Ok, serious existentialist/atheist/nihilist philosophy time. I don't personally believe in any sort of afterlife other than that created by our own brains at the moment of death because we can't process our own non-existance (near-death experiances, basically). But if people did end up in afterlives based on their conduct in life (an idea I'm open to), it would stand to reason that theocratic guerillas who kill civilians in the name of their cause would end up in the same place as militarists who do the same thing. It works out nicely that way (as a divinely-inspired universe would). Bin Laden and Specialist Morlock deserve each other.

EDIT: Specialist Morlock is not dead, and I doubt he will be any time soon. But you get the point. And I believe the exact number is 70, not 39. It probably changes depending on the specific theological variant in question.

And I think that Bin Laden's death actually makes us all less safe by enabling much scarier people. Hence, I'm a bit scared, and all of these celebrations kind of annoy me. There would have been a time when bringing some old war criminal to justice would have been my primary desire regardless of the consequences, but I think I've grown a lot in my understanding of political and tactical backlashes since then, to the point where I understand that Bin Laden, whatever he had done before, seems to have been a moderating influence on Qaeda. A moderating influence that the American military/intelligence boys just removed.

 

hmm, so lets look at common sense with some researched facts.

Osama bin laden was a terrorist who fought against the russians in afganistan.  He received extensive CIA training along with weaponry to fight the Russians. George Bush Sr. was the head of the CIA terrorism training division in the CIA at the time, and this post is what led to his becoming the CIA director. 

There is no record of Osama Bin Laden taking claim of the sept 11th terrorist attacks, just hearsay from news media(people believe hearsay everyday, it doesn't mean it is relevant). The common picture of "bin laden is dead" that circulated in newspapers was proven to be a fake, it was Photoshopped.  This picture has now been "recalled"(if that is even possible....), the media believed that their use of Photoshop would naturally fool everyone.

Osama Bin laden is a member of the Bin laden family, an incredibly rich family that has close business and personal ties to the Bush family.  

Bin laden is the "patsy" or "fall guy" of the possible scheme, whatever it is. Some details naturally will never be known, as evidence of such things is most often destroyed.  It is standard political and CIA practice that when operating in illegal ways to have a perfect fall guy to take the blame, and to destroy evidence or to make a plan where evidence is not possible. 

Bush's little known younger brother works as a security guard at the world trade center, another suspicious connection.  It doesn't take a CIA analyst to understand that there is an uncanny collection of unsettling facts that are judiciously swept under the rug to avoid any inconvenience. 

The president of Iran has proof that bin laden has been dead for years.  Will this "proof", if it does exist ever be discussed in the US media? NO.  Why, because that would cast doubt on the possible lie that has been perpetrated for years.  If people think they are being lied to they might use the INTERNET to find out what is wrong.  The internet might show them some interesting information, and people might start to believe the government is a bunch of crooks.  If the government is a bunch of crooks, then why don't we kick them out of office and make lobbying illegal, and change the way laws are being made.  Obama can't bring change, only we the people can change anything in this country.  Obama just maintains the status quo. 

If the media was really providing you the truth, they would ask tough questions and actually try to find answers instead of being fed information from the associated press.

Media is a magic show, the magician shows you one thing while he hides what is really going on.

This should be called what it is, propaganda.  Propagate as much as you can, wherever you can.  The bigger the lie, the more you propagate it.  People will believe it because most people are easily swayed by authority.  Refer to the Milgram experiment in the 1960's.

 

 

I agree sareth but how would "We the people" even begin to throw out a government of criminals and write new laws. It's all talk and no action.

"The nation with each passing year resembles even more a very large Third World nation. Empty foreclosed homes, empty shopping malls, millions of jobless, discouraged business formation, nationalized failed firms, vanishing Middle Class, trillion$ federal deficits, monetized debt, reduced liberties, selective elite law enforcement, syndicate stronghold, huge prison population, controlled press networks, distrust of leaders, aggressive military, these are the characteristics that most people agree are unsavory."  End of U.S. Dollar Global Reserve Currency

 

IMF calls for dollar alternative which will cause inflation to skyrocket and probably riots all over the country.

