Tribute To 9/11 turns into right vs. left. Enough already!

[Matthew]

VL - re: the new name for this thread.

We're talking about terrorism and the aftermath of 9/11. It isn't a general right v left debate.

But I'm happy to drop it (or continue it in the Politics forum) if most people think that the direction of this thread is disrespectful to those who died on 9/11 (which I don't believe it is)...or just plain tedious.

[brywool]

[Blueskies]

VL - re: the new name for this thread.

We're talking about terrorism and the aftermath of 9/11. It isn't a general right v left debate.

But I'm happy to drop it (or continue it in the Politics forum) if most people think that the direction of this thread is disrespectful to those who died on 9/11 (which I don't believe it is)...or just plain tedious.

It's cool, Matthew! Just wanted it to be a tribute to the fallen. I get your point and don't think your trying to be disrespectful ( I actually agree with your argument's) Just think the political forum would be more appropriate!! But I believe in freedom of speech, so do whatever you want.

[brywool]

VL - re: the new name for this thread.

We're talking about terrorism and the aftermath of 9/11. It isn't a general right v left debate.

But I'm happy to drop it (or continue it in the Politics forum) if most people think that the direction of this thread is disrespectful to those who died on 9/11 (which I don't believe it is)...or just plain tedious.

It's cool, Matthew! Just wanted it to be a tribute to the fallen. I get your point and don't think your trying to be disrespectful ( I actually agree with your argument's) Just think the political forum would be more appropriate!! But I believe in freedom of speech, so do whatever you want.

You're absolutely right. It should be a tribute to the fallen and not the other. I withdraw my previous post... Quick somebody start another political thread!

[fred_journeyman]

Well I did happen to catch that GOOGLE video you post awhile ago, the 9/11 conspiracy and re-search, and caught a simular program that was aired here in Australia 2 nights ago. After watching these doco's, all these 9/11 films make me wanna puke. Its all lies.

It's funny, but after you watch Loose Change and a few other videos and read through some of the information posted on websites by people who don't seem like loonies, it's difficult NOT to see this whole thing as being an inside job. Pretty sad if it was.

I'm sorry for everyone who died or who was injured, but it's hard to believe that TWO buildings could collapse in their own footprints. I'm thankful to God that they did, but unless it was a controlled demolition, it's pretty hard to believe that two huge buildings like that would crumple in on themselves.

[Saint John]

Well I did happen to catch that GOOGLE video you post awhile ago, the 9/11 conspiracy and re-search, and caught a simular program that was aired here in Australia 2 nights ago. After watching these doco's, all these 9/11 films make me wanna puke. Its all lies.

It's funny, but after you watch Loose Change and a few other videos and read through some of the information posted on websites by people who don't seem like loonies, it's difficult NOT to see this whole thing as being an inside job. Pretty sad if it was.

I'm sorry for everyone who died or who was injured, but it's hard to believe that TWO buildings could collapse in their own footprints. I'm thankful to God that they did, but unless it was a controlled demolition, it's pretty hard to believe that two huge buildings like that would crumple in on themselves.

It's not hard to believe at all. Do some research Fred. All theories support that there was no other way for the buildings to fall, except as they did. Loose Change never got the time of day on the news....which is liberal and would have jumped at the chance to stir conspiracy theories. Here's as simple an explanation as you'll find:


THE COLLAPSE
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

[Barb]

Well I did happen to catch that GOOGLE video you post awhile ago, the 9/11 conspiracy and re-search, and caught a simular program that was aired here in Australia 2 nights ago. After watching these doco's, all these 9/11 films make me wanna puke. Its all lies.

It's funny, but after you watch Loose Change and a few other videos and read through some of the information posted on websites by people who don't seem like loonies, it's difficult NOT to see this whole thing as being an inside job. Pretty sad if it was.

I'm sorry for everyone who died or who was injured, but it's hard to believe that TWO buildings could collapse in their own footprints. I'm thankful to God that they did, but unless it was a controlled demolition, it's pretty hard to believe that two huge buildings like that would crumple in on themselves.

Wow. I can't believe you feel this way. 2 giant airplanes + 600 gallons of fuel seems like a pretty reasonable explanation on it's own. I honestly can't believe there are people out there who are falling for this crap!

