and if that was the logic, why didn't Bush blow the buildings on impact? More people would have died then

"I'm also intellectually lazy. Given evidence that doesn't smell right, I see who has done the research to debunk it, and mindlessly parrot what they say... after checking to see if there is a rebuttal from the pro-wacky camp "

Seriously?

Haven't you ever put something you weren't supposed to into a campfire, and then been dissapointed it took so long to go boom? ;)

"Why doesn't my pasta cook three second after I put it on the stove? It takes time for things to heat up

and if that was the logic, why didn't Bush blow the buildings on impact? More people would have died then"

You are starting to not make sense now. You just got done asking "why add the needless complication of rigging the towers when plowing two jet airplanes were more that sufficient for the job?" and now you are suggesting that it takes a while to heat up?

Which is it?

Yes seriously. What, do you expect me to go get a degree in physics to model impact events? Biology to assess the AIDS epidemic? Climatology to look at Global Warming?

I look to see what everyone has to say, and verify what I can - but ultimately it comes down to "who is more likely to be right? A bunch of guys who have no motivation to lie and a shitload of expertise in their fields, or a couple of student filmmakers who use creative editing to make people sound like they're saying the sky is falling when the original material says nothing of the sort?"

okay, let's ditch the specifics...this will go on forever.

How many unanswered questions to the official story does it take for you to suspect something other than the official story? How many holes does the story need?

So you "mindlessly parrot what they say"? That's what I was referring to...I don't get where you were going with that? Was that supposed to be sarcastic?

Again, the columns have to be exposed. Don't you think domebody would notice that there sheet rock had been cut away and something attached to the column. even if the construction crew recovered the column with fresh dry rock, the mud would have to dry and then it be painted or papered. This is a multi day job and not something that is going to be done without the office workers noticing. Honestly...

Explosions heard before collapse... Please provide evidence from a respectable site of these so called explosions. And even if you find first hand reliable accounts of these so called explosions, think about the planes that were inside the buildings. They didn't instantly vaporize and if you've ever been in a fire, you hear explosions as windows blow out from superheated air and pressure pockets build up blowing out doors and, in this case, office walls.

And again I ask you to explain how all this stuff, enough explosives and hardware to knock out the key structures and cause a collapse, were carried (you say it was done when the power was out, not me) up 80 flights. How was it installed in under a day and all the damaged sheetrock and paint/wallpaper fixed in under a day, and one additional question not asked previously, how guards who would have walked the floors didn't discover these work crews. Oh, and how did they remove and fix the sheet rock without power tools? Did they haul numerous bnatteries for each of their power tools up the stairs to so they wouldn't have to plug in? Maybe they hauled a gas powered generator up. There are so many holes in this theory *I* could fly one of the 767s through them and not touch the sides and I'm only a flight sim pilot.

Unasnwered questions don't mean there aren't answers that fit. And so far you haven't presented a single one with regards to the WTC that can't be explained.

"You are starting to not make sense now. You just got done asking "why add the needless complication of rigging the towers when plowing two jet airplanes were more that sufficient for the job?" and now you are suggesting that it takes a while to heat up?"

Why are these inconsistent?

Lets assume that the airliners hit the towers. Lets also assume that there wasn't any magic explosives

Plainly, the airliners - or to be specific, the fires that the airliners started - were sufficient to bring down the towers. Also plainly, this did not happen instantly, as the crash was not the cause of the collapse, but the progressive weakening of the support beams, in addition to the ones the planes had already taken out.

So, let me clarify - the impact of the two airliners did not do in the towers, the jet fuel fires did.

Re: mindless parroting - yes, I was sarcastic ;)

"A bunch of guys who have no motivation to lie and a shitload of expertise in their fields, or a couple of student filmmakers who use creative editing to make people sound like they're saying the sky is falling when the original material says nothing of the sort?" "

Again, what's the reference here? Are you suggesting a conspiracy of the youtube video where you hear explosions? Cuz if so, I can dig up plenty more eyewitness accounts and video of it.

Otherwise, are you using a conspiracy to disprove a conspiracy? lol

"Lets also assume that there wasn't any magic explosives"

Magic? This is revealing your bias and contempt for the subject matter.

