up on the FBI most wanted list if the identities were stolen ? I think its because most people don't look at things very carefully and the FBI doesn't want to be seen as changing their story all the time. It makes people want a real investigation.

911 completely stinks every way you look at it. It is done this way so that the "intelligencia" can see it was an inside job and goes along with it rather than start to ask questions. Many people in society know that something deep, dark & terrible is happening and they are going along with it because they think they will be safe. No one is safe in a Luciferian police state. All someone has to do is report you saying "George Bush looks like a monkey" and its off to the torture chamber for your kid and an observation room for you to watch some thug manipulate the kids genitalia with pliars until you confess. John Yoo has publically stated that this can legally happen.

"Us or them" is the thinking of a simpleton.

[PolyNewbie]

Karen Kwiatkowski: Link Asking Many Questions

I expected to hear how WTC 7 collapsed. The leaseholder of the building told the media it was "pulled." I expected to see more discussion of the mechanics of that presumably unplanned demolition in the evening of 9-11 as well as the collapse of the both 110-story towers, both impacted differently, both falling almost identically. Do we have an engineering design flaw no one knew about? It didn’t come up in the report.

Well, obviously the towers didn't have a design flaw. They even took the impact of two jetliners and remained standing with no change in their natural resonant frequency long after the crashes and when the fires were almost out, ie: stood solid. No design flaw had been noted other than the fact that they had become white elephants due to extensive use of asbestos and the need to modernize communications wiring. They essentially had a negative value at the time of collapse but Silverstein was still able to insure them at full value and collect double indemnity due to the crashes ( almost 8 billion dollars)

Many of these people that do not believe the official version are of very high rank and will not come out and say "911 was an inside job" but read her (facesius) questions, Read Bowmans questions & statements about 911 truth.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Most engineers do not have any reason to get involved if they believe the official version because the truthies are perceived as a bunch of wackos that no one takes seriously.

I see. So by them not speaking up we assume that they can't be bothered because 911 truthies are a bunch of wack jobs. These people are just a bunch of "wack jobs"?

[Riverwind]

I see. So by them not speaking up we assume that they can't be bothered because 911 truthies are a bunch of wack jobs.

Yes, that is the way it works - most people would not remain silent if they honestly believed that 3000 were murdered by their own gov't. There are many qualified people who are not dependent on the US gov't for a living and would have little to lose by adding their name to a scientific analysis that could stand up to peer review. The fact that almost no qualified people are willing to support the truthie scientific analysis tells me that it has little scientific merit.

These people are just a bunch of "wack jobs"?

Some of them are. Others appear to be people like Karen Kwiatkowski who are critical of the Bush administration but do not support of the truthie 'inside job' theory.

[Riverwind]

Well, obviously the towers didn't have a design flaw.

There you go again making unfounded assertions. Can you prove that their was no design flaw? Can you prove that all of the materials used in construction were up to spec and installed correctly? Claims of 'obviousness' are not proof.

Many of these people that do not believe the official version are of very high rank and will not come out and say "911 was an inside job" but read her (facesius) questions, Read Bowmans questions & statements about 911 truth.

Yet, Bowman does not talk about people who actually participated in the cover up - only people that 'don't believe the official version'. If there was a cover up then we would have heard from the people who participated in it by now. The fact that no 'deep throat' has emerged tells me that the inside job claims are baseless.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:There you go again making unfounded assertions. Can you prove that their was no design flaw? Can you prove that all of the materials used in construction were up to spec and installed correctly? Claims of 'obviousness' are not proof.

I did not base anything on claims of obviousness. I stated reasons - you need to re read that post. I stated that the buildings performed to spec when the planes hit them and that no design flaw had been noted since they were built. There is no basis to think the towers had a design flaw- which was her point.

Riverwind:There are many qualified people who are not dependent on the US gov't for a living and would have little to lose by adding their name to a scientific analysis that could stand up to peer review. The fact that almost no qualified people are willing to support the truthie scientific analysis tells me that it has little scientific merit.

They did and it has held up to scientific peer review. Stephen Jones has stated that thermate was used and his stuff is backed up by lots of people.

I've listed five structural engineers that say it was obviously an inside job plus many other scientists that say the same thing. It wouldn't matter who said 911 was an inside job, you would base your arguement on your beleifs that they are not qualified. Who are you to say who is qualified and who isn't ? What is your background to decide who is and isn't qualified ?

[White Doors]

No one is safe in a Luciferian police state. All someone has to do is report you saying "George Bush looks like a monkey" and its off to the torture chamber for your kid and an observation room for you to watch some thug manipulate the kids genitalia with pliars until you confess.

hahahaha

[Riverwind]

They did and it has held up to scientific peer review.

Give the exact link to the paper that was peer reviewed and a list of the peers who reviewed it and the scientific publication that accepted it.

I've listed five structural engineers that say it was obviously an inside job plus many other scientists that say the same thing.

You have given me one quote from a Swiss professor of engineering which appears to support your views but this guy has not published a detailed explanation his views in English. The other people don't have any experience in structural engineering that I could verify.

However, you are missing the point: qualified people often become spokespeople for the most absurd causes. Therefore, a person who does not understand the science involved must look at the scientific consensus . Global warming is a good example. When advocates of global warming first started to peddle their views they were considered alarmists. But gradually a consensus developed in the scientific community. There is no developing scientific consensus around the truthie version of the 9/11 - it is the same core group of people arguing with themselves.

On top of that, no one who actually participated in the cover up has come forward either publicly or anonymously. Yet if the truthie theories had any merit there would have to be 1000s of collaborators.