BEIJING -- China called for the creation of a new currency to eventually replace the dollar as the world's standard, proposing a sweeping overhaul of global finance that reflects developing nations' growing unhappiness with the U.S. role in the world economy. China takes Aim at Dollar

 

I have issue with your common sense with some researched facts.  The presentation is very dodgy and I can't really tell if you actually believe that shit or if you're just making fun of it...  No matter.

While it is very likely true Bin Laden didn't personally take claim to the 9/11 attacks, he did claim the previous attempts, and the organization that he was linked to and claimed to be the head of did take claim for the events.  Guilty by association?  Absolutely, but when you are in charge of a group of people and something happens, ultimately you are responsible for the actions of your people.  With his history, loosely pieced together evidence is all that's really needed if I'm reading the conspiracy propaganda correctly.

Just because one family is close to another, doesn't mean there are individuals that always see eye to eye and agree on everything.  It does not mean that the actions of one family member should reflect poorly on the whole of a completely separate family, just because they associated with each other.

As for the picture, anyone who has memory that is better then a goldfish should remember that the news media, at the time it was first broadcast that he was dead, was also reporting that the Navy was refusing to release info, details, and pictures of everything that happened.  Common sense would be to believe that pictures shown a day or two later are obviously fakes and should not reflect poorly on those in charge who had, since the very first second, said they were not releasing that stuff.  One using common sense should understand that these are not things that would get leaked to the press EVER because of the sensitivity around them.  They will ALWAYS be under lock and key.  We will NEVER see them.

Why does everything have to be a conspiracy by the government?  These conspiracy theories and links to families and businesses and everything have been getting thrown around for a decade.  You want the truth?  Here is the truth.  The USA is not a very popular country.  There are people out there that hate us, period.  There are people out there willing to kill you and me and everyone else, simply because we are from the US of A, the leader of the free world, the symbol of Democracy, the Great Western Power, the only current Super Power in the world.  That is the absolute truth.  There are thousands of reasons why we are hated, but they don't matter.  We are hated.  Truth.  That is all that matters.  Common sense is understanding that truth and realizing that it is okay to question the government and explore these ideas of conspiracy, but to propagate them with facts that are twisted is not the right thing to do.  Common sense would be to understand that facts can be made to say whatever you need them to say.

It also doesn't take a CIA analyst to understand that some of these 'Facts' were researched on the internet and are total bullshit.  The truth, if you care to really know it: Bush's brother did work for one company providing some security at times, but never in the capacity that would have anything to do with anybody, and definitely not as a security guard.  This company was not and never was in charge of security EVER.  How do we know this?  It's simple really.  The WTC provided it's own security since it was owned by the Port Authority.  Port Authority was always in charge of security and always used it's own people as the guards.  The head of that security, John O'Niell, died in the attack.  Do you conspiracy nuts really think the President's brother would be a lowly security guard?  At a public place of all places?  Are you fucking kidding me?  How stupid do you have to be to even remotely believe that?  These are Ivy League educated people who's father was President at one time...  There's just no god damned way that situation would ever happen, period.  Any security company who had the President's brother working for them, the son of a former President, would put them on their executive board and use them to get contracts and jobs...  Not, go stand over there for 8 hours a day and tell people to pick up their trash and act like a storm trooper saying "Move along."  Use some common sense when thinking about that 'Fact'...  Yeah, security guard is not a fact at all.  It's a flat out lie.

After the 1993 bombing, NYC's Port Authority decided to beef up their protection and hired the company that Bush's brother worked for to design and install the electronic security.  That's not guard duty.  Why does that matter and how do conspiracy theorists make the connection from electronic alarm installers to flying planes into buildings is beyond my level of comprehension obviously because I think it's just stupid as all hell.  And the truth is, Bush's brother ceased working for the company as of June 2000 and purely became a major shareholder of it's stocks, and that company only provided technical support upon the completion of their work as of 1998 as would any and all electronic security system companies.  Papers filed with the SEC confirm this if you want to investigate the real truth on your own from a place that isn't riddled with theories and twisted facts and lies.

