yabasta

I watched the videos the first time. What does that prove? who knows whether it was steel beams, the airplane fuselage, or some other metal object, if it even was metal? Secondly, I don't know how you can look at the videos you keep showing and say there was not a raging inferno. All eyewitness accounts from the inside describe a raging inferno. And thirdly, the planes hit about 9 a.m., and the towers collapsed about 2 hours later if I remember correctly (i was running away from the Capitol so I don't remember exactly). That is plenty of time for fires to compromise the strength of the steel structure.

Finally, you continue to link to pages and tell me to read them. i did the same and you told me you want to debate with me. I defer to expert scientists on technical issues, and I trust you can read the websites I give you, just as I have done with the site you gave me. You brought up the pentagon issue a long time ago, so don't tell me that arguing about it is a distraction. you brought it up.

from CNN

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/

9:03 a.m.: A second hijacked airliner, United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston, crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center and explodes. Both buildings are burning.

10:05 a.m.: The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses, plummeting into the streets below. A massive cloud of dust and debris forms and slowly drifts away from the building.

8:45 a.m. (all times are EDT): A hijacked passenger jet, American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston, Massachusetts, crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center, tearing a gaping hole in the building and setting it afire.

10:28 a.m.: The World Trade Center's north tower collapses from the top down as if it were being peeled apart, releasing a tremendous cloud of debris and smoke.

So you were close on one tower but the south tower collapsed an hour later. North Tower was an hour and a half. So even then if we assume that is time for jet fuel to weaken the steel enough to collapse both towers it brings us back to the question nobody on the debunk side seems able to answer. How did the towers collapse so quickly and why was there very little resistance from the floors etc? Weakened steel is still going to have some sort of resistance alone but then add floors etc and it does not add up.

Another blanket statement about eye witness accounts? ALL eyewitness accounts?

95TH FLOOR

Patricia Alonso, victim

Marsh & McLennan

She managed one phone call to her husband, Robert. This is his brief account:

She worked in Tower 1, 95th floor. She was on the southeast side looking over the Brooklyn Bridge. I talked to her while she was evacuating. She called me on her cell phone at 9:07. She said she was leaving. She was evacuating.

I said, "I'm coming down to get you.'' And I told her I loved her. And she told me she loved me. She didn't know that a plane had hit the building. She just said there was smoke.

How do you explain this.

This woman is not on fire and yet she is standing at the impact zone shortly after impact.

This is a raging inferno for those who have not seen the movie.

You might not mean to lie so much but it paints you in a negative light when you are seen to make so many false statements.

firefighters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKdvl--1Dt0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C26k0nCE1_M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0-5dmSh6TQ

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it0VpgWEl90

What you saw dripping there could have been anything. Just because the video labled it "thermite" doesn't make it so. Aluminum melts at a much lower temp. There was a 757 buried in there. It could have been that. For the building to have been rigged to go down would have taken an enormous amount of preperation. Someone would have noticed it. And the hijacker would have to hit the EXACT spot that they rigged. I doubt if they could have done that. Have you ever watched one of those shows where they implode a building? It takes weeks to get it ready. They rip out walls and drill holes in structural points to put the explosives in. I really doubt if they could have done that without someone noticing. Also did you see any explosions as the building went down? They would have had to rig it floor by floor in a controlled way. It is way beond the realm of possability for it to have been rigged.

So again you ignore all the points that you have no alternate explanation for? Shall we try again with my main point?

How does A 110 floor skyscraper hit the deck in a second longer than freefall without some sort of help? The floors would have provided resistance even if the force above was heavier. It is basic science that an object moving into another object will be met with resistance.

You speak with such knowledge on how the towers would need to be demolished. So the dripping metal is not evidence of thermite? Well maybe not but how do you explain the second video. THe hot spots that were seen on thermal images weeks afterwards.

Explosions can be seen as the towers come down but if you doubt that or claim that the explosions are the floors pancaking then perhaps you will listen to the fire fighters in the building who reported exlposions or the many others who reported exlposions coming from all over the building.

Why would the plane have to hit an exact spot? Why would the plane even need a pilot?

