Yah..9/11 no explosives? COME AT ME BRO!

[kusok]

1) I'm pretty sure the government have many reasons not to give ALL the information, i'm not questioning that. I'm questioning whether USA was behind it and more specifically, the demolition theory. You are quite making an argument for something you don't know...

2) Official story is too broad for that, anybody can find one tiny lie in every level of analysis and by that, they can sign that petition. However, it says below they want to check whether wtc was brought down by explosives.


You gave me a list of 1600 architects etc who doubts the official story, who wants an independent research and who wants to test the idea if their are explosives involved.
That offcourse is not the complete list of every architect. Did it never occurred to you that there were possibly far more architects that find the idea of explosives downright stupid ? Haven't you checked them up ? Please don't say you didn't...Why ? Because it may be the case that the numbers of scientists who don't believe the demolition theory would be 5 times greater than the scientists who do believe...

I'm full aware the last argument is an argument of ignorance. I just simply don't know, but I'm guessing you should know because any somewhat rational person would check how many scientists are there who believe and how many are there who don't believe.

1) The very fact that government doesn't tell us everything is proof of an inside involvement. Otherwise there is no reason to withhold information.

2) Yes. It looks and sounded to great many people like explosives were involved.

You're speculating as to how many scientists believe Gage is wrong. Not to mention that it doesn't matter. But I lived up to my end, now give your list of those who believe the official story.

[flairon]

you really need to quit smoking that ****.

[kusok]

you really need to quit smoking that ****.

That's like me telling you you need to quit bending over.

[Vigilante_Inc]

So then you only need to be absolutely sure that the plane moving 500+ mph that you have no idea how or where is going to hit the building doesnt do so in such a way that it exposes the ignition systems to the fire...that shouldn't be too hard right?

What is so hard about that part? The Thermate wouldn't be ignited by the fires because a casual office fire and jet fuel dont burn hot enough to ignite it. It usually requires some sort of metal fire to ignite thermate.

I'm just guessing but I'd say that the walls of an office aren't going to put up much resistance to a commercial jet moving at 450 (estimated) mph, so its pretty safe to say that the jet most likely damaged atleast 2-3 floors of the center supports. Though reports call it 6 floors

The exterior of the building was made of short sections of steel. It's not like the outside of the building was all window front lulz. They used sections of 3 beams that were then bolted together by a flat piece of steel and then all bolted together to cover the entire exterior. The plane ran into a giant steel curtain

...and all the thousands of pounds of explosives and miles of det cord were strategically placed and hidden from all of the employees that worked in those offices.

THermate would be far more superior than explosives here. There is a scientist who proved you can use barely any thermate and cut through a steel I beam in seconds.

People tried to refute this originally by taking tons of thermate and putting it around an eye beam and lighting it. It scorched the surface but didnt burn it. But they didn't pressurize or direct the heat and force. Think of it this way... run your hand under an outside water hose... no big deal right. Now attach a pressure sprayer nozzle to that same hose and try not to lose a finger. Now imagine if you take the heat and energy from thermate and do the same thing. You can cut through an I-Beam in a matter of seconds. I saw the videoes where the scientist does it with a homemade thermate not even the military grade stuff available.

[CoolDehLa]

1) The very fact that government doesn't tell us everything is proof of an inside involvement. Otherwise there is no reason to withhold information.

2) Yes. It looks and sounded to great many people like explosives were involved.

You're speculating as to how many scientists believe Gage is wrong. Not to mention that it doesn't matter. But I lived up to my end, now give your list of those who believe the official story.

Please don't tell me you can't think of any other reason besides the governments involvement, i'm not even going to discuss that. I'm still standing by the idea of demolition outright stupid and that the tower fell because of the planes, because scientists said so.

And it matters a lot. You self are stating that 1600+ scientists want a second opinion. 1600 looks like a lot.
But i asked for you a complete list. Those who do believe and those who don't. Are you even serious about providing just one group of people, I mean, are you serious ? Have you seriously didn't check how many don't believe ? Tell you what i'm going to do. Before I'm going to look it up, I have to be sure that you will not run to other arguments so I'm clearly stating to you: what does it take for you to accept my list ? Just like a website like yours ? Petition like things ? How many scientists do I even need ? Please be very clear to me. I will subscribe to this thread and I will come at you with it.