Ever consider the remote possibility that he's lying?  He is a human being after all.  The USA is hated in that region by the vast majority...

Because everything on the internet is 100% factual.  Really?  How about using some of that common sense again.  Nobody needs the internet to know that the government is a bunch of crooks, to decide that, all you need to do is look at their salary and benefits package and compare them to your own.

I actually 100% agree with that, but as the Constitution was by design made to be flexible, yet difficult to change, we the people need to start voting for people who worked for a living rather then those that are career politicians or groomed for those positions by their families, and return to the ideals that being a politician is something you do in your later and wiser years in life, that you do out of love for your country, not for a paycheck or it's status.  But since those people don't exist, or those that do, never run, we're kind of shit out of luck in that department.

Again, I 100% agree.  The associated press (as is nearly all media) is extremely pro liberal.  Certain groups, like Fox News, for example, are very pro conservative.  Most of the general public lashes out at them rather then doing what the intelligent people do and watch the shows with interest.  It's a one sided perspective, but at least, unlike the liberal media outlets, gives the opposition the chance to make a case.  Using common sense...  There's that funny phrase again...  One would combine the information gathered by that media outlet as well as others, and combine them to form a well educated opinion of an issue.  Anyone who I hear bashing Fox News or any other pro conservative outlet, I instantly write off as a moron because they're clearly not interested in hearing the whole story or hearing an alternative perspective.  Do the smart thing and gather as much information from as many different sources and from as many sides of the issues as possible.

Amen brother.  I again, 100% agree.

 

 

 

Oh, and by the way, let's not forget that Col. Oliver North back in 1989 during a congressional hearing stated that Bin Laden scared the hell out of him and if he had his way, he'd have an assassination squad sent in to take him out before he had a chance to do anything like this to us.  Senator Al Gore laughed at him and mocked him.  So if I were trying to spin some facts here to my own ends, I guess I could make this out to be that Al Gore was actually a Bin Laden supporter and protector long before Bush ever was...  I mean, it was Gore that refused to let that hit squad do it's thing.  So Al Gore is the one ultimately responsible for the 9/11 attack as well as the 1993 bombing when he was, wait for it, Vice President.  OMG, WTF!!!!111!!!!  Wrap your brain around that one conspiracy nuts.

Here is Clinton "FBI and CIA has no proof bin ladin 911"

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden

"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

 

Some people will swallow anything without proof. Not me, show me evidence of his involvement and evidence that shows he was killed on that day.

The bin Laden family may be friendly to the Bush family, but Osama bin Laden was so far removed from the family, that to say Osama himself was in any way in collusion with the Bushes is just absurd.

Indeed, the media is so pro-liberal that it is down right ridiculous, at least conservative media lets both sides speak, not that I believe everything anyone says without some proof.

Thank you, Stant123, just one more reason for me to hate Al Gore.

Well, I knew it was inevitable that the crazies would take over. At least we got a good, thoughtful discuiion in first....

Why do one-in-five American voters now believe Osama bin Laden is still alive? LA Times

So 1 in 5 Americans are "Crazies"? ROFL, glad I don't live there.   "thoughtful discuiion" LOL again. Quote me some of this thoughtful discuiion. The above poster is probably the most thoughtful of the lot no matter what you believe.

 

(Split in two because it won't post)

There is always a leader.  Every organization has one, otherwise it wouldn't work.  There is always somebody there looking at the bigger picture to make sure the pieces are working in accordance to the master plan.  What you're thinking of is a terrorist cell.  Sure, the organization doesn't have a rigid structure like a modern day business where you have the chairman, other board members and vice presidents, CFO's, CEO's, Department heads and all of that, but there is still someone in charge of calling the shots.  Even the terrorist cells have someone who is the leader who activates the cell when they are tapped to do something, they then distribute their orders and plans to their group...  Even on the small scale such as that, there is always someone in charge...  Decentralized only means that if you take out part of it, the rest of it can still function as the organization always has, it doesn't mean no one is in charge.