As far as preparign the buildings it has been well established that this process take time which is part of the reason that building 7 is such a mystery. There have been reports of power downs prior to 9/11. It is possible to plan the demolition without entering the building and so they would in theory only need a certain ammount of time to set charges. These could be triggered from elsewhere.

You say that somebody would notice the preparation and people have indeed noticed it after the fact. Atthe time people would probably not be expecting such an event.

It is not way beyond the realm of possibility and is in fact the best explanation i can think of that explains the super quick collapse time.

If you look at how a skycraper is built it is only a framework of steel with a curtain wall built around it. Once the middle gave out and the top came crashing down on it then it just pancakes. The structure below can't handle the shock of all that weight suddenly coming down. Then one floor after another fails. It doesn't take a engineer to see that. As far as dripping molten metal dripping goes, there wasn't any. The metal just weakend and gave way. Anyone with half an eye can see that it was structural failure that caused it to pancake like that.

Well said I don't know why yabasta keeps claiming that it is impossible for a building to collapse like that. If I remember correctly, the planes hit somewhere around the 80th floor. That means that after the fire burned for several hours, the structure weakened and the 20-30 floors above collapsed. THe weight of that would certainly cause the floors below to fail.

Secondly yabasta, there is plenty of discussion of why the wings and tail of an airplane wouldn't make a cartoon-like hole in the pentagon. Look at the PM article and Purdue video again.

Again for those who missed it.

video showing molten metal dripping from the tower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk

After six weeks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3D2myMbQjQ

The above videos are like 3 minutes or so in total.

You talk of how a sky scraper is built but you need to be more specific here. How the WTC towers were built. The building was heavily engineered to withstand a jet plane impact. The building did everything that it was designed to do. It swayed and absorbed the impact. Most of the fuel is seen burning in the air outside the towers. The explosions during the collapse are not the jet fuel exploding again. After the plane impact the smoke indicates that the fire is burning inefficiently.

One more time if the pancake happened please explain the lack of resistance from the floors? a freefalling object would land a second or two later so please explain 110 floors failing to slow down the process by anymore than that.

The pancake theory also fails to explain the destruction of the tower above the impact zone. Also the towers were not burning for hours as stated by Viva Mexico. The towers came down very soon after the raging inferno. Oh wait there was no raging inferno.

I am not debating with the websites you have linke di am debating with you. If you wish to quote one of hte pages that you have shown me already feel free to do so. I personally find the Pentagon to be a distraction in many ways. Arguing over whether it was a plane or a missile or whatever. Maybe it was a 757 i just don`t see how it was. I have not been convinced on that one.

also i made no mention of a "cartoon" hole although the hole in the side of the south tower was more plane shaped. The Pentagon was tougher so perhaps more resistant to the impact. The issue i have is with the hole size. I also wonder about the exit hole.

To prove this, go home tonight and press an aluminum beer/soda can against a concrete wall, and see which one wins. Now imagine that beer/soda can is filled with kerosene and impacts that same wall at over 450 mph. and tell me how much of that beer can will be left, and how much of the concrete wall would be left.

Wouldn`t the nose hit before the fuel exploded? I mean this would slow down the plane somewhat i imagine. Like you i am no expert i amjust offering up an idea. I really don`t know what happened at the Pentagon.

Secondly, when missles hit buildings the impact is different. It is far more explosive and takes a kind of "fireball" shape and leaves a LARGE crater due to the fact that is is packed with high explosives.

Again i am no expert but wasn`t there a flash.

from http://www.physics911.net/missingwings.htm

If you look at any high velocity aircraft crash, you will notice that there are VERY few large pieces of debris.

American Eagle 4184

USAIR 427

I would provide more pics, but over 95% of all crashes occur after take-off, or on landing, thus most do not have the "high velocity" impact that AA 77 had.

I clicked those links you provided and i thank you for that but there were large pieces of debris there. I also clicked the page 2 and page 1 of each crash picture link you provided.

Yes the destruction was huge but there were large parts that survived.

Further, if it was a missle, what happened to the 757, the pilots, flight attendants, and the passengers?

If you believe a person A murdered person B would the police come to you and say "so where is the body buried then smart guy?". Finding holes in the official story does not automatically give you all the answers sadly.