But again, before that, please tell me what kind of info you will accept and what the consequences will be. Say I found a list of scientists where lets say 10000 of them don't believe. How would you cope with that info ? Please be as honest as you can be.

[flairon]

What is so hard about that part? The Thermate wouldn't be ignited by the fires because a casual office fire and jet fuel dont burn hot enough to ignite it. It usually requires some sort of metal fire to ignite thermate.

You do realize that when you cut steel with thermate its like a blow torch right? You dont just sprinkle thermate on something and stand back. It needs to have a conical device to point the molten reaction of the thermate at whatever you're trying to cut. And how would you ignite thermate? To ignite thermate or thermite (thermate is thermite at its base) you need magnesium and heat. hmm...lets see, a couple tons of aluminum alloy airframe just hit the building...what does aluminum alloy have in it? That's right..magnesium. Now we just need some heat? Wow, where would we find heat in the middle of 10,000 gallons of burning jet fuel...

The exterior of the building was made of short sections of steel. It's not like the outside of the building was all window front lulz. They used sections of 3 beams that were then bolted together by a flat piece of steel and then all bolted together to cover the entire exterior. The plane ran into a giant steel curtain

Yeah...the steel curtain obviously held back that plane didn't it. Notice how far those flames came out the other side and you don't see a tail sticking out of the building? In the physics world that usually indicates the plane is inside the building. I know..crazy..but its just a guess. But good thing that 'steel curtain' held it back huh..

[7rmr]

Please don't tell me you can't think of any other reason besides the governments involvement, i'm not even going to discuss that. I'm still standing by the idea of demolition outright stupid and that the tower fell because of the planes, because scientists said so.

And it matters a lot. You self are stating that 1600+ scientists want a second opinion. 1600 looks like a lot.
But i asked for you a complete list. Those who do believe and those who don't. Are you even serious about providing just one group of people, I mean, are you serious ? Have you seriously didn't check how many don't believe ? Tell you what i'm going to do. Before I'm going to look it up, I have to be sure that you will not run to other arguments so I'm clearly stating to you: what does it take for you to accept my list ? Just like a website like yours ? Petition like things ? How many scientists do I even need ? Please be very clear to me. I will subscribe to this thread and I will come at you with it.

But again, before that, please tell me what kind of info you will accept and what the consequences will be. Say I found a list of scientists where lets say 10000 of them don't believe. How would you cope with that info ? Please be as honest as you can be.

No amount of information ever will convince these people that it was a terrorist attack. That is the end of the story. They have made up their minds and they will continue to believe. This argument is the same as a theist arguing with an atheist.

[Vigilante_Inc]

I dont think it really matters how many people you get to argue for either side that's the problem. There are people who still think the holocaust didnt happen. Human nature dictates you are always going to have opposing sides. But just because a million or more scientists think one way doesnt make it true... remember the world used to be flat, we used to be the center of the universe, there are millions of people each with a varying god or diety each of which is claimed to be the one and only... just because you have the majority doesnt mean that it's right. Most people are going to follow the thee easiest to accept idea because we dont like to make our brains fuss too much.

What has to boggle your mind is the fact that in the last 100 years there have been 3 buildings, that use steel frame construction, that have fallen without a controlled demolition. All 3 of them fell on September 11th due to "fire" even though those buildings were meant to withstand fire.

Also to the people saying a building has to fall from the bottom and cant start at the top you are wrong. There is a french method where they explode a few of the levels in the middle or towards the top of the building and then let gravity take the rest of the building down. Looks just like the collapse of the twin towers.

[kusok]

Please don't tell me you can't think of any other reason besides the governments involvement, i'm not even going to discuss that. I'm still standing by the idea of demolition outright stupid and that the tower fell because of the planes, because scientists said so.

And it matters a lot. You self are stating that 1600+ scientists want a second opinion. 1600 looks like a lot.
But i asked for you a complete list. Those who do believe and those who don't. Are you even serious about providing just one group of people, I mean, are you serious ? Have you seriously didn't check how many don't believe ? Tell you what i'm going to do. Before I'm going to look it up, I have to be sure that you will not run to other arguments so I'm clearly stating to you: what does it take for you to accept my list ? Just like a website like yours ? Petition like things ? How many scientists do I even need ? Please be very clear to me. I will subscribe to this thread and I will come at you with it.

But again, before that, please tell me what kind of info you will accept and what the consequences will be. Say I found a list of scientists where lets say 10000 of them don't believe. How would you cope with that info ? Please be as honest as you can be.