That's funny.  If you want to take it to the extreme like that then I guess I have you to blame for the despicable acts that happened daily at Guantanamo Bay, you are/were military after all.  The real question is, where do we draw the line at association.  Personally, I draw it at the place where there is a fundamental shift in ideology.  Regardless of what you think or believe happened and for what reasons and by whom, you can even agree with me on the point that Bin Laden's radical/extremist ideologies doesn't fit with the rest of his family or the Bush family.  Even if they all did want the exact same things to happen, the reasons, the methods, the tactics...  They're different.  Because I draw the line at the fundamental shift in ideology, I don't hold it against all military people when something disgraceful happens, only those who are responsible for them.  You're welcome.  And for the record, I didn't exonerate anyone from the Bin Laden family.  You tell me not to put words into your mouth, yet, you seem to be doing a pretty damned good job of that yourself.  Read what I said chief.  Play by your own rules too now.  The Bush family is not the Bin Laden family no matter how many times you say it is.



Way to...  Um...  Huh?  I merely stated the fact that we won't ever see those pictures because the Navy said they'd never release them so you should know by using common sense that those shown by the press days later were fakes and you take that and run with it for what?  To point out the obvious?  Go figure.

Well, if you can do it, so can I.  Since you had top secret clearance, you'd know there are even higher clearance levels then that to keep even you from seeing those things.  Don't be so presumptuous to know me as to think I'd keep things a secret from everyone.  Personally, I'd love to see the pictures.  I'd plaster them all over the world's media outlets just to prove the point that you can run and hide, but we won't stop until we get you.  That's what I would do.  Personally, I don't think that taking out Bin Laden is a bad thing.  I don't think it was a good thing either.  You claim he was a patsy, I claim he was giving the go ahead.  Who is right?  Personally, I don't give a damn.  I can't change any of what has happened over the past decade, and neither can you.



You presume I don't understand the way things work.  Our foreign policy currently in use was designed during the cold war after two world wars.  You say we prance around from country to country like we own the place and extort governments...  I don't disagree.  Communism did the exact same thing and as our policies were created in a time where our leaders felt it was necessary to follow suit to protect our way of life, I definitely don't disagree.  It was a necessary course of action at the time.  Is it necessary today?  No.

To be honest, your believe that these policies were created to destroy relations holds no weight with me.  Why?  Because it's your belief.  It isn't fact, and your answer as to why is purely speculation.  Keep talking about it though.  It's an interesting philosophy.

What I do question about these points though is how does disarming the US make the world hate us?  That's a very counter intuitive point and I'd really like to how how you come to that conclusion.  Or did you intend to make a completely different point?

Edit: actually, I do get what you were saying now.  Two separate things.  Policies to disarm, policies to make them hate.

Again, you presume I don't know the way things work.  I'm the one who's been going around reminding people that the US is a Republic and not a Democracy and that the electoral college elects the president, not the popular vote.

That aside, it IS a symbol of Democracy none the less.  As you pointed out, the difference is only a small one, so the reality of the situation is, we are called the symbol of Democracy, not because we actually are, but because it's what we represent.



Yes.



Again, I'll ask the question that the conclusion people draw to flying planes into buildings and those who install electronic security systems is exactly what now?  And why does this conclusion automatically get drawn to the Bush family as well?  I can fly a plane into a building and I don't know anyone from the Bush family.  What about the plane that hit the Pentagon?  I assume Bush had another unknown brother working there as a security guard too...  What about the plane that was supposed to hit the White House?  I suppose the Bush family wanted to get rid of Laura Bush and the two girls...  Oh no!  Did I just start another couple of conspiracies?



