Questions on the collapse of 3 buildings...

[RGT]

I dont get something.

People are saying that some of us are conspiracy theorists (or worse) because I/we dont think we got the whole story about 9/11, but its Okay to believe that GWB and his friends did not have the brains to put IT together. Or at the very least stand back and watch the show.

[Don Hudson]

boestar;

they screwed up royally

THAT is a very, very long way from a government intent on murdering its own citizens in order to facilitate foreign policy objectives, which is THE accusation in the conspiracy theory about 9/11. In fact, I agree completely with that statement and so does the 9/11 Commission even given the tremendous politics involved. Bureaucratic restrictions, regulatory stupidity, ego-driven departments and a blythe arrogance born of "this is the United States" all contributed to the ease with which the 9/11 perpetrators trained in the US and hijacked four airplanes. Whether someone "knew" or not is completely immaterial - almost certainly, someone did and was dismissed and the US government departments responsible for the safety of Americans opened their doors wide and invited attack. THAT was the coverup, if there was one but such stupidity and arrogance is not a conspiracy. Just like a management of a carrier which hasn't suffered an accident in a very long time, there were far too many people who were comfortably numb and went home to dinner without doing their job.

there are far too many unanswered questions.

Unanswered questions, as I stated in my post, do not, in and of themselves, constitute evidence. It is the questions asked and the answers provided. A question like, "When did you stop beating your partner/wife/husband/child (etc)?" is a question which already implies an act which may or may not be true. That is however, the kind of question being asked here. It does nothing to prove or disprove the original "conspiracy" thesis.

To my knowledge there is no report covering the wreckage of either the American 757 into the Pentagon or the Pennsylvania crash, but absence of availability of a report does not constitute missing aircraft parts/engines etc. Someone brought up Lockerbie and the hole it created, stating that there were "no" aircraft parts in the Pennsylvania hole. It would be the first time that such evidence would be missing and THAT would be news that could not be kept under the rug. I simply don't give the question and its implied answer any credibility. I know there are photos of AA parts on the lawn of the Pentagon but there are claims that those parts were "planted". I would love to have seen the "delivery" of those parts to the lawns in front of thousands of witnesses and cameras. An airplane travelling at nearly 1000 feet per second IS going to be a blur to most observers/witnesses. At the capture rates of the Pentagon cameras, it certainly was.

Air Traffic Controllers aren't known for their conspiratorial bent so a raw target would have gone somewhere if it didnt' hit the Pentagon or the Pennsylvania field and it would be a known fact reported by at least one honest person. People talk about "unanswered questions". Well, what happened to these two airplanes if they didn't go into the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania field? Not once has this question been answered/addressed.

This reminds me a lot of the Habsheim A320 accident "conspiracy" theory where people ignorant of both the airplane and the accident firmly claim that "the computers crashed the airplane and Airbus didn't let the pilots control the airplane." It's as stupid an understanding of the airplane and the circumstances as one can get given the publicly available knowledge of both.

Anyway, enough of conspiracies! Enjoying Venezia and the canals with an Italian family, staying right at the Rialto Bridge - I highly recommend Magica Venezia to anyone travelling to Venice. Sleeps six comfortably, water taxi right in front - full kitchen - avoids the hugely-expensive restaurants! Breakfast...cappucinos and croisants for six, a few of us twice, sitting down instead of taking away...46 Euros.

[Mitch Cronin]

Sorry Mitch, I can't buy it. It's far too implausible. The chief argument employed in a hundred variations is, "you can't prove it's wrong, so it must be right". That is the main technique of all cults, religions, conspiracy theorists and snake-oil salesmen.

Hi Don,

Please, make no apologies to me for having an opinion. ....of all people, I owe it to others to excuse them for that!

I disagree with you in your second and third sentences there. I think there is a lot of that going on, but it's not all from one side, and it isn't the argument that pulls my interest...