Give a link to said scientists. So far I have given hundreds with credentials that don't agree with the official story. And all you do is speculate groundlessly that there are many more who buy the official story. (Not that it maters anyway, like I said, truth is not determined by vote)

Give one example of why government would keep this a secret if they have nothing to hide. For example: not release dozens of security cameras videos of the Pentagon "plane" except 1, or is it 2? What would be any other reason to hide those if there is no inside involvement??? What secrets of collecting data from steel of WTC could undermine US security??? You you said you will not discuss it, because you don't have even one example that you can come up with

[flairon]

I dont think it really matters how many people you get to argue for either side that's the problem. There are people who still think the holocaust didnt happen. Human nature dictates you are always going to have opposing sides. But just because a million or more scientists think one way doesnt make it true... remember the world used to be flat, we used to be the center of the universe, there are millions of people each with a varying god or diety each of which is claimed to be the one and only... just because you have the majority doesnt mean that it's right. Most people are going to follow the thee easiest to accept idea because we dont like to make our brains fuss too much.

What has to boggle your mind is the fact that in the last 100 years there have been 3 buildings, that use steel frame construction, that have fallen without a controlled demolition. All 3 of them fell on September 11th due to "fire" even though those buildings were meant to withstand fire.

Also to the people saying a building has to fall from the bottom and cant start at the top you are wrong. There is a french method where they explode a few of the levels in the middle or towards the top of the building and then let gravity take the rest of the building down. Looks just like the collapse of the twin towers.

hmm...so the french method would be sort of like flying a multi-ton commerical jet into the center of the building, knocking out the supports...and then gravity taking the rest of the building down?

[CoolDehLa]

Don't agree with official story =/= demolition.


Anyway, i subscribed here and was going to check into it, but you're saying it doesn't matter. What would it take then ?

I won't discuss it because 1) not interested 2) there could be numerous other reasons beside their involvement that i'm not aware of 3) again I really don't care.

I don't want to digress to their motivations, the whole story, etc etc etc. I just want to stick with the wtc brought down by demolitions or not. What would it take for you to accept it was not demolition, but planes.

[CoolDehLa]

No amount of information ever will convince these people that it was a terrorist attack. That is the end of the story. They have made up their minds and they will continue to believe. This argument is the same as a theist arguing with an atheist.

I don't even know why i'm trying. At least i can verify for myself how strong their arguments is and i can satisfy myself that they are a bunch of losers.

I was trying to understand how these minds come about and certainly, their ignorance of how science works, could partially explain why they would believe in such crazy ideas.

[CoolDehLa]

I dont think it really matters how many people you get to argue for either side that's the problem. There are people who still think the holocaust didnt happen. Human nature dictates you are always going to have opposing sides. But just because a million or more scientists think one way doesnt make it true... remember the world used to be flat, we used to be the center of the universe, there are millions of people each with a varying god or diety each of which is claimed to be the one and only... just because you have the majority doesnt mean that it's right. Most people are going to follow the thee easiest to accept idea because we dont like to make our brains fuss too much.

What has to boggle your mind is the fact that in the last 100 years there have been 3 buildings, that use steel frame construction, that have fallen without a controlled demolition. All 3 of them fell on September 11th due to "fire" even though those buildings were meant to withstand fire.

Also to the people saying a building has to fall from the bottom and cant start at the top you are wrong. There is a french method where they explode a few of the levels in the middle or towards the top of the building and then let gravity take the rest of the building down. Looks just like the collapse of the twin towers.

Earth is flay, we center of universe, etc were all philosophical/theological ideas, not scientific.
Majority does not make truth, but the ignorant people can only trust the scientific consensus. That is the best option.

[Rowbro]

Oh **** here we go again. I've properly argued all the important facts surrounding 9/11, so done trying to reason with people like the OP who believe NO PLANES HIT THE BUILDING??

Refer to these links for facts grounded in science (at the very least an interesting read to all those who are curious!)

