Did you fall for the conspiracy theory about a plastic box cutter punking a trillion dollar defense system?

Answer 1

No, I did not. And Mish Mash is correct as well. As is pagengoddes *sm*

Answer 2

We still aren't spending a trillion dollars on airport security. It was simple to get a box cutter on board those planes. No conspiracy needed.

Answer 3

I wonder if you conspiracy nuts who claim us "neocons" hate science and all that would have the guts to read Popular Mechanics thouroughly investigated and scientifically back findings proving it was in fact Islofascists and not an inside job.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

hey mishmesh, nice example of utter disregard for the facts. You look at one or two pages and now you're an expert.

Maybe the towers fell because a PLANE rammed into the building and the gerters couldn't support the weight. If you had read the report, you'd know steel looses 50% of it's structural strenght at 1100 degrees, therefore these buildings had tons of weight being held up by a fraction of the steel gerters, because the other were destroyed when the plane hit, then the others gave way when they heat from the fuel caused the beems to loose their structual strength.

Wanna see an example of this, one sec.
http://www.topix.net/oakland/2007/04/fiery-crash-collapses-california-freeway
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL
Look, a gas truck exploded causing the steel gerters to loose their structural strength and the overpass collapsed. HOLY MOLEY! Conspiracy theorists are WRONG! AGAIN!

Answer 4

The Popular Mechanics article is laughable.
Popular Mechanics article: 1. "One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard." Flight 175 was filmed by more than 4 major news networks as it hit the South Tower as well as countless amateur and still photographers. To rely on the study of ONE photograph and claim the culprit to be lighting is absurd. There was too much smoke from the North Tower to even allow light to alter the image. Look at them ALL.
2. "Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F." Still not hot enough to drop two 110 story buildings in 56 and 103 minutes, respectively. Tell me why WTC 1, 2 and 7 are the only skyscrapers in history to be taken down by fire. Need examples? Here you go - New York, 08/05/1970, 50 stories, burns for 6 hours, does not collapse; Los Angeles, 05/04/1988, 62 stories, burns for 3 hours across 4 floors, does not collapse; Philedelphia, 02/23/1991, 38 stories, burns for 19 hours across 8 floors, does not collapse; Venezuela, 10/17/2004, 56 stories, burns for 17 hours across 26 floors (reaches the roof), does not collapse.
3. WTC 7 - "NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research." No mention to the PBS documentary where Larry Silverstien, controller of WTC 7, said, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." [PBS Home Video, ISBN 0-7806-4006-3, is available from http://shop.pbs.org/products/A...
4. Pentagon - "A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings." So, the plane hit the ground, leaving a picture perfect lawn in front of the Pentagon, the wings simply came off and then disintigrated? How about the tail?
5. Yates Gladwell - How come every single search I do leads me to this one article? This seems to be the only place on the world wide web that Yates Gladwell appears in. There is too much wrong with flight 93. Check this out. http://killtown.911review.org/htb2.html

EDIT: Daniel, I read the ENTIRE article. Way to jump to conclusions...

Answer 5

No.

And with every new lie bush and his administration spews the more I know I am right for never having voted for or supported a bush!

Answer 6

no did you fall for the one about Bush setting the whole thing up?

Answer 7

Some liberals theorize that jews staged 9/11.

http://www.slate.com/?id=116813

Answer 8

no - 9/11 was an act of treason and nothing less.

Answer 9

the simplest answer is usually the one that is correct.

so yes.

Answer 10

No.

FP