Poll on CNN shows 86% of viewers support Sheens view on 9/11:

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/

 

Any organization that upholds such losers as Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Jane Fonda must be more than a little suspect to anyone of average intelligence. The truth is, here in the South, CNN has no more credibility than Al Jazeera!

 

Wow....way to attack the messenger instead of the message.

 

You make some very good points. The only way to answer that is to look at the evidence of damage in the areas surrounding the crash site and the 'eye-witnesses' to piece a scenario together. Also, the air traffic contollers would potentially know, or the C-130 (I think) that was overhead at the time. ...or they could just release some tapes.

 

Well, Im in complete agreement that there was melted steel within the debris. Now here's the rub, If the jet fuel (of which most burned on impact) had the greatest potential to fuel the most extreme heat, yet ignited jet fuel can't reach temperatures anywhere near the level needed to melt steel, one has to assume SOMETHING ELSE was present to do so. Thus, there is an unknown variable...unless they are building skyscrapers with material that burns hotter than jet fuel. I would like to know if anyone knows of building materials that do burn hot enough to melt steel.

So, what is hot enough? C-4 for one. That coupled with the fall pattern, and rate of decent is where a lot of these theories are stemming.

 

The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” (http://www.lookingglassnews.org/view...p?storyid=4084)

 

Couldn't one argue that any news media outlet that makes it policy to attack people that have a different opinion are equally incredulous?

 

Same thing. I wouldn't want either one on a plane with me.

 

Hey guys, I got a dead horse yall can beat on....

I just wish any of you conspiracy theorists could tell me when the charges were placed in the towers..Can yall scrape up the maintenance records that show a team of "inspectors" going from floor to floor, column to column? And wouldn't some savvy employee in either tower notice the wires needed to detonate said charges?
And while you are at it, for the love of all that is good, tell me WHY any person in government would do this....Opinion s not welcome, I want facts.

 

First Im not a "conspiracy theorist". I dont believe in ANY of the conspiracy theorys people have concocted over the years and didnt believe this either until I attempted to debunk it myself.

These are all very good questions you have and some of the technical ones have been theorized and working models created based on available evidence. However you are sidestepping the 1st question that demands answering before you can move on to the others.

How can steel melt when there is no fuel burning hot enough to melt it? How can something fall straight down at the speed of gravity when it is supposed to have a steel reinforced superstructure supporting it below? How can a seperate building with "Very manageable small fires" fall hours later on its own footprint, and why was no investigation allowed into its failure? From FEMA:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)


Then one has to consider this:
-The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the 5,000+ oF needed to “evaporate” steel. However, thermite, RDX and other commonly-used explosives can readily slice through steel (thus cutting the support columns simultaneously in an explosive demolition) and reach the required temperatures. (It is possible that some other chemical reactions were involved which might proceed at lesser temperatures.) This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.-

In putting together a murder case, we cannot jump the shark and lay motive immediately upon entering a crime scene. We first have to gather evidence and perform investigations which are based on the available evidence. It is important to do this in an orderly process.

We have not been allowed to do this here. When attempts have been made they have been stopped in their tracks. The only way for real investigation to be done is for the public to get involved and care enought to demand it.

 

EXACTLY!!!! What would be in it for the U.S. Government to take out the towers? So we could go to war with Afganistan for their......uh.... desert? Is there anything else in Afganistan? This isn't like Pearl Harbor when there were rumers of Rosevelt letting Japan attack pearl harbor to get us out of the great depression. America had Nothing to gain from 9/11. I think the problem here is that people will believe anything they read on the internet. Someone was saying earlier in this thread that this is just like any other event in history, people have their conspericy theories. This is true but the difference now is that we have the internet where any body can post anything and have it precieved as fact. Look at all the emails we got after 9/11 like the picture of the guy standing at the top of the WTC and the plane behind him, it was fake (c'mon the guy was wearing a jacket...in September). Not to mention all of the stuff about Nostradomus predicting this (also untrue). My point is that we really don't need to believe everything that we read.

 

Although too early to postulize motive, all one has to do is look at their history and ask why ANY government, military or leader would destroy their own buildings. Usually the purpose isn't so cut-and-dry or obvious as it appears. You really have to consider the big picture.


"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer

 

Well, when you can present some irrefutable evidence, just let us know. In the meantime, I've gotta black helicopter to wash and wax!

 

Is it true that you are using Big Foot to wash the top?

 

For those of us that believe the bringing down of the twin towers and the events that unfolded pre and post September 11, 2001, are, in the least, suspect, I think the problem is this: the Bush administration's unwavering policy of total secrecy, even to the American peoples' detriment, coupled with its incompetecy, (even at the highest levels of government, e.g., Hurricane Katrina), coupled with its unabashed proclivity for lying, i.e.,"weapons of mass destruction," have caused many of us to question even the most basic and elemental events that occurred that day. Thanks Sanjuro for your educated and informed responses to a sometimes hostile and juvenile audience; your perspective is refreshing. Remember, a true patriot will always question his government!

 

There it is in a nutshell (no pun intended). I would be really interested to see how many people who believe the conspiracy theory are people who don't like Bush. I'd be willing to bet that if we had a democrat in as pres, this theory wouldn't even exsist. Just a hunch.

 

It's called: "I got nothing so I'll harp on old crap some more."

Why people can't just pose their opinions on the topic instead of getting personal is beyond me.

I think I can help reduce the stress though. Work with me on this now.

I think we all just need to assume;

[sarcasm]
That the hijackers lucked out in every aspect of their plan. Even bin Laden said it worked out beyond his dreams.

The administration ignored the intelligence.

The planes all hit their targets on the first try. (Except for the one that the passengers fought back on)

The Secret Service let Bush continue to read to the students even though he may have been considered a target.

That the Pentagon plane.... Just beginners luck!

Also... we need to understand the the Administration has only lied to us about WMD in Iraq and certainly not anything to do with 9/11.

There. Does everyone feel relieved now?

[/sarcasm]

 

You couldn't be more wrong and you have apparently missed my point entirely. Regardless of who is in office, republican, democrat, independent, et cetera, the fact is, the American people need open, honest and truthful leadership. I would advocate the same position if a democratic administration had pursued the same course of conduct for the last six years. It is a shame that you that have to relegate this to a red vs. blue debate; when you are prepared to argue on the merits, let me know.

 

I think there would. Remember when Clinton was killing all his friends to shut them up about imaginary issues? And Hillary was running the country?

I think you're right though. If the people trusted the President there would be less discussion about 9/11, FEMA, Haliburton, the war in Iraq, Social Security, Medicare, Katrina, No Child Left Behind, Cheney shooting his hunting buddy then not reporting it himself, The ports deal, and the future of the United States as a trustworthy and respected world power.

 

Oh!

I left out domestic spying and the degradation of the Constitution.