9/11 Loose change 2nd edition

If that's the truth, then who is really disrespecting the survivors? I share in the view that people should give pause before engaging in reckless speculation.

Maybe this guy who produced it is actually a terrorist himself.

What unknown site? Area 52?The secret moonbase?

I guess. That's not evidence that I have the capability to evaluate. The challenge has been made, though, that the fire couldn't have heated the steel to the temperatures assumed in the structural tests.

you know, with the local news regarding people being held secretly by the us gov't without charges filed in various military prisons around the world... it's not that far fetched.

yeah? is that a bachelor's of science in engeneering, or a masters of science in engeneering? or a doctorate in engeneering?normally i don't pick on spelling and grammar errors, because god knows i make them. but one thing's for damned certain, i can spell the name of my field of study. ok, well, "art" isn't very hard to spell... but you get the point.you'll also notice that the op has 11 years experience fireproofing buildings.

I didn't say what happened, if you'll actually read my post. And I was fairly clear, I thought, when I said that I wasn't an engineer, and so I didn't have the expertise to evaluate the evidence.I don't think the WTC was leveled by explosives. I think it was leveled by terrorists on airplanes - with the full foreknowledge of top government officials. Somebody, after all, called San Francisco mayor Willie Brown and told him not to fly on that day, eight hours before the first plane hit. Somebody applied the pressure that meant that warning after warning about the attacks was ignored and dismissed. Somebody made $5 million dollars betting against United and American airlines on September 10th.Somebody scheduled four seperate wargames on the very same day, including one that simulated airplanes crashing into an NRO office. Somebody decided not to scramble interceptors for the subsequent hijacked airplanes. Somebody - Bush - made it absolutely clear that, given a tragedy to rally America around, he'd spend that capital on an invasion of Iraq. In the subsequent days Cheney told intelligence staff to search for any possible connection between Iraq and 9/11, even implying they should fabricate some.Those are the facts that I'm aware of, and an explanation that our government was unprepared and incompetent seems to me to be the explanation that multiplies complexites - they say that "9/11 changed everything", well, apparently it changed government officials who were such idiots that they couldn't see it coming into geniuses who were able to take advantage of the tragedy in almost every concievable way.

just yankin' your chain a little, no offense meant. but we do get the occasion person here that does claim to be someone he's not.

At what point, though, are there so many "apparent" coincidences that an explanation of random occurance is much less likely than conspiracy?

I'm no "true believer". I've laid out the verified facts that don't fit the official story, under any circumstances. You can either try to rebut that reasoning, or not. But if you can't, don't try to pretend that your failiure is the result of my refusal to examine evidence with an open mind. The fact that you haven't even come close to offering anything convincing doesn't indicate some unbreachable wall of suspicion I've erected - 9/11 happened while I was a Bush-supporting Republican, after all. What it indicates is that your arguments are so impotent and poorly-sourced that you're too embarassed to even half-heartedly defend them.Run off with your tail between your legs, if you like. But at least return some of the respect I've shown you, and don't try to insultingly wave the victory flag while you do so.

Oh, right. I mean, how unreasonable of me. Presumably, when you encounter a woman standing over a dead man with two holes in his chest, a smoking gun in one of her hands and pictures of the dead man and his mistress in the other, you don't know what to think, right? Surely the facts that he's been shot and she's holding the smoking gun are just coincidences, right? I mean, god forbid you come to the conclusion that you've just stumbled on a murder motivated by jealousy, because that would be "reading the minds and motives of people based on time-proximate events", right?Of course that's what I'm doing. That's how we know what people's minds and motives are - by what they do and when they do it. How else would we arrive at the truth about what people do?

Oh, so now time-proximate coincidences do have some significance?When one person is murdered by a citizen, you call the police. Who do you call when the man who may have murdered 3000 people is the man every police officer works for?

Are you under the mistaken impression that they have the Constitutional authority to arrest, detain, and investigate the president?

Nominally. The police are an arm of the executive branch; the President is the Chief Executive.They would be fuly empowered to arrest him if he committed a crime in their juristiction.I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Moreover, they don't possess the legal tools to circumvent the President's determination of which of his actions are state secrets, so they wouldn't even be able to begin an investigation of his activites, legal or not.But maybe you can advance a legal theory that contradicts me? What presidents have ever been arrested by capitol police?