Laws of Physics violated...DUH!! The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has attempted to support the official conspiracy theory that the World Trade Center (WTC) Towers collapsed due to fire [1]. However, NIST has neglected the law of conservation of momentum by not explaining how the huge mass of the building provided virtually no resistance at all to the upper part of the building [2]. In other words NIST does not acknowledge that the official conspiracy theory violates the laws of physics. If the upper parts of the WTC towers, just above the jet impact point, were taken off and dropped somewhere from the same height with only air to resist the fall they would fall at almost the same times as the buildings actually fell [3]. In other words there was virtually no resistance from the impacted mass. Momentum was not conserved. This law was violated. Momentum is mass times velocity, p = mv. The total momentum of a closed system cannot change. Although momentum conservation in non-closed systems is not 100% accurate because of resistance forces such as friction and air resistance, the law of conservation of momentum is still extremely good for providing accurate estimates of speed and for analyzing collisions, such as whether a building fell down or was brought down by controlled demolition. This is because the contact forces of collisions are very large compared to any resistance forces. If an object falls onto another object the falling object will have a certain momentum. The velocity of the object will be the speed of gravity or free fall speed, 9.81 m/s. The object will continue at the same velocity unless acted on an outside force. At the point of collision where the two objects hit each other, there will be a transfer of momentum. In the case of the WTC towers the collision involves a failure on one or more floors which causes the upper part of the building to collide with the lower part. This is referred to as an inelastic or viscous collision because the two objects collide and stick together. The viscous behavior refers to the deformation the material undergoes during the collision. Energy is dissipated through molecular motion and heat generation by this deformation. So a considerable amount of momentum will be expended in breaking up the lower part of the building as well as the upper part. During the collision, the two objects exert equal and opposite forces on each other. The force of gravity pulling down the detached part of the building is equal to the force of the Earth pulling the detached building upward. However, due to safety factors the resisting force of the remaining building dwarfs the downward pushing gravitational force [4]. If there were no much stronger resisting force, no building would stay up because they are not counteracting the force of gravity. How could gravity pull the building down when there is a far stronger force resisting the gravitational force? The remaining part of the building is in the way. It is a much stronger force counteracting the weaker gravitational force. That is how buildings stay up so long. The remaining part of the building should at the very least slow the collapse considerably, not provide almost no resistance at all. Also, a huge portion of the building is pulverized into dust and ejected outwards somehow, detracting considerably from the falling mass[5]. Large building demolitions work by taking out the building supports floor by floor with explosives [6]. This is how they deal with the considerable upward force and how demolished buildings thus can realize free-fall speeds. Even if ordinary office fires could cause massive steel support columns to fail (simultaneously and in just the right perfectly timed sequence) the whole building was not on fire. Another big problem for the official conspiracy theory is that you have to explain how structural steel and bone fragments were ejected at high speed onto neighboring buildings. Large multi-ton pieces of steel were ejected horizontally up to 600 feet and embedded into buildings [3]. You also have to explain how most of the concrete and office contents were reduced to an ultra-fine dust [3][5]. A gravity collapse simply does not have the massive energy required to perform these feats. If a building free falls there is no energy left to pulverize concrete to dust or embed structural steel into buildings up to 600 feet away [7]. In other words the official conspiracy theory also violates the law of conservation of energy. All these anomalies are explained and the laws of physics are not violated if the buildings were brought down using explosives. Conclusion The laws of physics have never been violated. So if you propose a theory that requires violating the laws of physics you have a huge problem. Usually scientists would at best completely ignore such a theory but usually proponents of such theories are ridiculed mercilessly, unless of course it seems, if you are the US government. In science one observation that disagrees with the predictions of a theory means the theory is wrong. The official story regarding the 9/11 WTC tower collapses clearly violates two fundamental laws of physics. The theory that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition on the other hand does not violate the laws of physics. So