Paul W. , I'm going back. Waaaay back. Back to my original argument that there is much more to 9/11 than the buildings coming down. Why? Because we have both been sucked into talking about it. None of us are experts , you got it right-and not only that, but what usually happens is you have your opinion, I have mine, You quote a source , I'll quote a source.
(Damn, I'm going to be late)
No matter how the buildings came down,there still is the behavior of the Bush administration that needs to be aired out. Let's say that had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything that happened on 9/11...why would they block investigations? If I were the President, there would be a new head stuck on the White House fence every day. I'd have announced an investigation MYSELF, given them whatever budget they thought they needed,welcomed other investigations, and went on TV periodically to update the world on the progress.Instead, we got what we got.What's happening is that you,me, and everyone else firing at each other,back and forth,and while this is going on,they're busy planning the next Big Thing.
I still haven't gotten through all of 9/11 Myths, but all of this is getting to be a drag. The FBI/fireman thing in the Naudet Bros. documentary? I haven't had the time to find what I was talking about-but I may not even bother, because since I know there was no third plane, it's kinda ridiculous to go back and forth about something that WE BOTH KNOW FOR CERTAIN never existed.
I don't go for the idea that all the extra security at the G8 Summit was just a exercise in chest -puffing, because at that time, we'd already had enough of Bush in the short time he was in office . If it was a charade, it was lost on its American audience; it wasn't treated as a bg story. I don't know how it fared anywhere else. Of course, all the "intelligence" that they (either France or Italy, I think) had could have been a load of poo.
It looks we're going to have to agree to disagree about some things concerning the 9/11 attacks. Is this my last post? Looking back at the previous posts, IT APPEARS THAT WE ARE THE LAST TWO HAMHEADS LEFT.

Boy oh booy is it hard ignoring you, Paul W. ! Although I'm still wondering why you keep posting here. Your last post says that you are getting tired of this...does that mean you're not going to post any more?
Anyway, I'm still going through the 9/11 Myths site. So far, it's AMAZING! It turns out that nearly every single item the "Truthers" talk about either never happened, or the newspapers took quotes out of context to make it appear as if there was something shady going on. Wow!
I've also found a few other things :
For one, the whole "What's under that blue tarp" section ,concerning what was thought to be people hustling away parts of Flight 77 had been determined to be bogus a loong time ago-in fact, I had forgotten all about it.
The section of Jeb Bush imposing martial law? I never heard about that. What I did hear was that he activated the National Guard-quite another thing from martial law.
It left out some of my questions, too, like the report of surface-to-air missiles on the roof of the resort Bush stayed in before he gave his Goat Book Review. Or the extraordinary security at the summer 2001 G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, that made no sense to people at the time.I'm still slogging through it all...
Is it possible that the Towers came down just as the Official Story said they did? Sure. Now try likely....not bloody. Many people maintain that the bottom part of the Towers should have survived. If that had happened-say, 15-25 stories-I would have been more likely to believe the Story. The top part hit the bottom part-and turned into dust. It started billowing out and away, lightening the loads the lower,undamaged floors had to support. The bases of the towers were made of huge, heavy , thick steel,buried in the ground. They're gone, too? How about a lower portion of ONE of the towers still up? The last one to fall.(I don't know which was which). It was hit higher up, so there was less above the impact levels.How 'bout just the massive columns sticking up out of the ground, and not just the outer shell of the buildings?
You write as if there are maybe 100 people on the planet that don't believe the Official Story-there are people all over the world, who've held prominent positions (I'm not talking about celebrities), former military, etc. that think something's amiss with many parts of it. Since the Bush administration has done nothing but lie, lie about lying, act suspiciously, and try to stop 9/11 investigations, I don't believe anything they say. Couple that with previous administrations' histories of being up to no good, and you've got your so-called "conspiracy" at full boil.
You're tired of this, so I guess that was your last post. I ,for one, enjoyed our dialougue. Fare thee well, PaulW. fare thee well...