My apologies that the second site is kind of snarky towards conspiracy theorists, however some tend to be really ****ing retarded and that anger in dealing with their fallacies boils over the top.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

The most important information to be taken from all of this? Perhaps if you really don't care about the issue as much as you are affronting, then you might wanna just read this:

As generally accepted by structural engineering and structural mechanics experts (though not by some laymen and fanatics seeking to detect a conspiracy), the failure scenario, broadly proposed by Bazant (2001), and Bazant and Zhou (2002), on the basis of simplified analysis, and supported by very realistic, meticulous and illuminating computer simulations and exhaustive investigations by S. Shyam Sunder's team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, 2005), may be summarized as follows:

1. About 60% of the 60 columns of the impacted face of framed-tube (and about 13% of the total of 287 columns) were severed, and many more were significantly deflected. This caused stress redistribution, which significantly increased the load of some columns, near the load capacity for some of them.

2. Fire insulation was stripped during aircraft impact by flying debris (without that, the towers would likely have survived). In consequence, many structural steel members heated up to 600±C (NIST 2005) (the structural steel used loses about 20% of its yield strength already at 300±C, NIST 2005, and exhibits significant visco-plasticity, or creep, above 450±, especially at high stresses that developed; see e.g. Cottrell 1964, p. 299; the press reports right after 9/11, indicating temperature in excess of 800±C, turned out to be groundless, but Bazant and Zhou's analysis did not depend on that).

3. Differential thermal expansion, combined with heat-induced viscoplastic deformation, caused the floor trusses to sag. The sagging trusses pulled the perimeter columns inward (by about 1 m, NIST 2005). The bowing of columns served as a huge imperfection inducing multi-story buckling. The lateral deflections of some columns due to aircraft impact and differential thermal expansion also decreased buckling strength.

4. The combination of six effects

a) overload of some columns due to initial stress redistribution,
b ) lowering of yield limit and creep,
c) lateral deflections of many columns due to sagging floor trusses,
d) weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane stiffess of sagging floors,
e) multi-story buckling of some columns (for which the critical load is an order of magnitude less than it is for one-story buckling), and
f) local plastic buckling of heated column webs finally led to buckling of columns (Fig. 1b). As a result, the upper part of tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part far exceeded the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of tower. (Bazant, Verdure, 2006)

taken from
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...-6-23-2006.pdf

Good night, and goodbye thread (note I do not deny government involvement, only the silly theories of demolition! It's totally possible the government "allowed" this sort of terrorism to happen, though I personally highly doubt that).

[nutsy54]

But the whole argument makes no sense at all, because if official story of building 7 is correct, why do demolition crews bother with expensive explosives, prep time, computerized sequences, planning etc etc etc, Why not just start fires instead? Apparently the building will simply collapse right into it's own foot print...

Keep pretending that WTC-7 had a standard, common design. Repeat that lie enough times, and maybe someone will believe you... right?

Why do you continue to support your entire position on the basis of a lie?

[Vigilante_Inc]

hmm...so the french method would be sort of like flying a multi-ton commerical jet into the center of the building, knocking out the supports...and then gravity taking the rest of the building down?

Building 7 wasn't hot by a plane?

[Vigilante_Inc]

Keep pretending that WTC-7 had a standard, common design. Repeat that lie enough times, and maybe someone will believe you... right?

Why do you continue to support your entire position on the basis of a lie?

What's uncommon about the design. It's hexagonal and steel framed contruction. It should have withstood a fire. There have been far worse fires to other steel framed buildings and they survived.

[kusok]

Keep pretending that WTC-7 had a standard, common design. Repeat that lie enough times, and maybe someone will believe you... right?

Why do you continue to support your entire position on the basis of a lie?

Keep pretending that WTC-7 was a unique and only building in history of human race brought down completely by fire...

NIST describes building 7 as even a "more typical tall building in the design of its structural system" than the WTC twins.

But yeah... it's so unique... it just completely collapses following the towers... what a coincidence! The only unique building in the world that falls from fire just happens to be right next to WTC and also collapses just like WTC... Interedasting!

[Vigilante_Inc]

Keep pretending that WTC-7 was a unique and only building in history of human race brought down completely by fire...

NIST describes building 7 as even a "more typical tall building in the design of its structural system" than the WTC twins.

But yeah... it's so unique... it just completely collapses following the towers... what a coincidence! The only unique building in the world that falls from fire just happens to be right next to WTC and also collapses just like WTC... Interedasting!

Don't forget that all three of those buildings were owned by the same person if memory serves me correctly

[Vigilante_Inc]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...jing_torch.jpg

This building didn't collapse^^^^^^

you see why it's very hard for us to believe...

http://www.911myths.com/images/9/93/...oD10_Still.jpg

That this fire ^^^^^^ made WTC 7 collapse.