9/11 conspiracies are the dumbest kind out there. If they were orchestrated by the government why not make the hijackers Iraqi (assuming it was some convoluted justification for the Iraq War)? If you're gonna create some false flag attack you would have incentive to make it fit your ultimate goals rather than make the justification for those goals be so convoluted. It also demonstrates a level of competency that the Bush administration never showed before or after the attacks. The only conspiracy was the one cooked up by Bin Laden in his cave. Isn't that a provocative enough story?

The only conspiracy theory I really believe is that the United States entered the First World War because American bankers had invested too much money in an Entente victory to allow Germany to win. It's certainly not the only reason, but submarine warfare is hardly a good enough reason to send American soldiers into the most brutal ground war the world had yet seen, especially since it was not even twenty years since the US's first real overseas war: the Spanish American War.

Yes America helped win the war for the Entente and the world would have been a very different place had the Germans won. I just don't think it was in America's true strategic interests to intervene in a European war.

"the crash was not the cause of the collapse, but the progressive weakening of the support beams"

But you realize that in a controlled demo a painstaking approach is taken to knock out each and every load bearing column at the SAME time. What we saw is at the very least very similar to a controlled demo in that it collapsed uniformly to its footprint...

Fire simply does not burn uniformly enough to knock them all out at the same time. If it did, demo companies are wasting millions of dollars in high explosives to do the job of simply dousing the building with relative cheap gasoline, lighting it on fire and waiting for about an hour.

@Invictus - "The only conspiracy theory I really believe is that the United States entered the First World War because American bankers had invested too much money in an Entente victory to allow Germany to win."

So bankers pulled some strings and forced the US into war? :)

Really? A you tube video (which anyone with Microsoft Producer or a Mac can make a video proporting just about anything as believable) is your evidence? Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!! Oh Jesus! I think I just got a hernia from laughing so hard!

The same can be said of print Draug...yet you believe words, right?

Ummm. OK Darwyn your comparison of the plausibility of Taliban perpetrating 9/11 vs. the plausibility of the government perpetrating 9/11 would only be valid if the relative complexity of both conjectured plans were comparable, when clearly they are not. The government being involved requires a much much much higher level of complexity. Second of all, the "people hiding in caves" thing is a common misconception. First of all the Taliban didn't perpetrate 9/11 Al-Qaeda did. Second of all it's not as though terrorists are naturally a cave dwelling species. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda leadership living in Afghanistan only went into hiding in caves after the US started invading and that's because caves are more secure against bombings than most buildings in Afghan cities. And also because in a large, sparsely populated country like Afghanistan caves make good hidings places. In fact the highjackers were mostly Saudi Arabian with a handful of Emiratis, Lebanese and Egyptians, in other words they all came from highly urbanized countries with access to modern technology and resources. They were all somewhat lower middle to middle class, and were more than capable of taking some flying lessons, purchasing plane tickets, and menacing people on said planes with knives. None of these tasks are very difficult things to do, none of them require exhaustive planning. (OK menacing people with knives on planes is tricky nowadays, but that's largely because of security crackdowns regarding what people can and cannot bring on airplanes in the days since 9/11.)

And you can argue that it's easier to keep a secret than I'd think till you're blue in the face. You can also argue that the moon is made of cheese and that it's possibly to fly there by lassoing a butterfly. You can argue whatever you want. You'd just be wrong.

@Darwin - Invictus' is probably more right than you realize. I'd even go so far as to say that the reason the intel was so slow to arrive at Pearl (WWII, not WWI, but still) was to provide an excuse to enter into the war. We had solid intel of a pending Japanese attack, but it didn't get where it needed to be for whatever reason.

Not saying it's true, but it is still believable. Much more so than we killed thousands of our own people through overt action by intentional destroying two buildings at the peak of rush hour and killing not only our own citizens but those of countries from around the world.

...and what about the other two flights. All four flights were coordinated to happen at the same time. Did the government plan to take out the White House and the Pentagon as well? That would be the implication...