Moving on, some people make a stink about the aircraft hitting the only reinforced part of the Pentagon, but lets think about it logically. AA 77 impacted the Pentagon on the side facing the interstate. One of the first things you are taught in flight school is to use freeways and highways to help navigate. So, if you hijacked an airplane and wanted to get somewhere (provided you have minimal flight experience like these guys) how would you find the Pentagon? By navigating along the Interstates to find it. Further, if you are going to structurally re-inforce a building against a terror attack, which side would you re-inforce first; the side facing a river or forest, or the side facing the freeway where a guy could easily drive a truck bomb upto your building a la the OKC bombing?

Good point yes but if you were a pilot looking at your suicide target would you not go for the roof? Seems an easier target that would do more damage and cause more death.

The simple fact is that some people love conspiracy theories, and love to hate their government. I do not believe that the government is inherently evil. Dimwitted at times? yes. Evil? no.

Some people look at information available and make up their own minds but that does not mean that they are crazy or gulable or anything. You disagree that does not make you right or superior. There are plenty of conspiracy theories that i agree are fun and interesting but some of these theories have weight behind them. If a theory has no weight behind it then sure it is just a theory. As soon as you have some evidence to support that theory though it becomes as valid an option as the official story. We often learn about history years later and learn that what we were told then was not true.

P.S. Oh, and that whole argument about the impact hole being too small: The fuselage of a 757 is not much bigger than that of a 737, and the diameter of the fuselage is about 8-9 feet, but no greater than 9. It will not make an impact hole that big on a heavily reinforced military building such as the Pentagon.

wings? tail? engines? How dd the fuselage get to the building on it`s own?

It is a "fact" that the towers came down in near freefall speed. This is a FACT. The jet fuel would not melt steel. This is another FACT.

Your right, jet fuel will not "melt" steel. But it will soften it enough so the weight of the structure above it will cause it to fail. Once one part fails the rest comes crashing down in a chain reaction.

And thanks Ual777. I said some of the same things you did there but you have a lot more experience in those matters. In a battle between aluminum traveling at 400mph and reiforced concrete and stone the aluminum dosn't have a chance.

So if it was weakened i ask AGAIN why did the floors below not provide hardly any resistance? Weakened steel would still take longer to come down. You also didn`t watch the video of metal dripping off of the tower did you?

The "Green Cheese Moon" theory is an allegory. The fact that I have to explain this says something about your cognitive ability.

Did you read my whole response? I am aware of what you meant. I said this was a little more important than such a claim. Again trying to make me out to be inferior to you is not an argument for your view point.

I have not failed at defending the official consensus (I like that better than "story", thanks Viva), and in fact I do not have to. There are much better explanations by people far better at it than I, all readily available on the Internet. Viva's PM aritlce is just one.

Well i have not had many questions answered satisfactorily and really find it hard to believe that such a poor article as the PM one is seen as a good explanation when it fails to mention many points.

And I did not ask you to disprove the official consensus. I asked you to prove yours. Just come up with some solid evidence! If you're right, it should be easy.

I encourage people to look for themselves and to look in numerous different places. I don`t think solid evidence will ever convince some people because some people simply will not accept solid evidence as being solid and in some cases wont even accept it as evidence.

There is plenty of evidence out there but it is always played off by people. For example the person who said that the fuselage is about the right size for the hole ignores the wings and tail section and how would it fly so well without them?

On the other hand i am aware that the Pentagon could indeed be a straw man set up to be knocked down. Maybe a 757 really did hit the Pentagon i just can`t see how it got into that small hole. I won`t discount the idea just as i won`t discount the idea that it was perhaps a smaller plane and or missile. It certainly seems odd that we have not seen it from 100 angles.

As I said, there are far better explanations by real experts who know what they're talking about readily available. You know how to use Google, why should I do your work for you?

Sure i do use google and i have looked at debunk sites. I have researched the topic a lot in the last few years. I was not asking you to do my work for me at all. It just seems that you have been convinced by something that perhaps i have missed. Some magical airplane theory that explains the near freefall collapse of a 110 floor sky scraper. 110 floors that provide almost no resistance. This is the big problem that people just can not answer. You can make any number of claims but near freefall simply should not happen with 110 floors of concrete and steel. Resistance should be noticeable and i would even suggest that collapse should be non uniform.