This statement damns your entire argument.  You want to know why?  Okay, I'll tell you.  You admit all of the evidence is circumstantial.  Circumstantial evidence isn't proof.  Circumstantial evidence only allows one to draw conclusions.  Conclusions which have yet to be proven accurate or not.  I've accepted the events that have happened.  I don't claim to know the truth because I know I don't, and neither do you.  I lost friends when the towers collapsed.  All I've wanted ever since is a good strong ass kicking to make a statement that says that type of behavior will not be tolerated.  I don't know if that statement has been made, but a pretty good one has been made, and I'm happy about that.



Yeah, no...  I wasn't picking words apart, I was countering a statement you made.  This one:



The impression you're actually giving is that he works (at least currently at the time of the events) as a security guard (not alarm or surveillance system installer, not system maintainer, but a guard..  mall cop type...  Actual physical body there present on the floor, not someone who was a member of a company hired to install something, but someone who is actually there) at the world trade center, and that you find that funny (in the sense that something isn't quite right about it, not hahaha you made me laugh funny).  Sure, you absolutely did give the impression that he worked for a security company, however, you completely mislead the hell out of everyone as to what his actual involvement was.

You can back pedal all you want about this saying, that's not really what I was saying, and try to make me out to be the bad guy because you feel I went through it word by word, but that's just not what happened.  You made a bullshit statement and got called out on it and now you realize you screwed up.  Rather then accept the error, you're trying to turn it around on me.  You lose credibility for doing this.  All this shows is that you're unwilling to accept that a belief of yours is wrong.  If in 50 years the events around all of this are somehow declassified and it's proven that Bin Laden has been dead for years before this ever happened and our actions in the middle east are based fully on lies, I'll be the first one to admit I was wrong for being happy about the news Bin Laden is dead.  I'm a man of my word, always have been, you can hold me to it.  I'll even PM you my home address in case you want to send me a hand wrote letter that says "See, I told you so."



I'm a stock holder in over a dozen different companies.  I guess I should start demanding that I get to tell GE and Edison International how they should be running things.  Oh wait, that's not how it works in real life.

No, it actually does lessen his authority.  A stock holder does not call the shots in a company.  A stock holder only get's to complain about things the company has already done and vote to put new people on the board of directors whom they feel will do what's best for the company and earn them money.  Only people on the board have any say in the direction of the company and what jobs they will do, and how to perform them.  Stock holders are just investors who have contributed money as capital for the company to spend, to collect returns on that investment in the form of dividends.

As for his connection to the 9/11 events, no one has yet to explain to me how a company such as that is responsible for people flying planes into buildings.  If they paid for the pilot lessons or rented the jets that were used, sure, I could see the connection, but since they didn't, please, explain it to me because I just can't logically draw a connecting line between the two.



Really, you know this huh?  Ownership changed hands right before it?  I suppose you mean the deal with Silverstein Properties.  Well, for your education, I'm just going to start off by telling you that once again, you are wrong.  The property was, and still is, owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.  The last time that property changed ownership, it actually didn't change ownership because it was owned by the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad, which got bought by the Port Authority in 1961, who then built the World Trade Center.  1961 was the last time the property technically changed ownership because the name on the title had to be changed.  Silverstein Properties is a property management company.  All they do is sublease the offices to private tenants and will do so until July 2100, as per their 99 year lease they agreed to and signed in July 2001.  They, in no way, shape, or form, own the property or the buildings.  Port Authority still does, did, and always has.