PS: haven't had time to verify exactly where the FBI/fireman/Plane 3 came in; I'll nail it down for you.

Sigh. Sigh again. I already wrote that it was ridiculous , so why are you even bothering with that? But why WOULD the FBI guy tell him that-this was AFTER the buildings were down, and AFTER the firemen came back. The whole world knew there was no third plane. The only person at that point in time who would believe-even for a split second-that there was a third plane was a fireman who was actually in the building while the attacks were happening.So what gives?
No one outside or watching TV was so "confused" as to think there was a third plane. Were you watching it as it happened (I wasn't , but I ran home and taped it). Did you see a third plane? Did you ever think there was a third plane? No one actually AT the site thought there was a third plane. There were no interviews of any confused,scared person that said there was a third plane. Because there WAS no third plane, so why did this "confused" FBI guy even think there was? But in the end,I dismissed it all as being ridiculous and not important.
Paul,99.5% of my posts deal with things other than the collapses. They don't need "answers"(I'm thinking many have not heard a lot of it) and they don't need "experts". Your "experts" haven't told you why Bush stuck around the school like a kid who knows the Bully is outside waiting for him,have they?What you are doing is "answering" the .5% and admitting that you don't know about the rest. You are the one who turned this into a Q&A. (FYI - the "why" is rhetorical). I'm not the only one posting about the collapsing buildings-again only .5% of all my posts-but somehow I'm the only "idiot". Is this because I'm not ignoring you? Maybe this is what I'll do from here on in.

Gee whiz, PaulW.,talking loud and saying nothing! You still didn't challenge any of the other things I wrote about - oh , wait you did...you clicked on "9/11 Myths" or "Screw Loose Change" and...you satisfied yourself. If you're busy "satisfying yourself "about what happened on 9/11, then why do you bother posting here? You just keep on an on about the buildings collapsing-and nothing else. Way to stay on message!

You read all of the other info in my other posts...aaaaand then scrolled back up to the first one and said, "Ha! The ONLY ONE (note CAPS) I can "answer"! The rest? "Ooh,I'm too busy for those...none of those are on my script!" What a steaming pile of an excuse.

So-called Debunkers take ONE aspect of something someone said/wrote, "disprove " it *cough*, and that automatically means that EVERYTHING else the person was talking about is "conspiracy". And when faced with something they don't have an answer to , well, suddenly they "can't bother answering!" That's a nice Bush-type answer,Paul.If it's so impossible to pick just one, then PICK ANOTHER ONE. Any answer for ANY of the other information I or anyone else posted? Any "sunlight" to scrub the other stuff clean,hm? Eh?Ah,you're too busy "meeting a beautiful young woman"...Now we KNOW you're in a basement apartment ,with bars on the tiny windows, in your bathrobe and boxers, keyed up on Doritos and Red Bull, shuffling round and round, churning up clouds of Cheeto dust with every foot drag ,checking this site every half-hour for responses to your "quick" reply (you must be a faaaast typer for all that to be a "quick" reply) and checking your phone to see which "beautiful young woman" called you today: "-BEEEEP- "you-have-NO-messages". You'd be believed more if you said you were off to find Osama.

The time you spent writing your last post , you could have been responding to some of the other information on this site, not just mine.Here's another nugget: Clue us all in on why the Secret Service allowed Bush to stay at the school for so long after he was told the country was under attack. Unknown persons or groups hijacking an unknown number of planes from an unknown number of airports and crashing them in to unknown targets-and Bush stays there, blabbing on an on even after the press had left. His visit at the school was publicized. Terrorists could have hijacked a plane from the same airport where Air Force One was parked-about five miles from the school-and plowed it into the school,likely killing everyone in it.
Then,when he boards AF1, they take off without fighter escort-even when AF1 itself was allegedly threatened (it turned out ot be a lie). Meanwhile, Cheney and Rice ARE being whisked away by the SS to a secure location. What went on there? Who overruled the SS? When the POTUS' life is in danger, I though NO ONE could .Why are Cheney and Rice being dragged away and not the POTUS?
Then , a year later, the White House claimed that Bush left the school "in a matter of seconds" and in another version, "not that many seconds later" after being told the country was under attack. Total lies, and the media didn't even challenge this new, easily proven false version of events. Care to shed some sunlight?