[fred_journeyman]

Has anyone watched those two "Loose Change" videos on YouTube?

It has been totally debunked. Those guys are whack jobs. For the love of GOD, the Bush Administration can't even keep track of terrorists financial information without it being leaked to the NY Times. Does anyone honestly, seriously for even one millisecond believe that something of this magnitude, involving SO MANY people could be kept secret?

One example of how full of shit this video is -- they use a clip of a guy who witnessed the plane hitting the Pentagon. They take the piece where he says something about it being a "big missle with wings". Well, if you see the entire clip, he specifically says I see an American Airlines plane, but it seemed like a....

It is ridiculous to give credence to these nuts.

But Barb, if you look at video that was released by one of TURNER'S own networks of a plane hitting one of the World Trade Towers, look closely at the plane - it has NO passenger windows at all and there is a mysterious tube-like thing underneath the plane.

I'd like to know where the video Loose Change has been totally debunked? What about the Pentagon? Why is there virtually NO plane wreckage? More importantly, how could a passenger plane plow through two or three steel-reinforced concrete walls leaving a near-perfect CIRCLE in its wake? Planes don't do that...

Have YOU personally watched ANY of these videos Barb? I'm curious.

[Barb]

I'd like to know where the video Loose Change has been totally debunked? What about the Pentagon? Why is there virtually NO plane wreckage? More importantly, how could a passenger plane plow through two or three steel-reinforced concrete walls leaving a near-perfect CIRCLE in its wake? Planes don't do that...

Have YOU personally watched ANY of these videos Barb? I'm curious.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... page=1&c=y

No. I haven't watched them and I won't because any person who is even remotely engaged in today's political climate and media wars knows DAMN WELL that something of this magnitude could not possibly be covered up. Do you know how many people would have to know about this and remain silent? It's not possible. I did see one clip of "Loose Change" where they show the guy talking about how a giant missle with wings hit the Pentagon. Then they showed the FULL clip where he very specifically said, I saw a plane, an American Airllines plane, but it looked like a giant missle with wings. That is so blatantly dishonest, why should I watch anymore of it?

[fred_journeyman]

Wow. I can't believe you feel this way. 2 giant airplanes + 600 gallons of fuel seems like a pretty reasonable explanation on it's own. I honestly can't believe there are people out there who are falling for this crap!

Barb, the original architects of the WTC designed and BUILT those buildings to withstand a hit from a plane. Interestingly enough, shortly after the planes hit, they were on the airwaves indicating their frustration that there was NO way they would crumple like that from a plane hit. Not long after that, gee all of a sudden, it COULD have happened - they changed their story on the national news.

I didn't say I believed Loose Change. I said it makes you think. There are some very reasonable (in my opinion) points of discussion that are brought up in those videos and others. I think it's remarkable for instance, that a plane could hit the Pentagon AND crash land in PA and there is virtually little to no wreckage. I did my own research on that one and you know what? In virtually EVERY photographic record of plane crashes throughout the world and this century, there is ALWAYS a huge amount of wreckage strewn all over the place. But, nothing for the Pentagon? Nothing from the crash in PA, except a 10 foot hole in the ground?!

I would love to know how the Pentagon with the highest amount of security cameras in the US, besides Norad and the Capitol, could - BY COINCIDENCE - not have ANY security cameras working the morning that the THING crashed into the Pentagon? Yet, a gas station and a hotel near there had their security cameras catch the entire thing on video. Within minutes, the FBI was there and confiscated BOTH tapes, yet to this day, the government insists that NO TAPE of the crash exists.

If you watch closely during the moments before WTC 1 and 2 collapse, you can see puffs of smoke going off straight down the one corner of the buildings in quick succession, where it was reinforced with steel and concrete. Numerous firefighting personnel VOICED the opinion AS IT WAS HAPPENING that it looked like a controlled demolition. Show me ONE other situation in which ANY building has collapsed in its own footprint and it was NOT a controlled demolition. Just show me one.

When the Pentagon crash occured, Rumsfield was on the air stating that not only were there NO videos, but no PHOTOS existed either. Finally, after a week or so after continued public pressure, 3 photographs were released (Oh, gee, they had JUST been found!!), but interestingly enough, they were not in sequential order.