The argument that steers me toward wanting to see a true inquiry, has to do with building 7. ...and it's not "you can't prove me wrong!" at all. On the contrary, it's an argument that says: 'the facts as we know them point toward controlled demolition, please investigate.' ... The counter argument is silence.

Any other building fire and collapse (and there's never been a steel framed skyscraper fire and collapse, before or since), and there would be a full investigation as soon as any hints of possible misdeed were present.

Many firemen and other "first responders" heard explosions. Some were even blasted off their feet by them. Many of them saw molten metal, in pools, or in streams. The fires could not have been sufficiently hot to melt steel, without help. Neither diesel nor kerosene would permit such high temperatures. Thermite would. One doesn't need an engineering degree to know that for a building to collapse within it's own footprint, a great number of things must go right. We've all seen video's of controlled demolitions, and the work that goes into making them happen properly. There are some that haven't gone so well on video also... This one couldn't have been more perfect.

I think it's far more implausible that it happened as a result of a fire. And it's almost incredible to see that so many people just assume that must be the case, without a true investigation.

The given theory - the "official version of events" - does not match the facts as known. A proper investigation is, in my opinion, warranted.

Cheers,

Mitch

PS Don, if you haven't seen either the video I linked at the top of this thread, or read that paper I also linked, would you consider doing so just for the fun of it?

...and just for fun I'll add a bit here of what's in that paper:

Analysis by Whistleblower Ryan

Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own brief

statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of

collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a

likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan’s estimate is that the

probability that fires and damage (the “official theory”) could cause the Towers complete

collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete

collapse of WTC7 is included:

To follow the latest "leading hypothesis" [of NIST], what are the odds that all the

fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without

much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office

furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at

very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is

the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so

that the highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I wouldn't

even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through

history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced

collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just

these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and

not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction [for

WTC 7]).

How convenient that our miraculous result, combined with several other trains of

similarly unlikely events [no interception of hijacked planes by the military on 9/11, etc.],

gives us reason to invade the few most strategically important lands for the production of

oil and natural gas…” (Ryan, 2005).

Nor does NIST (or FEMA or the 9-11 Commission) even mention the molten metals

found in the basements of all three buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7).

So where does that leave us? I strongly agree with Kevin Ryan when he says,

This [“official”] story just does not add up…. That fact should be of great concern

to all Americans…. There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional

driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the

crux of the story of 9/11. (Ryan, 2004; emphasis added.)

From: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...elyCollapse.pdf

...and the video I'm talking about: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8076200333701191665

[Don Hudson]

Mitch- okay, fair enough, will do! Understand your points and can't dismiss them.

Off to Florence tomorrow so will be offline until we're online...

Can't see why anyone would ever want to fly past 60...but I guess I'm now officially old-fashioned...

[Mitch Cronin]

Someone brought up Lockerbie and the hole it created, stating that there were "no" aircraft parts in the Pennsylvania hole. It would be the first time that such evidence would be missing and THAT would be news that could not be kept under the rug.

It doesn't seem to be news at all. All pictures that I've seen include no discernible aircraft parts. None. Not turbine disks, not engine cases, not fan blades, not gear legs, not painted skin pieces, nothing. Just a hole, with apparently, a passport of one of the terrorists laying on top among other small debris.

Well, what happened to these two airplanes if they didn't go into the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania field? Not once has this question been answered/addressed.

In my opinion, that's a question that doesn't even exist unless and until an investigation determines the need for the question. In that event, I'd surmise that with all the odd flying being done that day, they would have been easy to miss. ...in addition to the numerous airplanes having to land, unscheduled, and ASAP, there were, eventually, all sorts of military aircraft out and about.

[Mitch Cronin]

Mitch- okay, fair enough, will do! Understand your points and can't dismiss them.

Off to Florence tomorrow so will be offline until we're online...

Can't see why anyone would ever want to fly past 60...but I guess I'm now officially old-fashioned...