I have a suggestion : do us all a favor and get busier meeting increasingly beautiful, younger women , and make it just four of us ferreting away over here,hm? 'Preciate it....and Good Luck.

PS: Who would be MORE of an "idiot": The purported "idiot" or the one who RESPONDS to what the "idiot" wrote? Name-calling: another Debunker tactic.

PPS: I know when you'll get "bored": when the information that has nothing to do with the collapses piles up until you can't ignore it anymore. Then you'll go back to being an International Man of Mystery...or are you Double-Oh Zero? Or are you Maverick's wingman today? A Deep Sea Researcher. You've crash-landed on Saturn,and you're hanging off one of the rings. You're a bullfighter. Jet-setting Playboy ! I can't keep track...

I forgot...the Towers did not collapse due to damage ; they allegedly collapsed because of the "raging infernos". If the damage was the culprit,wouldn't they have come down immediately after they were hit by the planes?

The other thing The Debunkers do is tell everyone to look at what other Debunkers have cooked up to answer "Truthers". You can look at that stuff (from both sides) if you want to,of course - but I and others want you to LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED. What does one make of articles that report how the military bombs all ways out of Pakistan except ONE,so that Ol'Binny can escape? Or how the FBI was blocking its own agents from investigating Z.Moussaoui? This crap just keeps going on. Just read old newspapers,or as it was suggested,Paul Thompson's book/site,which collects all the news articles for you to refer to .

Paul W. wrote that [taking time to respond to this site] was "taking long enough" and that "he has a life" - and that's exactly how they want us to think. Stay busy doing other things rather than taking an hour out of your day to check out what they've done. Hey, I heard Britney Spears is going to do something looney; don't we want to read about that instead?

Ha,ha,ha.You're right, Paul W., boy did I slip up. I included a comment about the collapsing buildings for you to cling to like a drowning man clings to a life preserver. Of all the tidbits of information that I posted, the ONE that you , uh, "randomly" picked out is the one about the collapsing buildings.
Out of the five or six of my postings ,you,uh,"randomly" chose the VERY FIRST SENTENCE OF THE VERY FIRST POST. I'm sure this was only a "coincidence",right? Does that mean that you didn't read the rest of the posts-especially the FOURTH one,where I wrote that the debunkers like to deal with the collapsing buildings because it's hard to prove, no one wants to believe that our own gov't. would have a hand in it, and they can sound important with tech talk? Musta missed that one, eh, PaulW.?
Frankly, I find it hard to believe that a building would be designed to withstand the impact of an airplane-at any speed-and not account for the plane possibly dumping its fuel in the building on impact and that fuel ignite. Secondly,even if the plane were "lost in the fog" and going only half as fast (I don't know how slow a 757/67 can go)-wouldn't it have STILL went completely in the building like it did? Your post also says that the buildings were MORE than strong enough to handle such a blow. Is Robertson the ONLY engineer to say these things? Are there others that disagree?
Also, the Meridian Plaza Building in Philadelphia-NOT designed by to survive a plane impact- caught fire and burned for about 18 hours. When they went up to look after it was put out, they actually saw steel columns that had been BENT and girders that were SAGGING-but they were STILL supporting their loads.
By the way-have you seen any video or photos of the Towers under construction? It appears to me that there is way more to those floors than "angle clips".
Yes, the Meridian Plaza Building and the WTC Towers were constructed differently-but when one burns for EIGHTEEN HOURS and stays up, but the other burns for an HOUR and comes down- it's time for a closer look. Also-Did the Windsor Buildiing's ENTIRE STEEL STRUCTURE collapse?
Please-feel free to comment on the TEN THOUSAND OTHER PIECES OF INFORMATION that I posted...they're like potato chips, PaulW. - you can't pick just one!