Look, all I'm saying is this: If the US can be secretive about Pearl Harbor and if the same can be said about JFK's assasination, and other things that have taken place in the history of America since its inception, why is it so difficult to believe that our government could have many points of corruption in place?

Wag the Dog, the movie. Have you seen it? Of course it was fictional, but for God's sake, tell me THAT could not happen. Sometimes, I think we go along believing everything our government tells us (or doesn't) because believing the alternative is simply too difficult to accept.

[Saint John]

Well I did happen to catch that GOOGLE video you post awhile ago, the 9/11 conspiracy and re-search, and caught a simular program that was aired here in Australia 2 nights ago. After watching these doco's, all these 9/11 films make me wanna puke. Its all lies.

It's funny, but after you watch Loose Change and a few other videos and read through some of the information posted on websites by people who don't seem like loonies, it's difficult NOT to see this whole thing as being an inside job. Pretty sad if it was.

I'm sorry for everyone who died or who was injured, but it's hard to believe that TWO buildings could collapse in their own footprints. I'm thankful to God that they did, but unless it was a controlled demolition, it's pretty hard to believe that two huge buildings like that would crumple in on themselves.

It's not hard to believe at all. Do some research Fred. All theories support that there was no other way for the buildings to fall, except as they did. Loose Change never got the time of day on the news....which is liberal and would have jumped at the chance to stir conspiracy theories. Here's as simple an explanation as you'll find:


THE COLLAPSE
Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

Respond to this post Fred!! It blows your silly conspiracy theory out of the water. Are you fuckin' serious about the "plane with no windows?" Every major network aired the events live. Am I to believe they're in on it to? Your conspiracy theories are ridiculous.

[fred_journeyman]

No. I haven't watched them and I won't because any person who is even remotely engaged in today's political climate and media wars knows DAMN WELL that something of this magnitude could not possibly be covered up. Do you know how many people would have to know about this and remain silent? It's not possible. I did see one clip of "Loose Change" where they show the guy talking about how a giant missle with wings hit the Pentagon. Then they showed the FULL clip where he very specifically said, I saw a plane, an American Airllines plane, but it looked like a giant missle with wings. That is so blatantly dishonest, why should I watch anymore of it?

I can't believe I'm hearing a lawyer say that (you're a lawyer, aren't you?).

But, if you have not seen the videos in their entirety, then there is no point for you to even BE in this discussion. That's like me protesting DOGMA stating that it offends my senses and values...without ever having seen it.

I'd like to hear your responses to my concerns in my other e-mail, if you'd care to. Or, you could just say that I'm just a moron who has no business questioning something that I should DAMN WELL know isn't possible.

[Barb]

Wow. I can't believe you feel this way. 2 giant airplanes + 600 gallons of fuel seems like a pretty reasonable explanation on it's own. I honestly can't believe there are people out there who are falling for this crap!

Barb, the original architects of the WTC designed and BUILT those buildings to withstand a hit from a plane. Interestingly enough, shortly after the planes hit, they were on the airwaves indicating their frustration that there was NO way they would crumple like that from a plane hit. Not long after that, gee all of a sudden, it COULD have happened - they changed their story on the national news.

I didn't say I believed Loose Change. I said it makes you think. There are some very reasonable (in my opinion) points of discussion that are brought up in those videos and others. I think it's remarkable for instance, that a plane could hit the Pentagon AND crash land in PA and there is virtually little to no wreckage. I did my own research on that one and you know what? In virtually EVERY photographic record of plane crashes throughout the world and this century, there is ALWAYS a huge amount of wreckage strewn all over the place. But, nothing for the Pentagon? Nothing from the crash in PA, except a 10 foot hole in the ground?!

I would love to know how the Pentagon with the highest amount of security cameras in the US, besides Norad and the Capitol, could - BY COINCIDENCE - not have ANY security cameras working the morning that the THING crashed into the Pentagon? Yet, a gas station and a hotel near there had their security cameras catch the entire thing on video. Within minutes, the FBI was there and confiscated BOTH tapes, yet to this day, the government insists that NO TAPE of the crash exists.

If you watch closely during the moments before WTC 1 and 2 collapse, you can see puffs of smoke going off straight down the one corner of the buildings in quick succession, where it was reinforced with steel and concrete. Numerous firefighting personnel VOICED the opinion AS IT WAS HAPPENING that it looked like a controlled demolition. Show me ONE other situation in which ANY building has collapsed in its own footprint and it was NOT a controlled demolition. Just show me one.