I dont know what caused it to collapse but that def makes it hard for me to believe it was a fire

[mithfen]

Keep pretending that WTC-7 was a unique and only building in history of human race brought down completely by fire...

NIST describes building 7 as even a "more typical tall building in the design of its structural system" than the WTC twins.

But yeah... it's so unique... it just completely collapses following the towers... what a coincidence! The only unique building in the world that falls from fire just happens to be right next to WTC and also collapses just like WTC... Interedasting!

I'll play devil's advocate here. We're confirming that they were clever enough to stage this huge attack but failed to provide a believable theory regarding WTC 7, right?

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply fabricate something a bit more elaborate? Plane debris, seismic event, etc.?

Or is it possible that something extremely embarrassing (at least to the tower 7 developer) happened?

[Vigilante_Inc]

I'll play devil's advocate here. We're confirming that they were clever enough to stage this huge attack but failed to provide a believable theory regarding WTC 7, right?

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply fabricate something a bit more elaborate? Plane debris, seismic event, etc.?

Or is it possible that something extremely embarrassing (at least to the tower 7 developer) happened?

I don't know. I assume it's very difficult to come up with reasons as to why a building would collapse. Fire seems fairly logical until you get to the nitty gritty. Seismic activity is a wash because thats far to easy to disprove.

You can get into a billion reasons I can make up a ton right off the top of my head but they wouldnt be fact its all just speculation. I'm not saying I know what happened I just find it quite hard to believe that WTC 7 was brought down from the fires it had... knowing what I know it seems very very unlikely if not impossible that that was the cause of it's collapse. I know a few fire fighters too and they all agree that somethings not right about it.

NIST blamed it on one beam that snapped due to heat expansion but it wasn't even a vertical beam from there diagram so it shouldnt have had enough prressure to have been comprimed and shouldnt have cause a total failure of the remaining structure. Basically that's like saying... If I take a lug nut off your back rear tire... that will cause all of your tires to fall off

[mithfen]

I don't know. I assume it's very difficult to come up with reasons as to why a building would collapse. Fire seems fairly logical until you get to the nitty gritty. Seismic activity is a wash because thats far to easy to disprove.

You can get into a billion reasons I can make up a ton right off the top of my head but they wouldnt be fact its all just speculation. I'm not saying I know what happened I just find it quite hard to believe that WTC 7 was brought down from the fires it had... knowing what I know it seems very very unlikely if not impossible that that was the cause of it's collapse. I know a few fire fighters too and they all agree that somethings not right about it.

NIST blamed it on one beam that snapped due to heat expansion but it wasn't even a vertical beam from there diagram so it shouldnt have had enough prressure to have been comprimed and shouldnt have cause a total failure of the remaining structure. Basically that's like saying... If I take a lug nut off your back rear tire... that will cause all of your tires to fall off

It's my understanding that NIST opens their reports for public, professional review prior to releasing an official statement. I would consider that the "getting to the nitty gritty" step but maybe you disagree.

I spent time reviewing 100% of the NIST findings recently and personally think that their report is elaborate and also specifically touches on popular questions stemming from skepticism. The Q&A alone is nearly 7000 words so it's a lot to take in.

Having absolutely no structural engineering experience I can only say this: It seems to me there is a possibility, perhaps rare, that a building could collapse after suffering from intense fires on multiple floors where efforts to extinguish those fires have been abandoned.

[Bushmaster]

Actually it's a well known fact that evidence such as steel was quickly locked down, removed, and destroyed.



http://rememberbuilding7.org/destruction-of-evidence/

You know, I was pretty upset that "they" never let me have access to the evidence from the OJ murders. Bastards took it away too soon and wouldn't let me look!

/sarcasm

Now, mind telling me any other time when private citizens have had access to any kind of evidence? A professor at CUNY? And Stephen E. Jones... yah, no agenda there.

[flairon]

Building 7 wasn't hot by a plane?

no, building 7 was in close proximity to not 1 but 2 110 story skyscrapers and was hit by debris that knocked out vital structure points in the building. It had fires going on in it and by all accounts the sprinkler systems were all but dead, probably had something to do with the 2 skyscrapers going down and every fire truck in the city being hooked to they hydrant system.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

[NiceBoat]

Because it has to look like bad guys did it.

And these bad guys don't have bombs?