You assume I blindly believe the official consensus. On the contrary, I believe the official consensus because of the facts, the evidence and the testimony of many, many experts in their field. You have a few nutjobs and no evidence. Why should I believe that?

I did not say that you necesarily believe the official story blindly. If you have no answer to a simple question like how the towers came down in near freefall then i would suggest that to accept the so called "facts" is also ignoring key "facts".

It is a "fact" that the towers came down in near freefall speed. This is a FACT. The jet fuel would not melt steel. This is another FACT.

Again name calling the person who you think is a " nut job" shows weakness in your argument. If indeed they are a nut job why have they not been proved wrong easily? Again this is not a cheese moon theory. This is not the same thing at all.

Again the "few" is not a few but MANY. That one websites is just a list of scholars. There are plenty of other people to speak out on this subject. People from all areas and political beliefs.

I am not saying you should believe the theories of "nut jobs". I offer you scholars because they know about physics and often people are attacked for their views based on their lack of physics knowledge. If i offer up a person who views the official story as a lie then that person is prompty attacked.

This is like trying to convince a Creationist to accept evolution. They've decided that evolution cannot coexist with their belief and faith, so they try to destroy it. Never mind science, never mind the experts, never mind the truth. And they do the same things, they find details that haven't been explained or facts they don't understand, and then say the whole scientific theory is wrong. And of course their theory (creationism or intelligent design) has no evidence and no facts to back it, but we're supposed to just accept it. Sorry, I'm going to live in the real world, not some fantasy land where the governement can perpetrate the greatest mass murder in history and get away with it. That is, the greatest mass murder that has been gotten away with.

Well firstly apply this last paragraph to yourself and see what you think. You have not convinced me that jet fuel can melt steel and if it weakened the steel then please explain the near freefall collapse. This is the pinpointed evidence. This one piece of evidence is plain to see by all and it is not a creation argument at all. Again your argument is totally side tracking the issue. Trying to make this into something else. Trying to turn the argument into a creationist debate perhaps. It is not an issue with no evidence or facts to support it. It is about physics laws and it is about numerous other facts that simply don`t add up or point to a cover up.

These unanswered facts that you play down should have been answered of course by the 9/11 commission report but they were not. The evidence was destroyed when it should have been preserved.

What s/he said. yabasta, you have taken the extraordinary stand. You must supply extraordinary evidence. The side I'm on doesn't need to explain every little "hole" you imagine or every little detail you don't understand. You need to answer the big questions about your theory before I will begin to consider yours. If you say "the moon is made of green cheese", you're going to have to provide extraordinary evidence of its cheesiness before I'll begin to believe you.

for the record i am male.

I have not claimed the moon is made of cheese. this is something much more important. It effects you not just me and not just the Muslim world. It effects all of us. Whether you want to believe me or not is down to you. If you fail at defending the official story then why should i be expected to come up with such evidence? It is a joke to say that i must disprove the official theory whilst you have no reason to defend it.

If you stand by it then i say you should be prepared to explain little details like molten steel as they are quite big issues. If you decide not to then why bother posting on the topic? I am not going to lose any sleep over it. I will try and pass on the information to those who wish to listen and even debate the points with people. It is fair to say that there are still questions. I don`t claim to know it all i just have questions for the most part.

To agree with the official story blindly even if it were 100% true is still foolish in my mind.

#1 - never painted you as a whack job

#2 - never called an expert names

Which physics experts am I to believe then? The handful that are in the conspiracy camp, or the overwhelming majority that agree with the official account of 9/11? What makes 1 "expert" with a conspiracy theory more credible than all the other experts?

I urge you to try and learn about what you dismiss so quickly. The scholars for truth movement is actually a lot more than a handful. They are in fact proving to be more than a handful for the mass media.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

On the above page is a list of scholars for truth. You should check them out. As for experts disagreeing you just have to look at what they have to say and see if you can see any holes in their explanations. The official story has always been incomplete and expert testimony has been known to about turn suddenly in favour of the official story. People who speak out against the official story have more to lose and people who support it have gains to be made i would say.

