Fahrenheit 911

[belgareth]

Doc,

I agree that we are

not constrained from asking question and they should be asked. However, once a source starts spewing BS any

reasonable person is going to question all their statements. You don't know that there was no wreckage, only what

you saw in the footage and that was not very good. Despite Pancho's comments, an airplane is a pretty flimsy

structure. It would be too heavy to fly otherwise. The wings and tail section stricking trees and such at oblique

angles and at a couple hundred miles an hour would break up pretty badly, striking a solid wall, at almost a

perpendicular angle, at better than 500 MPH would do unbelieveable damage, especially since the wings should have

been full of fuel.

Speaking as an engineer, (That is my education, after all) I am surprised the WTO stood as

long as it did in view of the damage and the stresses put on it. I've read parts of the damage report and feel the

analysis was well done.

[Pancho1188]

Despite

Pancho's comments, an airplane is a pretty flimsy structure. It would be too heavy to fly otherwise.

Planes are flimsy. Have you ever seen the tapes where they shake the hell out of the plane (turbulance

simulation) to see if it's flexible enough to take it? Man, they beat the hell out of those things in tests. That

doesn't mean they aren't big and heavy, though. Hell, the people alone weigh tons within the plane (sample: 200

pounds/person * ~100 people is 20,000 pounds).

[Friendly1]

Someone sent me

this today. I never considered this what

do u think?

Real or what?

DCW

Basically a load of crap put together by people who want to fan the

flames of consipiracy theorists. They would probably say that the bunker bombing which failed to kill Hitler was

probably just faked, too.

Explosions don't incinerate everything around them. Some things survive, and some

things don't.

[DrSmellThis]

I'm not saying we shouldn't

question the video. Of course we should. But those WTC buildings didn't just fall, they were both almost completely

disintegrated, including the steel beams. I think they were supposed to be able to withstand an airplane crash. I'd

just like to see an independent, critical analysis of what happened rather than blindly accept the mainstream story.

It's skepticism, not paranoia. Few things are more reasonable than skepticism in this day and age, especially here

and now. You just have to not be upset by holding simultaneous possible conflicting realities in your mind. People

not being able to deal with that cognitive dissonance on any big level is the biggest problem with "conspiracy

theories". Considering them is always uncomfortable, because we are very attached to our ideas of "reality", even

though they are logically no more sacrosanct or invulnerable to rebuttal than other ideas. Nobody, myself included,

wants to think their government is evil.

Government conspiracies have been happening throughout history. The

only ingredient needed is a corrupt government, or even corruption at the top of a government. There have never been

any of those, have there? Could never happen here, right? Somebody needs to ask the tough questions, and follow

through with them. The fact that someone is considering a possible "conspiracy" is not an argument against their

position.

With the Pentagon, we are talking about explosions where all the airplane parts may well have been

missing, (it's possible the filmmakers weren't lying) and yet many windows where the plane hit didn't break. That

is a discrepancy worth following up on, regardless of how unpopular it is with Bush and his supporters, or how many

"crazy" accusations might ensue. Maybe the documentary is BS and maybe it isn't. If we're going to be objective

we'll consider every substantive idea.

An awful lot of fishy stuff has come out about this administration's

handling of 9/11 that suffice as reasonable cause to wonder; such as spending 25 minutes after you are told your

cities were bombed, sleepily reading a children's book and completing a meaningless photo op; without so much as

making a phone call -- as president. (Not to mention that you then fly right back to Washington DC, the city that

was just attacked, and don't scramble jets except for one way out into the Atlantic.). Hell, he didn't even turn

on the TV or radio like the rest of us. My profession is psychology, and that behavior pattern is pretty much

psychologically impossible unless you have an alterior motive -- an uncomfortable, tentative, partial

conclusion, to be sure; but that is overwhelmingly the most logical and likely psychological scenario, from that

particular data (I do advocate using multiple data sources before really concluding anything, of course.). For

example, DIHL, stupidity, or the desire to remain calm do not remotely cut it as possible psychological

explanations. A child of 7 or 8 would know better. There are only so many real possibilities.

In pop culture

terms, it was a bit like OJ's full page ad the day after he was accused, the text of which was profoundly

psychologically inconsistent with an innocent person. I knew immediately that he did it from reading that, even

though it wasn't legal proof; because almost every guilty murderer talks exactly that way right after their crime,

and no innocent person who just lost his ex-wife to a brutal murder could react that way mentally and emotionally.