Right on! Me too! ...and hell, compared to you, I'm still a young'un!

Cheers.

[John S.]

Even if some of the physical evidence, and that may be too broad a term for what some people put forward, seems to conflict with one theory or another there is one suggestion that must be undertaken by those with interest.

“FOLLOW THE MONEY”.

It has been noted that a lot of police work involves ’following the money’ when suspicious or criminal activity is being investigated. Some people who think that there is more to 9/11 than has been officially reported have been following the money. They are interested to see if anyone made money on the events of 9/11.

Some of the questions proposed are:

Who owned the twin towers on 9/11/01?

When did they buy them and how much did they pay for them?

Was buying the twin towers a good business investment or were these towers outdated and in need of expensive upgrades to accommodate the new internet world?

When and by how much were the towers insured for?

Did the insurance differ in any significant way when new owner bought them?

When the insurance claim was ruled on in a court of law how much did the owners get? (Recall what they paid and note the ‘profit’)

The answers to the above questions cause me to go “Hmmmmm, very interesting”.

But I have little time for others who want to get really deep into conspiracy theories about the billions of dollars spent on security. Some have actually proposed that the intent of the 9/11 attack(s) was to create financial and operational hardship for the US economy by causing the security situation we have today.

Judging by the cost of airport and border operations in the past eight years there may be some truth to the hardship on the economy but it is 100% the fault of those people who, like the British 350 years ago, are fortifying their backyards after the threat has mostly moved on.

One thing for sure – this topic is about as close to religious debate as you can get with out mentioning gods.

[Cargo Agent]

QUOTE (Don Hudson @ Sep 17 2009, 03:28 PM)

Well, what happened to these two airplanes if they didn't go into the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania field? Not once has this question been answered/addressed.

In my opinion, that's a question that doesn't even exist unless and until an investigation determines the need for the question.

In that event, I'd surmise that with all the odd flying being done that day, they would have been easy to miss.

...in addition to the numerous airplanes having to land, unscheduled, and ASAP, there were, eventually, all sorts of military aircraft out and about.

Sorry Mitch, but how quickly and casually you dismiss items that get in the way of your argument.

It seems to me that there are only certain things that you want to question, namely anything that supports your belief of conspiracy.

[boestar]

So look back 9 years. How much coverage was given to the pentagon aircraft and the PA aircraft. they were largely ignored by the press. The other 2 were the main focus. The questions were asked but met with silence with regards to them.

I have studied aircraft accidents and site photographs from many accidents and in all accounts large portions of the aircraft are discernable. The wors I saw was the 737 that went straight in due the the rudder hard over issue. but parts were still identifiable even if they were small. The other is the DC-8 the crashed in Woodbridge north of YYZ in the 70s. Parts still turn up every spring in that field. Again the large parts were still identifiable and it impacted the ground vertically and over 500Mph.

Engine cases and discs and landing gear are usually the major parts that remain readily identifiable. Engines dont melt as they are designed to be hot. also due to their titanium content they dont disintegrate. I have never seen a photo of an engine in the destruction at the pentagon.

Again there is evidence somewhere and it has never been shared.

[Mitch Cronin]

Sorry Mitch, but how quickly and casually you dismiss items that get in the way of your argument.

It seems to me that there are only certain things that you want to question, namely anything that supports your belief of conspiracy.

..... Oh, okay. Thanks for that CA.

[Say Again, Over!]

Mitch, come on!

You mean that UAL93 did land somewhere and was just missed by the ATCs? What, with all that odd flying? What about AAL77? The controller in the center just lost him off his radar and thought nothing of it? After all, there are a lot of airplanes, right?

Listen to the tape of the controller in Cleveland Center. I'm sure he remembers what happened to UAL93. That's unless you think this was all made in Hollywood with paid actors...

http://www.airdisaster.com/download2/ua93.shtml

Felix

P.S. I just re-read my post and it does have a nasty edge to it but I'm leaving it as I think our relationship can handle it!