which theory does science dictate we reject? References [1] S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. “National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, answers to frequently asked questions”, Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, August 30, 2006. [Online]. Available: NIST, http://wtc.nist.gov. [2] Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley, "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction", The Open Civil Engineering Journal, Volume 2, 2008 http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM [3] Griffin, David Ray (2004). The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, Northampton, Massachusetts: Interlink. chapter 2. [4] Gordon Ross, ME, "NIST and Dr. Bazant - Simultaneous Failure", Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 11 - May 2007 http://www.journalof911studies.com/...-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf [5] Dr. Steven E. Jones, "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?", Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 3 - September 2006 http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf (section 9) [6] Harris, Tom (2000). “How Building Implosions Work,” available at: http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm, ca. 2000. [7] Dr. Frank Legge, "9/11 - Evidence for Controlled Demolition: a Short List of Observations ", Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 1 - June 2006 http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_2_Evidence_for_demolition_20.pdf
Those fires were SO HOT, a woman is "hanging out" http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc1_woman.html Yes...would you look at that tremendous fire behind and around that lady...OH YEAH...now I see the fire that make WTC fall down go boom (cept' the booms were first)
Well...for one...I submit that, like air in a tire, it would offer 'RESISTANCE" TO THE FLOORS, it would cause non uniformity as the building comes down. Tell you what Orc...YOU WIN....IT WAS AIR...you resolved that with marvelous intellect, insight and logic. Maybe you could help me resolve another thing that has been bugging me...The one WTC lobby, ...the once with all the glass broken out, the charred insides, fragments of the interior of the lobby all over the place, dust...smoke...Tell me..What was that all about? Did a bomb go off? Or does it just look like a bomb went off, and finally, were the fireman who were inside the WTC lobby before it came down,,lying, mistaken, or just conspiracy nuts, when they said they heard bombs and we all saw all that s*** all over the lobby. Explain what happened there for me...would you please? Thank you so much..I can hardly wait.
I was wrong I was wrong...I remember George Bush said that he saw a plane hit the first tower on live tv, Musta been on the up and up...Oh wait...George must have lied because the first plane hit WASN'T on live TV. Unless he meant his personal closed circuit tv he was watching on the way to school, cause, he hadn't arrived at the school yet when the first tower was hit. He must have been monitoring his handy work with his private hookup.
You people are hopeless. Ignore...evade..then turn it around and accuse me of the same. I think I'm done. I can't get one reasonable person to agree with anything. I may as well be talking to trees. I'd say it was a good exchange of thoughts, but it wasn't. Debating with scared sheep yields nothing and folks don't like to use their brains..I proved that much at least. Adios.....it's been......something.
No...we are just waiting for natural selection to deal with the likes of you. I know that 9/11 conspiracists like yourself have made an effort to avoid linking the 9/11 terrorist attack to islam and the koran. You ignore the MOTIVE (Islam) for such an act when the facts are clear. Suicide bombers/hijackers are in fact students of the koran who are motivated by its 100's of violent commands – making them, as strange as it sounds to the us in West, "rational actors" on this crazy islamic stage. You cannot ignore the motivre...In islam, it is not how one lives one's life that guarantees spiritual salvation, but how one dies, according to islamic texts. There are great advantages for "true" muislims to becoming a martyr. Dying while fighting the infidels in the cause of Allah reserves a special place and honor in paradise. And it earns special favor with their allah. The 9/11 hijackers and the London bombings even made martyrdom videos. In their last testaments, they recite the koran while talking of their "love of death" and "sacrificing life for allah." Seven martyrdom videotapes also were recovered by British authorities in the foiled transatlantic sky terror plot. Again...goes to MOTIVE of these whacked islamic people Now...even before the 9/11 attacks, the hijackers shaved and doused themselves with flower water in preparation for their weddings with the beautiful virgins in their freakin' paradise. Even muslim clerics do not disavow the virgins-for-martyrs reward as a perverted interpretation of the koran. ************************************ ...just like their terrorist/pedophile prophet ...just like all of the instructions of hate and fighting found in the koran and hadith ...just like their ACTIONS over the last 1,400 years!!