When the Pentagon crash occured, Rumsfield was on the air stating that not only were there NO videos, but no PHOTOS existed either. Finally, after a week or so after continued public pressure, 3 photographs were released (Oh, gee, they had JUST been found!!), but interestingly enough, they were not in sequential order.

Look, all I'm saying is this: If the US can be secretive about Pearl Harbor and if the same can be said about JFK's assasination, and other things that have taken place in the history of America since its inception, why is it so difficult to believe that our government could have many points of corruption in place?

Wag the Dog, the movie. Have you seen it? Of course it was fictional, but for God's sake, tell me THAT could not happen. Sometimes, I think we go along believing everything our government tells us (or doesn't) because believing the alternative is simply too difficult to accept.

If this were 50 years ago, I would consider what your are saying as possible. It's just too big to cover up in this day and age of 24/7 media not to mention the seething hatred of our President by the mainstream media. Man if the NY Times could nail 9/11 on Bush they'd be ALL OVER IT as would pretty much any sitting Democrat in Congress.

It's not blindly believing everything the government tells you... it's having sense enough to realize that something on this scale could not be covered up in the 21st century.

[fred_journeyman]

Respond to this post Fred!! It blows your silly conspiracy theory out of the water. Are you fuckin' serious about the "plane with no windows?" Every major network aired the events live. Am I to believe they're in on it to? Your conspiracy theories are ridiculous.

JOHN,

If you want to enter into a dialogue with me, that's fine, but where the hell do you come off lambasting me right out of the gate? If you cannot discuss something without resorting to foul language, sarcasm and the like, why should I enter into the debate with you?

Personally and quite frankly John, I do not care WHAT you believe or if you believe anything at all. From the tone of your post, you obviously believe that YOU are the authority and anyone who doesn't see it your way is obviously not as intelligent as you. I've had more profitable (and sane) conversations with those on both sides of the issue and never ONCE did it denigrate into a name-calling, abusive reparte. It doesn't have to here either, but if you continue in that vein, then it would be my pleasure to ignore you.

Have you seen the video that was released by TURNER'S own network showing the plane, in which you have a CLEAR view of it from the side and slightly underneath?

[Barb]

I can't believe I'm hearing a lawyer say that (you're a lawyer, aren't you?).

But, if you have not seen the videos in their entirety, then there is no point for you to even BE in this discussion. That's like me protesting DOGMA stating that it offends my senses and values...without ever having seen it.

I'd like to hear your responses to my concerns in my other e-mail, if you'd care to. Or, you could just say that I'm just a moron who has no business questioning something that I should DAMN WELL know isn't possible.

Nope, not a lawyer Fred. You are thinking of the other Barb at BackTalk. It's Barbie -- your once arch enemy.

If I see one scene from a film that is manufactured to substantiate the viewpoint of the film maker and I SEE that it is a blatant lie, why on earth would I watch anymore? The film has no credibility just on that one scene alone! I have read the theories -- I know what they are and I have read the debunking of every single one of them. I think the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are lunatics. That is the conclusion I have come to. You may disagree, and that is fine. Don't get angry!

[Saint John]

Wow. I can't believe you feel this way. 2 giant airplanes + 600 gallons of fuel seems like a pretty reasonable explanation on it's own. I honestly can't believe there are people out there who are falling for this crap!

Barb, the original architects of the WTC designed and BUILT those buildings to withstand a hit from a plane. Interestingly enough, shortly after the planes hit, they were on the airwaves indicating their frustration that there was NO way they would crumple like that from a plane hit. Not long after that, gee all of a sudden, it COULD have happened - they changed their story on the national news.

I didn't say I believed Loose Change. I said it makes you think. There are some very reasonable (in my opinion) points of discussion that are brought up in those videos and others. I think it's remarkable for instance, that a plane could hit the Pentagon AND crash land in PA and there is virtually little to no wreckage. I did my own research on that one and you know what? In virtually EVERY photographic record of plane crashes throughout the world and this century, there is ALWAYS a huge amount of wreckage strewn all over the place. But, nothing for the Pentagon? Nothing from the crash in PA, except a 10 foot hole in the ground?!