Are you likely to get that job at Popular Mechanics if you spoke out on the 9/11 physics issues. A pancake collapse(for those who ignored my video links) would take a lot longer than the time the buildings took to come down. The floors would provide resistance in the tower collapse even if the fires were hot enough on their own to weaken the steel. There was almost no resistance on 9/11.

This is the most definitive article I have found so far:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

And here is some info for those of you who disputed that the Pentagon was hit by an airplane:

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/02091...n.Pentagon.html

The Popular Mechanics debunk piece is very popular with debunkers like yourself. However it is very half arsed and fails to adequately answer even the small ammount that it covers. This is the reason that none of you have used the information from such sites to debate the details.

The page cheers the pancake collapse theory which is again disproved in at leas tone of the videos i posted a link to. There is also evidence of molten steel in a video of the WTC which suggests Thermite was perhaps used to melt the steel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk

A counter attack to that debunk piece.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

Read the PM article i referenced above. I think you will find that fire did bring down the towers, unless of course you prefer internet blog physics to expert testimony.

I have read it before and looked it over again just now. I do actually look into different ideas on this. I know you like to paint me as a whack job and all but i`m really not. Calling an expert names because they do not agree with your ideas is very intelligent of you. The scholars for truth are just that. You might like to attack them or their reputations but the fact remains that they know about physics.

I said "I looked at". Of course I did not watch them all,

I rest my case at this point because you have demonstrated yourself clearly in that statement alone. You are not interested in the view point in the same way that you dislike music. If you watched those videos you would find answers to many of your questions. Once more i would also state that i never claimed to have all the answers but your claim that fire brought down th towers has been found wanting. I would point you towards the evidence of this but the physics might bore you.

I looked at your videos, and none of them are convincing. In fact, they all appear to be typical whackjobs.

The first one talks about "controlled explosions". Just think about how ludicrous this idea is. Government agents sneak hundreds of pounds of high explosives into the WTC towers without anyone becoming suspect or anyone knowing about the plan objecting. Then you hire Arabs to hijack planes and fly them into the exact floors where the explosives are. Then, after the fires burn for an hour, hour and a half WITHOUT the explosives going off, THEN you detonate them to bring down the buildings. And then afterward there is no physical evidence of said explosives.

I'm sorry, but that's ###### insane. If you believe that, you've got problems. SERIOUS problems.

In other words you have not watched the videos i posted. Claiming that they are whack jobs is both idiotic and unreasonable. Somebody is a whack job because they can demonstrate how the towers simply would not come down from 757 hits? How do you explain the near freefall collapse?

Not sure why i am asking somebody like you since you can not make a post without being rude and low class in your debtae style.

I'm sorry if I'm being a little provocative, but it is true that we have some extreme fundamental Christians who want to disregard the laws of the land, saying they answer to a higher authority. What's the difference then between them and these Islamic extremists?

If you don't know the difference between the two, there's no point in telling you since obviously you'll NEVER get it.

But here's a hint: terrorist.

Not all extremists are terrorists or even advocate such acts.

So perhaps the Aboriginies should follow suit.

another video for anybody who is actually interested.

This one is from Jim Hoffman.

physics etc of 911

Jeff King

steven Jones on C span

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5kBkOX-qgg

fetzer

As for the question regarding the growing number of people who doubt the official story i would point you to zogby polls or the popularity of threads like this. In the past it would be the odd dissenting voice but now there are numbers. Maybe in your world everybody believes the official story but there is plenty to indicate that the number of "kooks" is growing. This is despite the huge effort to silence dissent aswell as the voluntary efforts of people to call people crazy. Many VJ members are guilty of this.

Norad were confused at very least by the drills. Coincidentally the London underground bombings took place during terror drills in the same locations as the bombs. What timing right?

There is a lot of specualtion and many theories. Many of these are just theories but they thrive for a reason. The reason for this is that the offiical story is full of holes. You down play it but there is a massive ammount of evidence to support an alternative to the official story. Simply saying the conspiracy theories are wrong is a joke. You don`t even specify which theory you think is crazy.

This is not about the moon. The moon is a different event. The number of people who don`t believe the official story is growing as well so to say the people who don`t buy the official story are likely to think something else aswell becomes even more laughable as a blanket statement. Questioning history is the intelligent thing to do as we are told so often to blindly accept things we are told without question. It seems to me that people should question everything and not question nothing. Just because you don`t believe everything you are told that does not make you crazy.