Tom have I treated you with the slightest disrespect in this discussion? I would appreciate you treating me in the same manner, I will tell you what I tell all members here you use sarcasm towards me then I will do the same to you. I put forward a theory if you can dissprove it then please do so but leave out the sacastic remarks. What happens when a pile of fuel ignites Tom it again follows the path of least resistance, now just how much fuel was on that plane? and are you trying to tell me that it would be impossible for a ball of flame to travel from the point of impact to the lobby?, the air itself would have pulled it along. Now if you can disprove that such a thing can happen feel free. Have I said any one was lying Tom? No I dont think I have, now you take a walk through any office block in the country Tom and have a little look round at what will go bang in a fire, ever heard a aerosol can explode? very much like a detonation, unless of course you are trying to tell me there were no items in that building which could explode? Ever heard bottles explode, any tins of paint, Mettle polish etc, take a TV outside Tom and place it on a hot fire and see what happens. There are many reasons for the sound of explosions in a large fire like that.
You have a point on me being disrespectful. I don't guess that helps or makes me any better than those attitudes that I dislike so much. My apologies. I guess it has been interesting...also rather disheartening. Such is life.
Last post on this exercise in futility. One last bit of sarcasm I suppose..It's great that no one could find any merit in my posts, and if anyone did agree, all I can say is thanks for the support. I had a small amount of faith in humanity many posts ago...thanks for extinguishing it. I obviously miscalculated and I'm glad everyone's good with what happened on that day. I'm glad all the story's are just what the gov't says they were. I'm glad the multitude of folks/information I've tried to put forth is wrong. Mostly I'm glad we all so willfully swallow whatever is fed to us. That's good cause we're all too busy makin' a buck rather than having to deal with things that require logic or reason. Finally..I'm glad I'm only a whacked out conspiracy nut cause we all coulda been in trouble if any of that stuff that I and my other fellow nutcases all believe might have been true. I'll just kick back, crack a beer, and wait for further instruction. Thanks for straightening me out there. Should I need facts or news on anything in the future., I'll just check out the brilliant posts I find here in this forum. What a load off and a time saver...thanks again all..
Tom, strong stuff there but you shouldn't be so cynical. I think there are many people who know what happened there and many more who will come around. I think people are really much smarter than you give them credit for and it is only a small matter of time before we all have to face the difficult realities. It is understandable that most of us don't like what we see when we look, so we rationalize why it couldn't be because it is scary and uncomfortable. We all can fix it and we all will but most of us are not quite ready to face the music. Not yet. But we will. What is that phrase that Dr. Phil routinely uses?? 'One can't change what one doesn't acknowledge' or some such. Clearly we still refuse to acknowledge the past but I'm hoping that will change in the future, so that we do not have to repeat the past.
A lesson in what happens when you take things out of context. That is all a conspiracy theory is in the end. When you look at the big picture, it is hard to deny that two planes hijacked by terrorists flew into the WTC. Worrying about thermite residue on the debris is pointless when everyone saw what happened.