"Fire simply does not burn uniformly enough to knock them all out at the same time. If it did, demo companies are wasting millions of dollars in high explosives to do the job of simply dousing the building with relative cheap gasoline, lighting it on fire and waiting for about an hour."
You cannot simulate the effects of the fires caused by flying a plane into a building, by just burning some gasoline. To put it simply, flying planes at high speeds into buildings is not something anyone has done before. You can't realistically expect to anticipate what would happen if you did something like that with a thought experiment.

Errr, I should make this clear what I meant to say is "flying planes at high speeds into buildings is not something anyone HAD done before." obviously that happened on September 11th, 2001, it was not my intent to imply otherwise.

Also, Darwyn, you say what you really want to know is "how many unanswered questions do there have to be before you stop believing the official story?" Well I think that's a very misleading question, and one that will never be answered to your satisfaction. Truth is, it would take quite a few, because up to a certain point, I'm willing to say "well, I just don't know everything". But I think this whole, unanswered questions thing is ridiculous because, conspiracy theorists just point to anything and say "That's an unanswered question! You have to explain this if you're going to believe the official story!" They do it to everything. They do it to stuff that has already been explained. They do it to stuff that is not odd in any way, shape or form and doesn't even really require special explanation. So, the fact is, if you're paranoid enough, absolutely everything that has ever happened in history has an infinite number of "unanswered questions" surrounding it, because anyone who wants to believe a conspiracy theory will just stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LALALALALALALALALA I'm not listening, it's unanswered LALALALALALALALALALALALALA!"

will respond monday

@Mafialligator - I never said, nor implied that the Taliban did 9-11. I merely suggested that 9-11 was a good excuse to take what the US government had previously been denied in a request.

I'll agree with you about the caves part. However, many of the "terrorists" were found to be alive after 9-11. A case of mistaken identity perhaps...or of stolen passports. And speaking of passports, WTC and everything in it was pulverized to dust and Atta's passport is 1) found and 2) in good condition.

I am beginning to realize that I could go on and on and on about the inconsistencies of the "official story". So I am forced to ask again...how many holes in the story does it take for you or anyone to believe something different...to have sufficient doubt?

"And you can argue that it's easier to keep a secret than I'd think till you're blue in the face...You'd be wrong." You haven't even heard the argument and you've dismissed it. What does that make you?

"You cannot simulate the effects of the fires caused by flying a plane into a building, by just burning some gasoline. To put it simply, flying planes at high speeds into buildings is not something anyone has done before. You can't realistically expect to anticipate what would happen if you did something like that with a thought experiment. "

Precisely.

Come on, Darwyn. Which makes more sense: a terrorist attack which happened due to government incompetency, or a grand conspiracy involving perfect execution and competence as an excuse to start wars where that level of competency has been entirely lacking? If the government could pull off a 9/11 and keep everything about the planning silent, why can't they keep Wikileaks from publishing documents on the wars? Why would the wars ever go bad if these people could plan such a wildly successful attack?

Get your head out of your ass. It was al Qaeda.

"But I think this whole, unanswered questions thing is ridiculous because, conspiracy theorists just point to anything and say "That's an unanswered question! You have to explain this if you're going to believe the official story!" They do it to everything. They do it to stuff that has already been explained. They do it to stuff that is not odd in any way, shape or form and doesn't even really require special explanation."

They? Congrats, you have demonstrated your own intellectual laziness by lumping everything single "conspiracy theory" together and knocking them all down together. how convenient for you to not think.

I admit there are some wacked out theories out there...but look at what you just did. You did precisely what you accuse me of doing! :)

they "will just stick their fingers in their ears and shout "LALALALALALALALALA I'm not listening"

@Draug "Invictus' is probably more right than you realize. I'd even go so far as to say that the reason the intel was so slow to arrive at Pearl (WWII, not WWI, but still) was to provide an excuse to enter into the war."

I know he is right, but I'd really love to hear it from him. But anyway...do you realize what bot you and Invictus are implying here? that there was a conspiracy to get the US into the world wars. You've implied WW2, Invictus, WW1. Are there others?

Surely these were isolated incidents, right? No one would start more than TWO wars...right?