I would love to know how the Pentagon with the highest amount of security cameras in the US, besides Norad and the Capitol, could - BY COINCIDENCE - not have ANY security cameras working the morning that the THING crashed into the Pentagon? Yet, a gas station and a hotel near there had their security cameras catch the entire thing on video. Within minutes, the FBI was there and confiscated BOTH tapes, yet to this day, the government insists that NO TAPE of the crash exists.

If you watch closely during the moments before WTC 1 and 2 collapse, you can see puffs of smoke going off straight down the one corner of the buildings in quick succession, where it was reinforced with steel and concrete. Numerous firefighting personnel VOICED the opinion AS IT WAS HAPPENING that it looked like a controlled demolition. Show me ONE other situation in which ANY building has collapsed in its own footprint and it was NOT a controlled demolition. Just show me one.

When the Pentagon crash occured, Rumsfield was on the air stating that not only were there NO videos, but no PHOTOS existed either. Finally, after a week or so after continued public pressure, 3 photographs were released (Oh, gee, they had JUST been found!!), but interestingly enough, they were not in sequential order.

Look, all I'm saying is this: If the US can be secretive about Pearl Harbor and if the same can be said about JFK's assasination, and other things that have taken place in the history of America since its inception, why is it so difficult to believe that our government could have many points of corruption in place?

Wag the Dog, the movie. Have you seen it? Of course it was fictional, but for God's sake, tell me THAT could not happen. Sometimes, I think we go along believing everything our government tells us (or doesn't) because believing the alternative is simply too difficult to accept.

If this were 50 years ago, I would consider what your are saying as possible. It's just too big to cover up in this day and age of 24/7 media not to mention the seething hatred of our President by the mainstream media. Man if the NY Times could nail 9/11 on Bush they'd be ALL OVER IT as would pretty much any sitting Democrat in Congress.

It's not blindly believing everything the government tells you... it's having sense enough to realize that something on this scale could not be covered up in the 21st century.

Exactly Barb. Fred's rants are so ridiculous I'm laughing. He bases part of his argument on a windowless plane carrying a "tubelike" object underneath it. Furthermore, I'm to believe that the people behind the greatest coverup in the history of mankind couldn't figure out that windowless planes and "tubelike" objects underneath them would be virtually impossible to see at NIGHT. No, there plan was so perfect that they said, fuck it, do it at 8 am.

[fred_journeyman]

If this were 50 years ago, I would consider what your are saying as possible. It's just too big to cover up in this day and age of 24/7 media not to mention the seething hatred of our President by the mainstream media. Man if the NY Times could nail 9/11 on Bush they'd be ALL OVER IT as would pretty much any sitting Democrat in Congress.

Do you actually LISTEN to the type of questions that the media asks the President? The media has NO BACKBONE anymore. By the way, I would like to state for the record that I voted for Bush. I had no axe to grind with him and was proud of the way he handled the situation immediately after the event. THINGS simply started gnawing at me and the most important thing is the buildings caving in on themselves. If I'm an idiot, then so are all those firefighters who thought the same thing.

It's not blindly believing everything the government tells you... it's having sense enough to realize that something on this scale could not be covered up in the 21st century.

I think, if anything, we have more of an ability to cover things up today. HUGE amounts of people do NOT need to be involved. Only those who need to know.

Look Barb, I could care less if you think it was a conspiracy of not. At this point, I do not care if it was a conspiracy or not. I simply entered into the conversation. My mind is not made up and hasn't been made up. For me, this is all food for thought and that's it. Like discussing Perry or Journey, I lose no sleep over it (the DISCUSSION, not the loss of life). The fact remains that thousands died WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE DIED. That's the issue, but I cannot help it if I think about things like this BECAUSE AT LEAST ON SOME LEVEL, they tend to make sense.

When someone comes forward and adequately explains how a plane that crashed in PA - which the government initially said was going straight down like a bullet, but residents of the area said that it was flying upside down, horizontally, not far above the ground - could leave virtually NO trace of having crashed and when someone comes forward to explain how a soft-nosed passenger plane could penetrate two or three steel-reinforced concrete walls in one of the highest security buildings in America and why ALL the video cameras surrounding the Pentagon were apparently shut off that day for maintenance (according to Rummy), then my questions will be answered. For now, I've made no decision and I await their responses.