Name calling is really not an argument either.

Once again the idea that Bush is the brains behind government is just naive. Bush did not engineer 9/11 anymore than Bin Laden engineered it. The government as a whole entity more than likely didn`t have anything to do with 9/11. A smaller conspiracy is much more likely but 19 people without any security clearance is really hard to buy into.

just how does 19 people with a security clearance make it more believeable?

Well how else would they gain cockpit access? How else would they get a stand down from Norad? and how would they gain access to the towers to plant explosives? There are a number of facts related to september 11th which don`t add up unless there was some sort of inside access. Lots of questions.

In order for the conspiracy to be correct, you have to assume first that the government is competent enough to carry out such an elaborate plan,

Funny how Bush is the biggest, stupidest person to ever live.....but he can develop a huge conspiracy and carry it out while deceiving hundreds of millions of Americans.

Once again the idea that Bush is the brains behind government is just naive. Bush did not engineer 9/11 anymore than Bin Laden engineered it. The government as a whole entity more than likely didn`t have anything to do with 9/11. A smaller conspiracy is much more likely but 19 people without any security clearance is really hard to buy into.

The proof as they say is in the pudding. If you want proof of Bin Laden`s financial ties to Bush then try google or if you want to learn about Al Qaeda than try the Al Qaeda official website.

What exactly makes it sound like nonsense to you? It is odd that you expect people to respond to your questions yet see no reason to explain your comments.

Well do you have any proof at all as to your theories? Any proof that the CIA is "using" bin Laden? Did they use him to plan 9/11? So the CIA planned 9/11 then?

So as for what they get out of it well they don`t really exist and that goes for Bush as leader of the "free world" and Bin Laden as leader of the "baddies". They are both constructs, not to say that they are not real but their power and importance is not real.

I don't even GET this paragraph. What exactly are you trying to say here? What doesn't really exist?

Well assume that it is not true(as i am sure you do) then ask yourself who is best served by the events since 9/11. The terrorists won. Follow the official story totally by all means. Yes it was nasty Iraqi`s or whatever you believe is the undisputable truth and then look at why you think they did it. Then see what happened to your rights. What happened after 9/11? WARS and new laws reducing freedoms.

The second paragraph is pretty straight forward. Bush is president but he is not really the one pulling the strings. Bin Laden is leader of "Al Qaeda" but he really has no control over anything.

I rather take offense to your notion that I am "trivializing" the events of 9/11 by making sarcastic remarks about your theory. I can't possible take such a ridiculous theory seriously. You, my friend, are doing this nation and all the victims of terrorism a disservice by spouting your unproven allegations. The people of NY and DC that died on 9/11 were killed by terrorists, not the U.S. Government. To claim that the government had something to do with it is, in my opinion, a way of approving Al Queda's message and radical agenda (the U.S. is evil, the CIA is behind everything, blah blah blah).

We are not on Fox news and you can not shout me down and get away with blatant lying about me without me responding.

My theory? You have not even heard or asked for my theory. This was never about MY theory. The debates on VisaJourney have been brief compared to the scale of the issue and i have not really gone into my theory as i don`t see theories as being as important as simple facts. Facts that will be trivialised by the crazy hat picture or the laughing smilie. Items which are for light hearted topics.

You are trivialising 9/11 because you fail to look for the truth, and you refuse to see the many problems witht he official story. You are the one at fault here. Investigating any crime is important and when those with the task of investigating a crime fail to do so it is the role of everybody else. This includes you. You might not have any relatives who died here or abroad because of the events of 9/11 but this event will effect you in some way if not now than sometime soon.

What theory is ridiculous exactly? The idea that the people responsible lied to cover up what happened? Seems plausible to me. If you commit a crime there is a good chance you want to get away with it.

The real problem is that you denounce theories and yet the official story is ten times more unbelievable. Every stage of it makes you suspend the laws of physics and common sense and you come up with crazy theories to support your own sensibilities. It is time you woke up and actually looke dat the events of 9/11 more closely with less bias.

The people who died on 9/11 were killed by terrorists who can`t stand freedom right? Everything that happened after 9/11 has totally been what Al Qaeda are said to want. So by that definition yes the government or CIA or whatever you wish to call it are the terrorists.