[inchman]

The other is the DC-8 the crashed in Woodbridge north of YYZ in the 70s. Parts still turn up every spring in that field. Again the large parts were still identifiable and it impacted the ground vertically and over 500Mph.

I don't have documents at my fingertips, but I don't think the DC-8 would have been able to accelerate to 500 mph by the time it got to Woodbridge or even climb to an altitude that would allow it to impact vertically.

[Don Hudson]

boestar;

Inchman is correct. I have the report in pdf somewhere but I recall it was around 250kts or less.

The DC10 that went into the Ermenonville forest after losing it's cargo door was unrecognizable - it struck the earth at about the same speed as the AA757 into the Pentagon.

I realize that there are no detailed photos of the Pennsylvania or Pentagon crash sites. The absence of evidence does not prove the case - that isn't opinion, that's simple logic. It means at best that we can't answer the question.

Mitch;

Two disappearing airplanes and a planeload of passengers as part of a US government conspiracy to hide complicitous involvement in a 9/11 plot to kill American citizens is simply too much to take seriously.

If such claims are being made and treated as credulous, then the claim is equally valid that the US government is hiding further evidence of the crash sites precisely so that conspiracy theories like the ones you're supporting continue to flourish, distracting attention and energy away from true dissidence as to what the US government is doing in the name of the American people.

Put another way Mitch, if you wish to seriously claim that the US government is capable of plotting to kill or at least look the other way while foreign elements attacked and murdered American citizens on their own soil, then the claim that an government-led institutional silence regarding the evidence of aircraft parts at the crash sites and the testimony of supposedly credible witnesses, (none of which has ever been entered into a formal record or presented for peer review, as Chomsky suggests), is equally valid and credible.

Neither theory can be proven but the claims regarding US government covert actions in other countries, including murder of that country`s citizens which I made in my intial response stand up to scrutiny because it is a matter of public record which is available to everyone. Whether it is a minority which sees the killing of Iraqi citizens as necessary collateral damage or murder is beside the point - it happened. Just because you can ask questions, does not imply actions or outcomes.

The other question I have is, to what end, conspiracy? To what end does theorizing that the US conspired to murder its own citizens. John S. says "Follow the money" - well, we can say that about anything and claim "truth", so the statement is meaningless.

As John S. correctly points out however, this is as close to a discussion about religion as one can get without bringing in the gods and I know where that can go. Some will believe, regardless.

[John S.]

.....

The other question I have is, to what end, conspiracy? To what end does theorizing that the US conspired to murder its own citizens. John S. says "Follow the money" - well, we can say that about anything and claim "truth", so the statement is meaningless.....

Lots of talk about government conspiracy.

But with my 'follow the money' post I was pointing out that there could be, as some suggest, an alternative. That being a small group of individuals.

Well placed individuals whom have the resources to carry out 'special projects'.

And on the topic of special projects, I read Deception Point this summer. Now, off to get Dan Brown's latest book.

[inchman]

So look back 9 years.  How much coverage was given to the pentagon aircraft and the PA aircraft.  they were largely ignored by the press.  The other 2 were the main focus.  The questions were asked but met with silence with regards to them.

I have studied aircraft accidents and site photographs from many accidents and in all accounts large portions of the aircraft are discernable.  The wors I saw was the 737 that went straight in due the the rudder hard over issue.  but parts were still identifiable even if they were small.  The other is the DC-8 the crashed in Woodbridge north of YYZ in the 70s.  Parts still turn up every spring in that field.  Again the large parts were still identifiable and it impacted the ground vertically and over 500Mph.

Engine cases and discs and landing gear are usually the major parts that remain readily identifiable.  Engines dont melt as they are designed to be hot.  also due to their titanium content they dont disintegrate.  I have never seen a photo of an engine in the destruction at the pentagon.

Again there is evidence somewhere and it has never been shared.