If you are comfortable in the knowledge that you have surrounding these events, that's terrific. As for me, I'm not and the jury is still out.

[fred_journeyman]

That is the conclusion I have come to. You may disagree, and that is fine. Don't get angry!

I didn't get angry, Barb and I'm not. You were the one who used the words "crap" and "good sense" when discussing this situation. I am simply discussing it.

[Barb]

Do you actually LISTEN to the type of questions that the media asks the President? The media has NO BACKBONE anymore.

Are you kidding me? They hate his GUTS. These are people who would do anything to bring this man down.

As for the rest, I believe we were attacked by Islamic Fascists. It is what is.

[Barb]

That is the conclusion I have come to. You may disagree, and that is fine. Don't get angry!

I didn't get angry, Barb and I'm not. You were the one who used the words "crap" and "good sense" when discussing this situation. I am simply discussing it.

Saying crap and good sense doesn't = anger Fred.

[fred_journeyman]

Exactly Barb. Fred's rants are so ridiculous I'm laughing. He bases part of his argument on a windowless plane carrying a "tubelike" object underneath it. Furthermore, I'm to believe that the people behind the greatest coverup in the history of mankind couldn't figure out that windowless planes and "tubelike" objects underneath them would be virtually impossible to see at NIGHT. No, there plan was so perfect that they said, fuck it, do it at 8 am.

John, these are not "rants." I'm discussing. You are the one who feels the best way to respond to me is through the use of vitriolic rants and sarcasm. You've done this since your first response to me when I came back to this board.

As I stated before, John, I do not care WHAT you think. It makes no difference to me. I simply entered the conversation and pointed out some things that remain UNANSWERED and since you have no responded to my query about whether or not you've seen the video, then I'll assume that you, like Barb have not.

I would suggest you take the time to view the video produced by TURNER'S network. Forget the Loose Change video. Just watch Turner's. To me, it's sadly fascinating.

If you would like to discuss something with me, John, that's fine. I'm anxious to see if you can carry on a conversation in adult manner. If you want to persist in stupidity and childlike behavior, that's up to you, but surely you can't be stupid enough to think that this particular demeanor is going to sway me one way or another? Then again, maybe I'm wrong...

[fred_journeyman]

Saying crap and good sense doesn't = anger Fred.

But your overall implied meaning came through loud and clear, Barb.

[Barb]

Saying crap and good sense doesn't = anger Fred.

But your overall implied meaning came through loud and clear, Barb.

You sure like to nipick, don't you? The meaning (not implied at all) is that I have a strong opinion on this topic -- not anger towards you.

Will you let it rest now?

[fred_journeyman]

Are you kidding me? They hate his GUTS. These are people who would do anything to bring this man down.

If you say so.

As for the rest, I believe we were attacked by Islamic Fascists. It is what is.

Okay, so you have no response for my queries regarding the LACK of plane wreckage in PA, or how a soft-nosed passenger plane could penetrate steel-reinforced concrete to the third level and leave a nearly perfect circle in its wake?

This is the trouble with this stuff...because we are talking about what people BELIEVE, to question it usually hits them where they live and then they are willing to disregard those things that do not make sense, in order to keep their belief system together.

In all of the things I have read (from BOTH sides), I have not read anything that adquately explains how a plane could completely disintegrate upon impact, NOR how a soft-nosed passenger jet could blow a round hole through three tiers of the Pentagon.

Maybe it was Islamic Fundamentalists. That's certainly a very real possibility. It STILL does not answer my questions above.

[Saint John]

Exactly Barb. Fred's rants are so ridiculous I'm laughing. He bases part of his argument on a windowless plane carrying a "tubelike" object underneath it. Furthermore, I'm to believe that the people behind the greatest coverup in the history of mankind couldn't figure out that windowless planes and "tubelike" objects underneath them would be virtually impossible to see at NIGHT. No, there plan was so perfect that they said, fuck it, do it at 8 am.

John, these are not "rants." I'm discussing. You are the one who feels the best way to respond to me is through the use of vitriolic rants and sarcasm. You've done this since your first response to me when I came back to this board.