I swore to myself that I wouldn't respond to your ignorance any more, but, what the hell. The "big picture" is exactly what you are obviously incapable of comprehending. You critique me for taking things out of context, and then you spin it whatever slanted way that your limited self interest will allow (whatever that is). I know you'll never admit anything important at this point, except for possibly something unexplainable about building 7 (and only because of it's obvious and unexplainable collapse that you have even admitted that...or did you...hell..I don't know now without going back at this point). My point is that I could have all the evidence in the world and you'd never relent. Your arrogance does intrigue me, I must admit. But rather than drone on and trying to reason with dead wood, and for the benefit of hopefully more reasoned and open minded individuals reading this, I'll say this. The fact that "nano-thermite" residue is there (not the more traditional thermite that you think you cleverly substituted into your "spin" while at the same time, admitting that residue actually was there (while actually not admitting it in an attempt to downplay it's relevance in being there in the first place, and trying to dismiss it at the same time). I suppose your next modification of the facts would go to suggest that thermite (not the nano-thermite actually found, hoping folks don't know the difference....and there is quite a substantial one) might have been there "naturally" as some reasonable by product of the fire, the jet fuel, the high temperatures, or whatever other reasonable "sounding" excuse that you think you can get away with..for the uneducated folks who maybe haven't had the time to research it. But I digress. "Nano-thermite" residue was found on the steel and "nano-thermite" cannot somehow naturally occur from the given circumstances. Your attempt at misdirection with "two planes flew into the WTC hijacked by terrorists" is one attempt that you want to mix fact with fiction hoping nobody will notice. We all saw the planes hit WTC1 and 2 (not WTC7 that fell down by itself that no plane came close to hitting), so "planes hitting" is accurate. Lumping in "hijacked by terrorists" is in debate with reasonably minded folks). Nice try I guess. "Worrying about thermite residue while everbody saw what happened" is another mix. Everybody saw the planes. Fact. That's it. Lumping in "worrying about thermite" is nothing more than an ill informed opinion. Nobody "saw" anything that would preclude unexploded "nano-thermite" from being present on the steel in the aftermath. Another half witted attempt. I do not know what your hidden agenda is a representation of, but it is obvious to me that indeed have one. Now I will go bang my head into the wall for even responding to your brand of skull density.
If you want people to take you seriously, then stop doing what you are complaining about. You are the master of spin. You avoided every question I asked and ignored every fact I posted. Not once did you provide a reasonable motive for anyone in the government to commit genocide on it's own people but then you accuse anyone who disagrees with your lunacy of being small or closed minded. You accuse me of not ever admitting anything important, yet in your own post you show that I admitted that the collapse of WTC7 was suspicious and should be investigated further. You are the one who has not admitted any flaws. You have not explained a government motive, a way to keep a huge conspiracy secret, or how the government coordinated with the terrorist attack. Until you provide these explanations, you relegate yourself to the lunatic fringe. I did not put you there. I just pointed it out. As for arrogance, that is the pot calling the kettle black. At least I was man enough to show some foundation by listing my education and background, something you never did. You could be janitor with barely a high school education for all we know. What we do know is that you didn't contrive this conspiracy on you own. You regurgitate the ideas of others due to a distrust of the government that is so extreme that probably qualifies as a mental disease. You appear very educated about the subject only because it has completely consumed your life and you probably spend every waking moment working on your propaganda campaign. BTW, don't bang to hard, you might hurt yourself and wake up from your paranoid delusion.
I should have to get inside the criminal's heads and explain motives. I should have to explain why the killer kills in order to satisfy your skewed reason. I see. Huge conspiracy secret...hmmm..don't know...maybe "manhattan project" style perhaps is one possibility. People were/are compartmentalized. It's not that difficult to imagine I wouldn't think. Folks work everyday towards unknown goals of their superiors. Let's see...Yes..I do admit that I "regurgitate" ideas and opinions that seem to make sense to me because well....they make sense. People much smarter than I articulate various ideas much more clearly than I am able to do. I also admittedly have spent a great deal of time investigating the huge information pool that is on the internet pertaining to the subject, so I can comfortably say I think I have heard just about all of the ridiculousness as well and I seriously doubt you or anybody other single person can tell me anything "new" on the subject. Why don't I help you make your make your case? I will admit I started with JFK. Despite the many years of available time to look for themselves, some people still remain largely ignorant of that subject for many of the same reasons as they do of 911. Lazy, willfully ignorant, scared,. to name a few. I also own a great deal of material in the way of books written by various architectural engineers and scientists on the subject, video presentations, including endless footage of the day's events that include countless witness testimony from police and fireman, to people that were in the buildings, employees of the buildings and many more. I tend to give these folks a bit more credibility than I would, let's say a "Ruby Guillianni" or a Fox spin master. Yes, I do find real life much more interesting than the retarded tv shows and gov't controlled media, so consequently, I don't watch dancing with whoever., american idiot, or the like, and so yes that leaves me a lot of time to search for actual information rather than the garbage that is called television programming (interesting word, that word programming). Same goes with the numbnuts political entertainment "shows". They are entertainment. There isn't much news content really, just corporate paid opinions. So no I don't contrive the conspiracy completely on my own. Guilty as charged. The janitor part..so, that means that if I were a janitor with "barely a high school education" that would invalidate my common sense (which is what finding problems with the govt's stories is really all it really entails is...common sense) and unless I can believe people of your stature, that further relegates me to "la-la land"? You're not very judgeMENTAL, are you sir? I do completely distrust the gov't..guilty once again. So if all of this means that, in your view, I should be discounted/ignored/ridiculed, well, then that would be, as they say, "your problem" Oh..almost forgot. My propaganda campaign. Yes, I guess I am somewhat guilty of that as well, as I want to enlighten as many folks as I can to the multitude of "inconsistencies" of the original conspiracy theory, that is the fairy tale fabrications of 911 told to us by our criminal leaders and that hope that folks will indeed use their own common sense to check it out for themselves. Do I spend every waking hour??? No...but I admit that I might if it were feasible. Again, much more interesting than the "propaganda" generated from the boob tube.