As usual with conspiracy theorists, you have mixed your evidence. You talk about how there should be some engine remains at the pentagon while citing accidents into soft earth.

Here is a photo of the engine of UAL93 as it is being extracted from the impact site in PA.

UAL 93 engine

One would have to look at the effect of an engine hitting concrete and heavy stone to determine the potential remains at the Pentagon. I would suggest that any hard substance, including (or maybe especially) titanium would virtually disintegrate if it hit concrete or stone at speeds in excess of 600 or 700 mph.

If an engine is that badly damaged after hitting soft earth, I would think that damage after hitting a stone wall would be substantially greater.

I believe that there was a Mythbusters episode on something like this where they shot a vehicle (can't remember exactly what) into a concrete wall with a rocket sled and there was absolutely nothing recognizable left.

[Mitch Cronin]

Mitch, come on!

You mean that UAL93 did land somewhere and was just missed by the ATCs? What, with all that odd flying? What about AAL77? The controller in the center just lost him off his radar and thought nothing of it? After all, there are a lot of airplanes, right?

Listen to the tape of the controller in Cleveland Center. I'm sure he remembers what happened to UAL93. That's unless you think this was all made in Hollywood with paid actors...

http://www.airdisaster.com/download2/ua93.shtml

Felix

P.S. I just re-read my post and it does have a nasty edge to it but I'm leaving it as I think our relationship can handle it!

Ok, head smack accepted. So I can't answer that question.

...as for your PS... of course Felix. We're good. Sometimes I deserve harsh anyway.

[Mitch Cronin]

Put another way Mitch, if you wish to seriously claim that the US government is capable of plotting to kill or at least look the other way while foreign elements attacked and murdered American citizens on their own soil, then the claim that an government-led institutional silence regarding the evidence of aircraft parts at the crash sites and the testimony of supposedly credible witnesses, (none of which has ever been entered into a formal record or presented for peer review, as Chomsky suggests), is equally valid and credible.

H'lo again Don....

First off, I'd like to make it clear I haven't made any claims at all. - or, at least, I hope to hell I haven't, because I simply don't know what to believe.

Secondly, I can't disagree with you (or Chomsky).

The whole business of the collapsing buildings - especially #7! - and all the testimony from those who were there and hearing explosions (including one who says he clearly heard an explosion below him in the basement of one of the towers) has me rather perplexed.

I simply feel that there are some very good questions being asked - and many of them are being asked by families of victims - that deserve answers.

It really should be a simple matter to have a proper investigation.

... as for my opinion of GWB's potential to have done something like what is being suggested.... I knew, as sure as I know this keyboard is on my lap (with apologies to DEFCON), that he was going to finish what his father didn't. I think GWB's intelligence approaches that of a hamster, and his integrity is utterly non-existent. So yep, I could believe it.

[boestar]

Agreed Mitch. I believe that is the sole reason he ran for the presidency was to finish what senior couldnt.

[chockalicious]

While I think that Bush probably had Daddy issues and wanted to take out Saddam, the people who he surrounded himself with were the ones who were jonesing for a chance for Iraq Part 2 Electric Bugaloo.

Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz are all neocon chickenhawks of the highest order who had/have a world view that they could spread democracy to the middle east which of course meant more profit for the CEO class.

Dim son could not have done this alone even if he was the prez. As more information comes out it becomes apparent that Bush was manipulated into an invasion he wanted to make.

Throw in the Christian fundamentalistic fervor that certain elements thought that this was a mssion from God and you have a recipe for disaster.

[Moon The Loon]

Agreed Mitch. I believe that is the sole reason he ran for the presidency was to finish what senior couldnt.

I think a better choice of word would be what Senior WOULDN'T.

The advice given by Powell and the Chiefs of Staff back in 1991 were to leave Saddam in power so as to not de-stabilize the entire middle east. Iran continued to be America's arch enemy and the Iranian government and Revolutionary Guard were scared sh!tless of Saddam. He was a loose cannon.