Bottom line: If you can find two or three collaborators/whistle blowers and 30-50 or professors of structural engineering that support the science then you might have a case worth looking at. Until then, the only rational conclusion is that it is a bunch of hooey.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:However, you are missing the point: qualified people often become spokespeople for the most absurd causes.

I see, so thats how you dismiss qualified people that think 911 was an inside job. So even if I added more you would dimiss them as people behind "absurd causes".

Riverwind: Therefore, a person who does not understand the science involved must look at the scientific consensus . Global warming is a good example.

..or consult with you apparently.

Riverwind:When advocates of global warming first started to peddle their views they were considered alarmists. But gradually a consensus developed in the scientific community. There is no developing scientific consensus around the truthie version of the 9/11 - it is the same core group of people arguing with themselves.

No one would be better to judge the validity of 911 truth like these scientists that are on it- except maybe you. They are all just nutcases and we should be listening to you. You are obviously an authority on what passes for consensus at the scientific community.

Riverwind: On top of that, no one who actually participated in the cover up has come forward either publicly or anonymously. Yet if the truthie theories had any merit there would have to be 1000s of collaborators.

Actually people involved in 911 have come forward and testified at congressional hearings to say that Cheney ordered a stand down of defences when a plane was headed toward the pentagon.... but that doesn't count.

Riverwind: Bottom line: If you can find two or three collaborators/whistle blowers and 30-50 or professors of structural engineering that support the science then you might have a case worth looking at. Until then, the only rational conclusion is that it is a bunch of hooey.

So now you are saying what would be required to have a case looking at ? You are the only one capable of forming a rational opinion and people like Bowman should really be listening to you. Bowman has said on his site that the 911 truth movement has a lot of good points and shows that this is worth looking at again. You should email him and tell him he is a nutjob and should start listening to you.

I've asked you what your qualifications are because you talk like you are a big shot intellectual or engineer ? Now you are a legal advisor and should be the one to determine whether a case is viable or not ?

Have you done any legal consulting on other matters of national importance ?

You see, I know you are just some punk that thinks he knows everything but really doesn't have any legal or scientific qualifications at all. The errors you make in your scientific analysis are simple and anyone that has taken a first year physics course would recognise that right away, if not by your analytical errors then certainly by your use of terminology. You are certainly no legal scholar because you seem to think you would sue someone in criminal court.

You should take a look at yourself because not only are you one of the most arrogant people I have ever argued 911 on, but you are also one of the most niave. I have prented evidence and reasonable conjecture based on that evidence to make my arguement. You have provided hot air as an unqualified opinion and seem to consider yourself an authority on just about everything.

You said quite a few posts ago that you know quite a bit more about science than I do. If you have taken any science past first year then you would be able to write out the solution to the equation below about as fast as you can type, care to try ?

y"(x)= 3

You talk like you are a big shot, I'd like to know if you can even do basic math.

[White Doors]

Poly is going to LOSE it!

run away!!

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:Yet if the truthie theories had any merit there would have to be 1000s of collaborators.

I have heard plenty of key intelligence analysts say that only a very few people would see the big picture in 911, but here you are saying there must be thousands. I guess they must all be nutjobs too.

[Roy Wilson]

Riverwind:Yet if the truthie theories had any merit there would have to be 1000s of collaborators.

I have heard plenty of key intelligence analysts say that only a very few people would see the big picture in 911, but here you are saying there must be thousands. I guess they must all be nutjobs too.

key intelligence analysts And they would be? Name them and ffor g_d sakes dont quote another Neo Nazi again.

[Riverwind]

I see, so thats how you dismiss qualified people that think 911 was an inside job. So even if I added more you would dismiss them as people behind "absurd causes".

PN, the most obvious explanation for what happened on 9/11 is a terrorist attack. If someone wants to claim that something else happened then that person needs to come up with a lot more than some speculative calculations and a few inconsistencies in the official explanation. You have obviously drunk the kool aid that these guys serve up but anyone else who looks at their analysis realizes that they may have some interesting points but they are a long way from proving anything.

Actually people involved in 911 have come forward and testified at congressional hearings to say that Cheney ordered a stand down of defences when a plane was headed toward the pentagon.... but that doesn't count.

I told you already - that person's testimony did not say why the planes were told to stand down. Where are the bomb makers and the cell phone call fabricators or the crash cleanup crews? These are the people that need to come forward. A few cell phone photos and the conspiracy would have been blown wide open. The lack of evidence from collaborators suggests strongly that there are none.

So now you are saying what would be required to have a case looking at ? You are the only one capable of forming a rational opinion and people like Bowman should really be listening to you.

It is not just me - most people consider the truthie arguments to be irrational because they don't believe that a gov't run by people like Bush is capable of orchestrating such a hoax. That is why these theories mean nothing until the collaborators come forward.

y"(x)= 3

y(x) = 3(x*x)/2 + Cx + D

[PolyNewbie]

I don't think it would matter to you how much evidence was brought forward. The evidence presented has been overwhelming and it discredits every aspect of the official version.

But you still think three buildings can collapse at near freefall speed straight down into their own footprints. Thats the key right there and many scientists and engineers have said so, including demolition experts - but apparently you think this would naturally happen and they are wrong.

Then there is a mountain of additional evidence both before and after that shows guilty behavior. Plus the congressional testimoney of Rumsfeld's guilty behaviour re: stand down order (which doesn't mean anything).

Then there is the NIST coverup, incomplete report and 441 day delayed investigation.

If that isn't enough for you then there is all the lies surrounding events of 911 (politicians lie all the time, I know this doesn't matter).

Bottom Line: You will not ever be convinced. It would not matter how many people came out. You just simply cannot face the truth.

I guess this was another Silverstein style slip up, but I know, it doesn't mean anything either.