Well dude....maybe if we'd face the realities we might not have to endure it, ya think?? People are smarter than I think? Where???? What country?? You need to take off your rose colored glasses there bud....the general public ain't all that bright..or if they are.,or they ain't showin' it..
Again...9/11 conspiracy whack-o's never address the MOTIVE of why "true" muslims committed this terrorist attack...like the 1,000's of those before and 1,000's of islamic attacks after 9/11/01. Fact: Most muslim suicide bombers are in fact students of the koran who are motivated by its violent commands – making them, as strange as it sounds to us in the West, "rational jihad actors" on the islamic stage. Fact: In Islam, it is not how one lives one's life that guarantees spiritual salvation, but how one dies, according to its history and writings. There are great advantages to becoming an islamic martyr. Dying while fighting the infidels in the cause of Allah reserves a special place and honor in Paradise. And it earns special favor with Allah. Suicide in defense of islam is permitted. That is a fact. That is their motive!! Suicide for their allah is a 'win-win' for "true" muslims. 19 of these islamic animals were simply doing allah's work. FACT: The 9/11 hijackers and the London bombers made martyrdom videos. In their last testaments, they recite the koran while talking of their "love of death" and "sacrificing life for Allah." BTW...Seven martyrdom videotapes were also recovered by British authorities in the foiled transatlantic sky terror plot. Keep in mind that before the 9/11 islamic attacks, the islamic hijackers shaved and doused themselves with flower water in preparation for their weddings with the beautiful virgins in their aaradise. "Know that the women of Paradise are waiting, calling out 'Come hither, friend of Allah,'" according to a four-page letter circulated among them titled "THE LAST NIGHT." Motive for 9/11 islamic terrorists: 72 virgins! There's no doubt the koran and hadith "promises virgins" to muslim men who die while fighting infidels in jihad, and it's a key motivating factor behind suicide terrorism, like the world witnessed on 9/11/2001 Address the motive that has been fueling this hate for the last 1,400 year! ************************************ ...just like their terrorist/pedophile prophet ...just like all of the instructions of hate and fighting found in the koran and hadith ...just like their ACTIONS over the last 1,400 years!!
Why start with JFK? Why not Mckinley? Or Garfield? Or even, dare I say it? How bout Pearl Harbor? Maybe that was staged too. I mean c'mon those special effects were pretty lame even for 1941. Obviously the government didnt get DeMille to direct that fakery. How bout Kent State? Lets face it none of us knew any of the kids who were ''shot''. Merely some shakey filming and ambiguous camera work. And my brothers 15th birthday. Whats up with that? I dont remember being there, but my grandfather said I was. And for proof, he has one blurring photo. I mean, c'mon. Geez, now I'm not even sure I have a brother.