I just got finished watching the Naudet Brothers' "9/11" (the two French guys who were making a documentary about the NYFD when the attacks started) ...while the firemen were in the tower,there was a message over the radio that there was another plane (this was after both towers were hit,so this would be Plane #3). Of course,there was no third plane. Later,after both towers had come down, there was a moment when one of the firemen said that the FBI was at the firehouse and told him that THE THIRD PLANE is what caused the collapse of the first tower.
I know this is ridiculous, but I just wondered why the FBI would tell this guy that...to add to the confusion?

Paul W. - please read the posts by Passenger57. That's some of that huge mass of nonsense . Popular Mechanics: who actually believes that NORAD's radar is like a donut with the USA in the 'hole'? What? NORAD can track s--- all over the world, but if it breaches US airspace, NORAD grabs its dark shades, white cane, and tin cup? There are satellites that can see that I have dandruff,but none of them belong to NORAD?
At the very least explain why the Bush administration had something to hide. That's also explained in one of the posts by Passenger57. Please read, and I look forward to your response.

I'm still waiting for someone to respond to the information I keep posting. How about the author of the article ? Mr. Reed,hello? And notice that NONE of the information has anything to do with collapsing buildings.

The debunkers like to deal with the buildings because it's hard to prove (right now) , it's difficult to comprehend (that it could be done with explosives and that our own government would have a hand in it ) , and they can sound important with big numbers and tech talk. But it's mighty hard to try to rationalize why the Bush administration acted like they did, or why things did or didn't happen.

"Moneyfrommourners" thinks the US has "impeccable" intelligence. If that were the case, then how did the attacks go down in the first place? If that's true, it proves that it was an inside job,because the hiajckers should have never been allowed to board the planes;they should have been arrested (at least some of them) when they were allowed to to open bank accounts with phony Social Security numbers. Nothing says "patsy" like somehow getting away with something no ordinary citizen could.

If it's not true, then that still leaves the question (one of many) of why the FAA and NORAD,after intercepting dozens of planes before 9/11, turned into the Keystone Kops for a few hours-but then after the attacks,the FAA was flawlessly able to do something unprecedented in aviation history-get all aircraft in US airspace to land without incident. NORAD somehow found a way to launch fighters from Andrews AFB- about ten miles away from the Pentagon and had a couple of fighter wings and the DC Air National Guard stationed there before 9/11 (Andrews' website was changed to remove these details)- only AFTER the Pentagon was hit.

Governments and their agencies will gladly label themselves "incompetent" or say they "dropped the ball" or that "they got one by us"- to hide their real agenda.

- When Bush went to the G8 Summit in the summer of '00 (in Genoa, Italy), the airspace over the city was closed,and Italian jets patrolled the skies. Surface-to-air missiles were set up at the airport. The dignitaries did not sleep in a hotel,they were on a luxury ship.Bush? He slept on a US aircraft carrier.Why all the extraordinary security? Because they had intelligence that bin Laden was going to try to hijack a plane and crash it into buildings at the Summit, in an attempt to kill leaders-maybe even Bush himself.
- When the Bush administration obtained the infamous August 6 PDB, why did they consider it "historical", given all the security at the Summit?
- When Bush stayed in a Florida hotel (he was there to stay awhile before his infamous "My Pet Goat" reading) , there were surface-to-air missiles on the roof of the hotel. What for?
- His governor brother Jeb activated Florida's National Guard on September 7. what for? No other state felt the need to do so,nor is the NG activated whenever the President visits a state.
Given all of these events, how can it be said that they had no idea a 9/11-style attack was coming, or possible,or like Rice claimed, "never imagined"?