As for that legally iron clad policy, I don't claim to know if or why that wordage was included, but I can assure you, talk to any lawyer who specializes in the insurance industry and they will tell you, nothing is iron clad.  In fact, Larry Silverstein had to sue 16 insurance companies to get his money, which can only be spent on the new construction.  And the claims for the payouts were for catastrophic damage to the buildings leading to their collapse, as all sky scrapers have policies for, not terrorism attacks in general, though considering it's history and status before that as a target, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a condition added to existing policies on the condition a new lease was signed.  If the buildings remained standing, Silverstein wouldn't have gotten so much.  In fact, if you really know how things happened, the planes crashing into the buildings is NOT what caused them to fall, it was the fires that burned uncontrolled for as long as they did in as wide spread of an area as they did that caused the collapse, and as fire insurance is pretty much mandatory in every city in the US, a building collapsing due to a fire is guaranteed to be covered by every policy that is, was, and will be taken out on any building built in New York City.  It's just that the fires and catastrophic damage leading to the collapse ultimately resulted from a terrorist attack.  But if you have a copy of the policy, please let me see it.  I'm all about education and that would be a great piece to add to my knowledge.

You know what my view on Ivy League education is?  That's funny, I don't recall making any statement to such effects as my personal opinion on Ivy League education or that people are infallible if they receive that education.  Are you putting words into my mouth?  I am shocked and appalled by this since you basically told me not to do that to you.  Damn son, still not playing by your own rules or are you just choosing to only selectively apply them when it suits you best?  I know I said Bush's brother was Ivy League educated, but that in no way, shape, or form indicates that I believe it is superior to any other or makes a person any better then someone else.  Being educated in an Ivy League school is purely a status symbol.  I know this, I assume you know this, and by your own words that other people think they are infallible, my original point still stands that your comment about Bush's brother simply being a security guard is still that it's pure bullshit.  I assume you agree with me on this, so I'm not going to beat it to death.



Whoa, one at a time here...

Ground floor explosions.  Well, since we're only dealing with theories here, I have one.  There are these magical devices, boxes really, that have doors and cables and counter weights attached to them and are pulled up or lowered by motors above them.  Some people call them lifts, others call them elevators...  In extreme heat, cables stretch and snap under heavy weight.  What about the brakes you ask?  Don't they stop these wonder boxes when they fall?  I'm glad you asked that.  Yes, they do, but as brakes heat up, they become less effective.  Add in the temperatures from the fires and the brakes are pretty much useless.  That is why you see all of those pretty little signs placed conveniently next to the car call button that say, "In case of fire, use stairs."  Somewhere down the line of development somebody got smart and realized elevators were pretty much a death sentence in a building fire and thought it was a good thing to warn the rest of us.  Thanks bro, who ever you are.  So my theory basically comes down to this.  The elevators fell, causing what looked like explosions on the ground floor when they hit the ground, and conspiracy nuts refuse to take a realistic approach and consider that possibility and just say bombs blew up to take out the foundation...  The tapes were bought by the FBI (do I need to spell out what that stands for?  No?  Didn't think so) so they could do their job and investigate?  Maybe?  Possibly?  Seems logical right?  It does to me.  People don't need to analyze the data to reach conclusions that are different because they already have.  You called them explosions and you don't have any idea of what really happened.

What about building 7?  Oh, you mean that it collapsed too?  Well, let's see, the original design was for a much smaller building, a power substation was built under ground in 1967 with supports to hold up a certain design of building to be built in the future.  In 1983, a building was built on top of it, well started to get built on top of it, one redesigned to be much bigger then the originally planned one.  Debris falling from Tower 2 started fires in building 7.  Two things you might not know, New York City's policy on water delivery is that the water utility only needs to provide enough pressure to get water up to the tenth floor, thus why all of the older buildings have water towers on the roofs and all buildings have pumps near the ground floor to pump the water up to the top, or at the top to pull it up there.  Also, in the event of any major catastrophe, utilities are usually cut off to the immediate area and only turned back on at the request of emergency personnel to add a layer of protection to the emergency personnel.  Gas pipes burning uncontrolled kind of sucks, water spraying all over the place from damaged pipes means less pressure to the fire hydrants and standpipes nearby as well as slip hazards down the stairwells where people are evacuating and emergency personnel are scaling, exposed electrical wires creating electrocution hazards to firefighters trying to spray water on flames really sucks...  So let's add some things up here.  Building bigger then originally planned, sitting on a electrical substation that wasn't ever intended to support a building of it's redesigned size and weight, fires being started in the building from debris from it's neighbor falling what?  40 something floors before impact?  That's a pretty good impact.  Lack of power to operate the water pumps resulting in poor water pressure above the tenth floor.  Fires burning uncontrolled and unchallenged because let's just face one simple fact here, getting people out of the upper floors of buildings 1 and 2 are slightly more important than trying to control fires on a building that was much more easily evacuated.  The fires burned for more then a full day which resulted in the same situation in this building as buildings 1 and 2, structural integrity was compromised due to the fire and much more easily so because of the larger, heavier building built on top of a power substation, which basically means that there was no internal support and all of the load was on the exterior, which had several large impacts on the South side was it?  So when the inside started to cave, so folded the building.