When people can actually debate instead of attempting to make fun out of the subject then perhaps we can get somewhere but as long as people don`t then we won`t.

What exactly makes it sound like nonsense to you? It is odd that you expect people to respond to your questions yet see no reason to explain your comments.

You are so smart with your little laughing smilie face.

Surely it should actually be I could not care ANY less if we are being all proper? I too assumed it was sarcasm to say "I could care less". Kind of like saying "BOTHERED?"

while we are on the topic of things that drive us nuts can I just say that I get soooooo peeved when I here someone say: Can I aks you a question? instead of 'ask'.

and it bugs me when people say "here" when they mean "hear" although i am sure i have done it too. My own typos bug the hell out of me.

So Bush was in on this and Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility? Why? Why would they be willing to accept responsibility? What would they get out of it and what would Bush get out of it? And why would they be working together in the first place?

Interesting how none of the theorists can answer my questions...

I would never consider myself a "theorist" but i shall attempt to answer your questions. Firstly though i would point out that i don`t have all the answers and could not claim to have all the answers. Secondly i would suggest that you should perhaps look for answers yourself as i am sure whatever answers i provide will be ignored for the most part.

Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA and Pakistan. Therefore it is pretty much a CIA asset itself. Bin Laden is a CIA asset. Whilst he probably does not work directly for CIA he certainly is used by the CIA. His involvement in the WTC attacks is very much the same as Bush`s involvement in the Iraq or Afghan invasions. You could argue that those invasions are the fault of Bush but that would be ignoring how the system works. Bush is the front man. Osama is the front man. Bush says some words and people think he did this or that and Bin Laden does the same.

Al Qaeda claiming responsibility is rather hard to prove or disprove. The fact is anybody can start a website and claim to be al qaeda. Anybody can then make a tape claiming to be Bin Laden speaking. If you have the technology (which exists) then you could make a tape of Bin Laden claiming anything you liked.

Al Qaeda claiming responsibility is obviously down to interpretation. Who are Al Qaeda and who do they work for? Of course people don`t agree on this one. If Al Qaeda are a terrorist group with no ties to their creators then why would they fly planes into buildings? They can`t stand freedom? If that is the case they certainly won on september 11th. On the other hand if they were working in the role for which they were created then the same goal was reached. They started a war with Saudi Arabia? no they started a war with Iraq and Afghanistan and the people of the world. The war on "terror". The "war on terror" being of course double speak for the "war on freedom".

So by Al Qaeda admitting it who is really admitting it? If a terror group admits an action how on earth do you justify invading one country let alone two? It makes no sense but then the Iraq plan was ready before 9/11.

Al Qaeda being a vague term it is not like i stood up and said hey i did it. The only person who is said to have said "i did it" is not even being hunted anymore. He was never really intended to be found and could well be dead already. So AL Qaeda claimed responsibility and you can then kill anybody and just say "he was al qaeda" People can`t argue because they can`t prove the dead guy wasn`t al qaeda.

So as for what they get out of it well they don`t really exist and that goes for Bush as leader of the "free world" and Bin Laden as leader of the "baddies". They are both constructs, not to say that they are not real but their power and importance is not real.

In a side note i would like to point out that the people talking about aliens and Elvis and that ####### are just failing miserably at coming across as superior. The people who joke about these events often if not always fail to make any valid points and show disrespect to those who are showing actual interest in investigatiing the events of 911 and they fail the thousands who died by trivialising the event. In my opinion anyway.

thanks

I know 4 days is not long but we really need the money and the longer i go without even hearing the more i worry. thanks for the advice. Now i just need to find some head hunters. Anybody know any in GA?

I would continue with on-line, also try careerbuilder.com, but in addition I would register with some of the bigger agencies near to where you live. Most of the online jobs, certainly here anyway, are handled by agecies and recruiters, and in my job search I did get lots of calls in response to online applications but 90% were from agencies who were handling those jobs. I ended up getting a $60000 job from an online application with either Monster or Careerbuilder through a phone call from the agency handling the opening.

You could also send your resume to targeted companies that you are qualified to work for and would like to work for.

Happy hunting!

Thanks for the advice.