Why did NORAD change it's story. Easy, because they were afraid that somebody would say they should have prevented the attack from happening. If they made any obvious mistakes, it would be in the best interest of the government bureaucrat in charge to lie. The lie is not definitive proof the government was responsible for 9/11. MINUS one point for Tom (-1) The FAA is an government agency that was extremely short staffed prior to 9/11 and another inept government agency. How do I know they were short staffed and inept. My ex-wife was a human resources staffer for the FAA at the time and was worried that her job was going to be eliminated. 9/11 secured her government job for life. Minus one point for Tom (-2) You want us to challenge his hearsay testimony about the "young man". First off, I find it hard to believe he doesn't know the name of the "young man". Second, there is no context for the entire conversation. What if the plane that was 50 miles away was a military aircraft. What if the original order was " to not to shoot down the plane". All that testimony confirms is that Minetta didn't know very much and was making assumptions to fill in the blanks. The only thing I will grant you is that Minetta's testimony should have prompted the commission to call Cheyney to testify. I will not give you a point for this however, it proves nothing without proper foundation. BTW, why would the government order the planes to be shot down when crashing the planes was their intentional plan. That is one helluva look good. It is still your theory that the government is responsible for the attacks isn't it? (-2) I will give this one to you because I don't know anything about it. Of course the excuse that the government is incompetent could be used, but securing airspace is something the government should be able to do. One point for Tom (-1) Again, I don't know anything about this so you get the point. One point for Tom (0) The way I understand it is that you believe the plane was shot down by the government. That is a possibility and I will give you the point. However, have you ever considered that the hijackers detonated a bomb on board that damaged the plane sending some wreckage to the ground in that spot while the aircraft traveled another 2-8 miles before crashing. If you don't admit that is a possible scenario as is your government shoot down, then you are the one with blinders on. Either way, I will give you the point. (1). What the heck are you giving yourself a point for here. All you did was call their work crap. You didn't debunk any of their work, you simply insulted it. I don't consider another opinion part of the debate and will not give you a point for disagreeing with them. NO WAY! (0) I posted a link that showed a photo of the Pentagon with airplane parts. Back in the negative Tommy Boy. (-1) Challenge what, the stupid little you tube clip you posted that confirms there were routine military exercises happening that day. You needed to connect the dots an prove that the exercises in some way provide a cover for the government to conduct a phenomenally difficult covert operation of genocide on it's own people. Not only did you not do this, claiming credit for this is completely ridiculous and I think a two point deduction is warranted. One point for not proving anything and another for just cheating. I kinda like making up the rules as we go along Tom. It is fun. At least for me. Not so much for you though, two more points gone (-3) This seems to be the same issue as Minetta's testimony, if not please explain. No point change (-3) You are hysterical. I am not about to re-read 30 pages of your crap to find these two items which I don't think were ever discussed by anyone. Tom's strategy. Post 15 times in a row. Get responses for 2 of the 15 posts and claim credit for a win on the other 13. You get no points for these two, they were never discussed. Posting propaganda is not a win, you actually need a response in order to claim debate Tom. (-3) Since I agreed in the thread that this was suspicous, I give you the point. However, it is like cutting the throat of a man that was already shot to death. Why bring down the smaller building when the towers are already rubble? There is a really easy answer to my question that you cant even come up with. (-2) Creating doubt is not a case. You have no case until you provide a feasible theory of your own. Every truther when asked to do this falls flat on their face. Why, because it simply isn't possible to invent a feasible theory that would include motive. Did you prove that government officials lied? Yes. Did we need a 9/11 commission to learn that? I think not. Stop wasting your life Tom. I know it is scary to admit that a bunch of guys who live in caves half way around the world did this, but they did. You still don't see the inherent problem with your whole theory. It is predicated on the assumption that the government was able to pull of a conspiracy of unimaginable complexity. You watched the testimony of the top officials in the government. Do you really think the idiots in our government could pull that off. Your feeling is that our government and the military are competent almost to the point of superhero status. I think that history states otherwise. Last time I checked, the last war we won ended in 1945 Tom. ------------------ ------------------ [/quote] This is so typical of you. Make a post so long that almost nobody would be willing to lose 30 minutes of their life simply to prove you wrong. I had to make my posts red just so that people would be able to follow it. You didn't win. My final score (-2). You want to see how you did Tom. Post a poll in another thread. Ask everyone if you won the debate. Give two options: YES or NO and make sure that votes are made public so we can see who voted for whom. Be a man Tom, post the poll!