What about Dirk Kempthorne?  He was the governor of Idaho at the time...  Who cares, right?  Guliani wasn't swept under any rugs, he was a potential presidential candidate in 2007 and still goes around giving speeches.  Where have you been and how do you not know this?  Screwing mistresses do end careers.  The higher profile you maintain, the higher the fall when you screw up.  He was actually begged by the people of New York to run for mayor again after his terms were up (would have won) and he refused.  I can't say much for his character, but at least he did do the right thing in that situation.

See, the big flaw I usually see in these arguments is always, well the impact isn't strong enough to do that, jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to do this...  Yet people always seem to forget that buildings burn, and they burn really really hot.  Yes, absolutely, I'm willing to submit to the ideal that the impact wasn't strong enough to drop the twin towers or instantaneously vaporize plane parts, and jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to weaken steel...  But think about everything else that's on fire.  Paper burns damn hot.  They made a book about how hot, even titled it the temperature.  Plants burn, carpet burns, walls burn, ceilings and floors burn, wood burns...  They burn really hot.  More then enough to weaken steel and definitely hot enough to burn away aluminum...  You know, that thing that jets are made out of.  Light weight, yet strong is the goal of the airline building industry.  They have carefully calculated the operating temperatures of all of the pieces of the engines and built them according to what minimal amount of material will work and withstand the abuse and they use nothing more.  Saves on space, saves on weight, saves on cost.  It didn't get vaporized on impact, it burned the hell up.  Take one of those lighters to an empty soda can.  Hold a flame to it.  You burn holes through it like a hot knife through butter.  Aluminum jet parts with really hot fire.  Same thing.

As for the papers and the bodies, here's a neat little magic trick everyone with a little bit of guts can try.  Soak your hand in gasoline and hold it up all dripping wet.  Light your hand on fire.  You'll get a nice good flame but your hand won't burn, though you'll probably want to keep a tub of water nearby to put the flames out in a hurry.  Would you like to know why your hand didn't burn even though it was soaked in gasoline?  Here's why.  Gasoline doesn't burn.  Crazy right?  Not so much.  Armed with the knowledge that it's only the gas vapors that burn, you can do some really cool shit with it.  You'll probably want to dunk your hand in water pretty quick though, as gasoline turns to vapors pretty damned quick so your protection goes away really fast.  Also only try this in a controlled environment, with professionals.  Don't want to get a couple hundred kids lighting themselves on fire now do we?  Nah.  Anyway, fuels we use for internal combustion engines are all in liquid form for a reason.  Two actually.  First, it's easier to pump it to the engine as a liquid, but secondly, because in it's liquid form it's safe enough to be handled by your average idiot without killing everyone around them.  But back to the bodies and papers because I know you're so curious as to why I explained all of that...  There are two pretty solid general theories as to why papers and bodies didn't burn.  The first, as I already explained, soaked and/or lying in a pool of fuel prevented them from burning, or the oxygen in the trapped spaces was used up by the fires resulting in it's own suffocation, basically putting itself out before it had the chance to do any real damage.  As we don't know the exact nature to the conditions of these locations where these things were found, it may be one, or both, or just that fire just never got there in the first place.



