Zum- love the avatar. The little penguin gives him a push. Funny stuff!

Thanks for the well-known link. I did read the entire piece run in Popular Mechanics, and the subsequent "Scholars For Truth" debunking of their debunking, before I ever posted any questions here. Popular Mechanics definitely has all the answers, don't they? These are the "official" explanations all over again.

The scholars, unfortunately, (physicists, chemists, etc) have major problems with their explanations, and go step-by-step through them one-by-one, explaining why they just can't possibly be as claimed by the car mag. Follow my link.

I posted a link earlier to it, and asked some straight-forward questions regarding the fires, collapsing, survivor accounts, etc. that fly in the face of this "authority", but you never answered one of my real questions, and probably didn't follow the link, assuming that because I have questions, I must be a pea-brain. Each "fact" explained by Popular Mechanics is shown, by sholars and the NIST's own conclusions, to be false.

Even if there were no involvement whatsoever by the US in any capacity, the hard science doesn't add up in many cases. It's not for me to decide, or you, but it is interesting to see highly educated people going "wait a minute, it doesn't work that way."

The Time magazine article also says that 36% of the country believes the US had some involvement in the action or inaction of that day. 36% of the country, including college professors, are thus deemed "pea brains" by scholar and fact-giver Zumbido.

And I love how they blame misquotes by structural engineers, deisel fuel in WTC 7, and the "turning off" of transponders, among other "facts", yet completely disregard other pea-brained "facts" established by the laws of physics. And again, who stood to gain the most by this event? Al-Queda?

I never said buildings weren't hit by planes, I merely questioned the slew of coincidences shrugged off by Nick. If you re-read my questions, and give me some answers, I would love to read them as well. This is interesting to me, plain and simple.

Hey- look at that! I was the 100th post on this topic!

It is interesting to note that the Time Magazine article doesn't debunk any theory, asks the same questions, and then quotes psychologists as saying conspiracy theories are sort of like a healing process. I don't need any healing. They also belittle the Loose Change videos as being kids with pizza money.

But they don't have answers for the questions, either, and leave the reader in the same cliff-hanger he was in before reading the article. It is an op ed piece.

And Popular Mechanics? Would you read that magazine as a government authority? They broach the subject because it sells magazines, and sheeple buy it.

Sean, it's not fair to call people like me sheeple just because we don't automatically believe the conspiracy theories. What if there really are valid answers to all those questions?

There are lots of interesting questions, but it's just a game, and the chances of them amounting to anything are very, very small. Isn't it far more likely that this was terrorism than that it was our own government?

Northwoods.

'ohhh, but they wouldn't do that .. no no on.'

have you seen the state of your country?

oh, and Time Magazine? owned. CIA. period. since the 50s. period.

oh, and nick, i would think that a construction manager (DeMartini) might 'factor in' the element of jetfuel, when constructing a building designed to withstand airplane impacts.

No offense. Buy some kerosene. Burn it. see if you get any puddles or large amounts lying around afterward. Its a total reaction. It burns uniformly and evenly and instantaneously.

All the fuel went up in the fireball straight away.

what burned was office furniture, carpets, office objects and people.

black smoke is indicative of a low temp carbon based fire. Go ask a firefighter.

this is not furnace behaviour.

the TIME magazine piece is a hit piece. Period.

you all got screwed and are too mortified to admit it.

I'm not saying you personally are a sheeple. It's just that many people blindly follow the word of the press. It is not just a game. These buildings were meant to withstand and impact and a fire, and they came down in a manner inconsistent with anything but a controlled demolition. Especially a few fires on WTC7. You believe fires caused a perfect implosion of a WTC7 into it's own neat footprint, when nothing hit the building?

Other buildings in the area had fires, and the steel frames remained standing. It's a safe bet that you could start a fire in any steel building on the planet, even put deisel fuel containers in there, and it won't collapse, least of all expected outcomes would be a picture-perfect demoliton into it's own footprint. Buildings don't fall down like that from fire. They get gutted, maybe, and they topple if the frame gets cut. Search and you will find not another case in history. I think they had a little help. It is scary that you call this a game. The reason they are interesting questions is not because I like controversy, it is because the physics don't add up.

I noticed that you applauded Zum's link to the car mag, but had nothing to say about my link, which is educated people debunking those exact knee jerk explanations, one by one, even using the NIST's own conclusions to dispute their claims.

"you all got screwed and are too mortified to admit it."

Thanks for clearing that up, john 'the go to guy' gee.

And thank you, zum, for the answers. Not.

Mr. Kluth,

Let me summarize your previous reply.

This conspriacy was masterminded by Bush, Silverstein, al Qaeda, bin Ladin, Sadam, Blair, Cheney, M5, CIA, FBI, Ronald MacDonald, Bozo the Clown, GHW Bush, Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Babe Ruth, FDNY, Israel.

I apologize if left anyone out,

Oh, and all the little dead people and their parentless children.

Plus, every other nameless person that was brought in to contribute their 'part' and of course, not a single one has cunbled under the guilt and come forth.

Absolutely amazing!

What is most perplexing is that dumb ol' Bush could pull this off with his pea-sized brain.

Nevermind, Kluth deleted it.

Change of heart, perhaps?