Why did NORAD change it's story. Easy, because they were afraid that somebody would say they should have prevented the attack from happening. If they made any obvious mistakes, it would be in the best interest of the government bureaucrat in charge to lie. The lie is not definitive proof the government was responsible for 9/11. MINUS one point for Tom (-1) ------ Norad lied at least (3) different times. If it had been 5 times, or 25 times..would that number be enough to smell a rat? So they HAD to lie, and we're supposed to assume what..that they lied 3 times and then gave up? Or are we supposed to think the 3rd story was finally the correct one..or what? Maybe your interpretation is that we must just trust that they lie for our own good. Whatever. I reject that. But they lied, because they had to.....very big of you. ------- The FAA is an government agency that was extremely short staffed prior to 9/11 and another inept government agency. How do I know they were short staffed and inept. My ex-wife was a human resources staffer for the FAA at the time and was worried that her job was going to be eliminated. 9/11 secured her government job for life. Minus one point for Tom (-2) The FAA was inept and short staffed, therefore they weren't able to communicate with Norad about something that routinely takes less than a minute any other day, but on this day, with literally the whole world watching, they failed to contact Norad in a timely enough fashion to have them intercede, because they were "inept"? Was Norad asleep too? Weren't they curious what might have been going on that day, maybe, they would check with the FAA first or eventually? Maybe Norad didn't have access to CNN. My 8 year old can reason much better than that. You want us to challenge his hearsay testimony about the "young man". First off, I find it hard to believe he doesn't know the name of the "young man". Second, there is no context for the entire conversation. What if the plane that was 50 miles away was a military aircraft. What if the original order was " to not to shoot down the plane". All that testimony confirms is that Minetta didn't know very much and was making assumptions to fill in the blanks. The only thing I will grant you is that Minetta's testimony should have prompted the commission to call Cheyney to testify. I will not give you a point for this however, it proves nothing without proper foundation. BTW, why would the government order the planes to be shot down when crashing the planes was their intentional plan. That is one helluva look good. It is still your theory that the government is responsible for the attacks isn't it? (-2) I'm sorry that you are either too lazy or too dishonest to do the simple research on Norman Minetta. His ENTIRE testimony is easily accessible. He WAS talking about the Pentagon on that morning...and we DIDN'T have any jets over Washington...remember?? That's why the Pentagon was supposedly was hit by 77....NO JETS around to defend it, right? Nothing on Popular Mechanic's hack job. check. (7) What the heck are you giving yourself a point for here. All you did was call their work crap. You didn't debunk any of their work, you simply insulted it. I don't consider another opinion part of the debate and will not give you a point for disagreeing with them. NO WAY! (0) Popular Mechanics...that crap requires a very lengthy response to, and you don't like long answers apparently. I am going to skip that for now, but I will address it separately (so you can dismiss scientific facts in one felt swoop). I posted a link that showed a photo of the Pentagon with airplane parts. Back in the negative Tommy Boy. (-1) LE "high". That common photograph you reference is hardly an engine from 77. I'll address that separately as well. Challenge what, the stupid little you tube clip you posted that confirms there were routine military exercises happening that day. You needed to connect the dots an prove that the exercises in some way provide a cover for the government to conduct a phenomenally difficult covert operation of genocide on it's own people. Not only did you not do this, claiming credit for this is completely ridiculous and I think a two point deduction is warranted. One point for not proving anything and another for just cheating. I kinda like making up the rules as we go along Tom. It is fun. At least for me. Not so much for you though, two more points gone (-3) The exercises you so easily dismiss were an integral part of what was happening that day too...I'm going to address these "rebuttals" you reference one at a time in an effort to shine the most light on your warped sense of logic. I do have to thank you for re-igniting my flame on this whole load of crap that is the govt's story. I am off to research specifics.