Like they haven't used bombs in the past.

They wanted to be flashy with 9/11.

1) The very fact that government doesn't tell us everything is proof of an inside involvement. Otherwise there is no reason to withhold information.

2) Yes. It looks and sounded to great many people like explosives were involved.

You're speculating as to how many scientists believe Gage is wrong. Not to mention that it doesn't matter. But I lived up to my end, now give your list of those who believe the official story.

Or it could be the government was woefully incompetent and they wanted to cover that up so as not to appear weak in front of the people they govern over, and so as to not make themselves look like an inviting target to other terrorists. Of course it has to mean that they HAVE to be in on it.

Keep pretending that WTC-7 was a unique and only building in history of human race brought down completely by fire...

NIST describes building 7 as even a "more typical tall building in the design of its structural system" than the WTC twins.

But yeah... it's so unique... it just completely collapses following the towers... what a coincidence! The only unique building in the world that falls from fire just happens to be right next to WTC and also collapses just like WTC... Interedasting!

Nobody ever said it was totally by fire. Structural damage and fire, as said by other posters. Nobody ever claimed it was fire alone, at least not in this thread, except you when strawmanning other peoples positions.

I'll play devil's advocate here. We're confirming that they were clever enough to stage this huge attack but failed to provide a believable theory regarding WTC 7, right?

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply fabricate something a bit more elaborate? Plane debris, seismic event, etc.?

Or is it possible that something extremely embarrassing (at least to the tower 7 developer) happened?

If the government has all this magic tech like super secret soundless bombs that are perfect for demo and shiz, I mean why not right?

[Bushmaster]

Don't forget that all three of those buildings were owned by the same person if memory serves me correctly

And as we all know, real estate tycoons always destroy their own buildings.

"Fuk a bunch of people paying rent dammit, Ima blow this bitch up!"

[voodoo101]

I don't know. I assume it's very difficult to come up with reasons as to why a building would collapse. Fire seems fairly logical until you get to the nitty gritty. Seismic activity is a wash because thats far to easy to disprove.

You can get into a billion reasons I can make up a ton right off the top of my head but they wouldnt be fact its all just speculation. I'm not saying I know what happened I just find it quite hard to believe that WTC 7 was brought down from the fires it had... knowing what I know it seems very very unlikely if not impossible that that was the cause of it's collapse. I know a few fire fighters too and they all agree that somethings not right about it.

NIST blamed it on one beam that snapped due to heat expansion but it wasn't even a vertical beam from there diagram so it shouldnt have had enough prressure to have been comprimed and shouldnt have cause a total failure of the remaining structure. Basically that's like saying... If I take a lug nut off your back rear tire... that will cause all of your tires to fall off

Architects and Engineers takes NIST apart on WTC 7 here:



It shouldn't even be necessary. On the face of it a steel frame building imploding on itself from the bottom up, at free-fall speed, is impossible except in a demolition. Load-shifting and redundancy is at the heart of structural engineering, and anyone who thinks the failure of one member pulls all the rest of the structural supports down like that, thinks you can cut one support in a kid's jungle gym and watch the rest of it come crashing down, which is obviously nuts.

The demolition industry wouldn't exist if all you had to do was start a few fires and drop a couple of wrecking balls on top of a building, which would be much cheaper than the fees these professionals command.

Danny Jowenko, Demolitions Expert

[kusok]

You know, I was pretty upset that "they" never let me have access to the evidence from the OJ murders. Bastards took it away too soon and wouldn't let me look!

/sarcasm

Now, mind telling me any other time when private citizens have had access to any kind of evidence? A professor at CUNY? And Stephen E. Jones... yah, no agenda there.

Why would there not be access to evidence? Don't families of those who died, and American people in general have the right to see evidence? 3'000 people died in a public place, doesn't the public have the right to know what happened?

[kusok]

And as we all know, real estate tycoons always destroy their own buildings.

"Fuk a bunch of people paying rent dammit, Ima blow this bitch up!"

Real Estate folks often take down houses so they can build better ones. "Buy the worst house on the best block, tear it down, and build a better one to sell for profit" is a very standard business. What that means is you're missing the bigger picture, namely if there is profit to be made from taking the buildings down, then they need to be taken down. Except in this case the profit is not building better buildings in place of the old WTC, but $30 trillion of oil from Middle East that the scared sheep now ok the government to go get after we were "attacked" by people from Middle East.