Absolutely I did, which is why I said get your information from as many media sources as possible before making a decision.  And by that I didn't mean just flip through the channels on your TV, I meant, TV, radio, newsprint, internet, I'd even toss in schools, friends, and experts you may happen to be able to tap for information as well just for the sake of completeness.  But as to the claim of one man saying, "ahhh, he was dead a long time ago...."  You can understand that I'll remain skeptical of such a claim until further evidence presents itself.  Point being, people that write off a source because they don't agree with it are morons.  That is why I've always enjoyed a good debate.  I get to see/hear/read opinions that are different from my own and expand my own knowledge in the process.



I'll concede that I didn't read the statement as it was intended, however, your doubts aren't as clearly stated as you might think.  I'm a fairly intelligent individual and it still slipped past me.  But I extend my apologies on this one anyway since I should have seen it.  However, I've not once ever complained, merely counterpointed your arguments.  If you read it as complaining, that's you refusing to accept that my points are as valid as yours.  For someone who is clearly trying to get people to see alternatives, you're not responding very open minded.  I never once called you stupid either.  If you lump yourself into conspiracy nut category, then maybe I did, but as I stated in the very beginning of my post, I wasn't sure if you were a believer or just mocking it and for the most part, responded to conspiracy nuts in general, not to you specifically.



No, actually, it's extremely true and claiming anything else is just ridiculous as I'll explain in the next part.



And as per my statement, if we stopped voting in people who are groomed for or just made careers out of being politicians and instead voted in people who are older and wiser and know what it is to be an average person in the US, someone who's had to work for a living and is only running for office because they love their country rather then seeing a fat paycheck and political kickbacks, we'd be in a much better place.  Your little point there is made moot by my original point which I just reiterated, which is get these bastards out of office and put in decent, sensible people.  We wouldn't have to worry about this play ball or your out BS.  But these people either don't exist, or they don't run for office, if they did, I'd vote for them.  Besides, we vote them in anyway.  They can't not get reelected just because their peers in office don't like them.  It's us who makes that call.  Don't shoot off a lie just because it's convenient to your side.



Please, you're the one labeling yourself.  I was generalizing, if you want to lump yourself in with them, go for it.  My points are always backed up with more then just name calling, which I didn't really do.  If that's all I was doing, you wouldn't have had any reason to respond to me now would you?  See, got you on that one didn't I?  Maybe you should follow some of your own advice again and read it with a more critical mindset.



Never said there wasn't, in fact I did say it was okay to question your government.



I did attack your ideal, I did it again.  People...  Well, I'm not always PC, I really just don't care.  PC doesn't get anyone to respond unless they really want to take the time out of their day.  Got you to respond to me and no one else didn't it?



The discussion only just got started.  And I am being quite thoughtful as well, though not necessarily completely PC.  ;]  But I really am too tired to go on any further this time.

Yes, very thoughtful. Good arguments.

I would take that a step further and say it's a duty. Let's water board Bush, Obama and Chaney, seems a legal way to get the truth. Like I said before, I will never ever ever believe a politician unless I have there balls hooked to the power grid. Thats not torture though, just persuasive. 

 

EDIT: http://express.howstuffworks.com/runaway-elevator.htm.
 http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/wtcelevatorshafts

 

Hahahahaha.  I don't know if it's the lack of sleep talking, but that's damned funny.

Covered my entire arm in jellied ethanol once. It was pretty uncomfortable, but I didn't lose any arm hair. No water either (not that it would matter as the stuff floats).

And I've gotten to see an elevator crash. Although it can be controlled, the one I saw blew out everything in the lobby. Not a window survived. Metal contraction alone is a big issue. The differences can be dramatic. I had to boil a combat knife once to get it out of an old, metal scabbard, that's how bad it can get just with time to sit there.

Exactly.  Time to move on before they question the existence of the universe.