As I stated before, John, I do not care WHAT you think. It makes no difference to me. I simply entered the conversation and pointed out some things that remain UNANSWERED and since you have no responded to my query about whether or not you've seen the video, then I'll assume that you, like Barb have not.

I would suggest you take the time to view the video produced by TURNER'S network. Forget the Loose Change video. Just watch Turner's. To me, it's sadly fascinating.

If you would like to discuss something with me, John, that's fine. I'm anxious to see if you can carry on a conversation in adult manner. If you want to persist in stupidity and childlike behavior, that's up to you, but surely you can't be stupid enough to think that this particular demeanor is going to sway me one way or another? Then again, maybe I'm wrong...

All of what you "pointed out" HAS been answered. You can't hear those answers though, as you don't want to believe them. And yes, you are correct, much of what I have posted has been less than adult-like, and for that, I do apologize. However, underneath my poorly presented posts lies a heck of a lot of substance, albeit presented somewhat adolescently. I debunked your Twin Towers collapse claims and the windowless plane with tubelike underneath doesn't even deserve being discussed, it's just too silly. Every major network carried the events live. I guess they all just missed what you and the boys from Turner saw.

[fred_journeyman]

You sure like to nipick, don't you?

Oh, right, I forgot...I'm the only one on this board that nitpicks. Got it.

No, I simply like to CLARIFY, which has a completely different meaning, Barb. Sorry if that bothers you.

Sure, I'll let it rest and one day, maybe someone will provide me with some substantive responses to my queries. That's all I'm asking for...

[Saint John]

You sure like to nipick, don't you?

Oh, right, I forgot...I'm the only one on this board that nitpicks. Got it.

No, I simply like to CLARIFY, which has a completely different meaning, Barb. Sorry if that bothers you.

Sure, I'll let it rest and one day, maybe someone will provide me with some substantive responses to my queries. That's all I'm asking for...

Your Queer? Sorry dude, just trying to lighten things up. Sorry if that was a bad way to go about it.

[fred_journeyman]

All of what you "pointed out" HAS been answered. You can't hear those answers though, as you don't want to believe them.

That is absolutely NOT true.

And yes, you are correct, much of what I have posted has been less than adult-like, and for that, I do apologize.

Thank you.

However, underneath my poorly presented posts lies a heck of a lot of substance, albeit presented somewhat adolescently. I debunked your Twin Towers collapse claims and the windowless plane with tubelike underneath doesn't even deserve being discussed, it's just too silly.

John, how does that "silly" comment move the conversation forward?

Every major network carried the events live. I guess they all just missed what you and the boys from Turner saw.

Again with the sarcasm. Okay John, I'll assume it is just too much for you to dialogue about. You, yourself did not debunk anything. You simply quoted somebody. You have NOT responded to my query about whether or not you've seen ANY videos, much less the Turner video.

I get your point, John. You do not have the resources at your disposal to enter into a dialogue and DISCUSS things. That's fine. I get it.

[Barb]

Are you kidding me? They hate his GUTS. These are people who would do anything to bring this man down.

If you say so.

As for the rest, I believe we were attacked by Islamic Fascists. It is what is.

Okay, so you have no response for my queries regarding the LACK of plane wreckage in PA, or how a soft-nosed passenger plane could penetrate steel-reinforced concrete to the third level and leave a nearly perfect circle in its wake?

This is the trouble with this stuff...because we are talking about what people BELIEVE, to question it usually hits them where they live and then they are willing to disregard those things that do not make sense, in order to keep their belief system together.

In all of the things I have read (from BOTH sides), I have not read anything that adquately explains how a plane could completely disintegrate upon impact, NOR how a soft-nosed passenger jet could blow a round hole through three tiers of the Pentagon.

Maybe it was Islamic Fundamentalists. That's certainly a very real possibility. It STILL does not answer my questions above.

Hmm. Yes, maybe it was Islamic Fascists. Just maybe...

As I said, I've read all of the theories and how they have been discredited. You can do the same. I don't need to waste my time answering your questions because I don't think anything I post here will convince you of the belief you seem to be leaning towards. I gave you the link to what I have read. Read it if you are interested in having your questions answered.

[fred_journeyman]

I gave you the link to what I have read. Read it if you are interested in having your questions answered.

Thank you. I'll do that and maybe I'll order their book as well.