"Moneyfrommourners" : there are a lot of people who lost family on 9/11 who ALSO question what they were told by the government. What about them? Ever heard of Ellenn Mariani?
The government doesn't have to do any more than what they think people will believe-and it looks lke it's working beautifully.
If this administration had nothing to do with the attacks,or didn't know they were coming,then WHY DID THEY ACT THAT WAY?

-The worst attack on America in its history-and they didn't want ANY investigation at all They told Tom Daschle to limit the Congressional investigation , and never wanted to 9/11 Commission at all-public outcry made them change their minds-but then they went right to work...

-They tried to put HENRY KISSINGER in as the Chairman of the Commission (that they never wanted).

-They stonewalled repeated requests for documents by the Commission.

- They gave the Commission a initial budget of only $3 million dollars - peanuts- then they didn't want to extend the deadline for the Commission,even though the reason they needed more time was because of the stonewalling . The budget was later increased to $14 million (monies allotted to investigate Shuttle disintegration : $50 million).

-They wanted "minders" present when Commission members interviewed someone,just like Saddam wanted "minders" present when the US interviewed Iraqi scientists.Of course, HE had something to hide,right?

-Condoleezza Rice perjured herself before the 9/11 Commission when she said that she (amended from "no one") ever imagined that terrorists would use planes as weapons.If she never thought that, then she should not have been National Security Advisor-especially after the infamous 8/6 PDB.

-Bush and Cheney went before the 9/11 Commission together,without being under oath, with no audio recording,no video recording, no transcript,no documentation WHATSOEVER of what they said.

What's going on here? Why are they acting as if they have something to hide? If you had nothing to hide,would you act in this manner? If I was President (and I in no way involved), I'd be the first President to use profanity on national TV. Heads would be rolling in every Alphabet Agency-mostly in the FAA and NORAD. I would not REST until I had gotten to the bottom of it all.
Instead,we got the Global War On Terror,and they didn't want an investigation because it would take money and personnel away from the GWOT. That's like saying I'm too busy avenging my brother's death to find out how he died.
It's time for a REAL 9/11 investigation.The idea that it's upsetting 9/11 families isn't enough. I think they'd feel better if they knew the truth.

The fact of the matter is that no other modern high-rise building has EVER collapsed totally from any combination of damage. Especially if they were built specifically to WITHSTAND a plane hit like the Towers were...they were designed to survivie a hit by a 707,which is close to the 757/67 (there was no 747 at the time).
Why do people readily accept the mountain of "coincidences" surrounding the 9/11 attacks purely AS coincidence? With any other crime, even ONE coincidence would be enough to start casting doubt on the story. Here's some that did not get wide attention:
- The normal commander of the National Military Command Center (NMCC) requested Sept.11 off, essentially leaving the "New Guy" in charge-but ONLY from just before the attacks started until after they ended.
- WTC owner Silverstein was supposed to be in one of the Towers on 9/11-but he said his wife INSISTED he not blow off his appointment with his dermatologist,like he normally would. Silverstein's son and daughter were also supposed to be in the Towers ; they were both "running late" that day.
- Donald Rumsfeld starts 9/11 off with a breakfast meeting at 8:00 - where he says that "Sometime in the next 2-4-6-8-10-12 months there would be an event that would occur in the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people again how important it is to have a strong healthy Defense Department that contributes to - that underpins peacce and stability in our world".
- Flight 77 begins its run into the Pentagon - perfoming a difficult (especially so for amateur pilots) descending spiral manuever to line up perfectly with the ONLY section of the Pentagon to have a sprinkler system , blast-resistant windows, and reinforced columns also to withstand blasts.Though the entire Pentagon is supposed to be rebuilt in this way, I have seen/heard no reports of this construction.
These are only four "coincidences". There are many more, along with contradictory statements by officials, discrepancies in timelines,etc. Even the 9/11 Commission has admitted that the CIA didn't tell them all they knew. It's time we had a REAL look at what happened....