Even after Afghanistan was besieged in 2001, the advice from the Old Man himself to junior was DON'T DO IT.

But he did, and now the world will pay the price.

[conehead]

I think a better choice of word would be what Senior WOULDN'T.

The advice given by Powell and the Chiefs of Staff back in 1991 were to leave Saddam in power so as to not de-stabilize the entire middle east. Iran continued to be America's arch enemy and the Iranian government and Revolutionary Guard were scared sh!tless of Saddam. He was a loose cannon.

I think this must be true, as the American Forces could easily have taken Baghdad at that time... they were very close to the city.

[Guest woxof]

I simply feel that there are some very good questions being asked - and many of them are being asked by families of victims  - that deserve answers.

It really should be a simple matter to have a proper investigation.

... as for my opinion of GWB's potential to have done something like what is being suggested.... I knew, as sure as I know this keyboard is on my lap (with apologies to DEFCON), that he was going to finish what his father didn't. I think GWB's intelligence approaches that of a hamster, and his integrity is utterly non-existent. So yep, I could believe it.

Where is your evidence of what you now seem to be saying is an improper investigation? I see you are willing to believe that W could have been involved in helping 9/11 inspite of reasonable talk on said subject by Don, Kip, Moon and others.

It was just last week on a different thread where you asked this question...''Where do I exhibit intransigence Rattler?''

http://forum.aeforum.net/index.php?showtop...0entry1543846

Evidence found on this thread.

For entertainment purposes, a few posts later about that thread's subject was this quote which says it all...''This is too big an issue to wash off with conspiracy theories or faulty logic''

http://forum.aeforum.net/index.php?showtop...0entry1543871

I think you should heed your own words. When it comes to these conspiracy theories, once one part is proven wrong, it seems another part surfaces. We never went to the moon is another favourite one these days along with our endless UFO sightings. I think some of those perpetuating the myths just do it for personal entertainment from getting a reaction from some and seeing others foolish enough to believe.

[Don Hudson]

John S.

Now, off to get Dan Brown's latest book.

Fran and I have been to a few of the sites in Angels and Demons here in Rome, esp. Santa Maria del Popolo, very close to our hotel and beside the large park. The Church is in a beautiful site and setting; we spent about an hour photographing the interior, (no flash) and will send you some photographs if you wish. Last time here we found other sites.

On "follow the money", I think such [an] event(s) is/are entirely reasonable and historically valid; I think John Cornwell's story of Pope Pius XII in "Hitler's Pope" illustrates that power, money, influence and intrigue are all very real in these levels of society. That isn't conspiracy in the strictest sense though, of course - that's just plain outright power acting out as it will - no secrecy as such power doesnt' care.

Now in Florence where there are many more sites to visit.

[Moon The Loon]

I think John Cornwell's story of Pope Pius XII in "Hitler's Pope" illustrates that power, money, influence and intrigue are all very real in these levels of society. That isn't conspiracy in the strictest sense though, of course - that's just plain outright power acting out as it will - no secrecy as such power doesnt' care.

Interesting you bring Cornwell up here Don. I read that book when it was first published and remember the rebuke issued by the Vatican despite Cornwell's assertion of inside information i.e. access to Vatican files not accessible by the public. But then this (from Wikipedia) which seems to have more credibility, not because it's Wiki, but because it was the quickest reference I could find to Rychlak's work. I first heard about (but haven't read) Rychlak's book about 5 years ago:

Criticism of Cornwell's work

The quality of Cornwell's scholarship has been criticized by a number of commentators. For example, Ken Woodward, writing in Newsweek, stated that Hitler's Pope has "errors of fact and ignorance of context [that] appear on almost every page."

Ronald Rychlak

The major response to Hitler's Pope came from Mississippi law professor Ronald J. Rychlak in his 2000 book on the subject, Hitler, the War, and the Pope.[17] In it, Rychlak's original research exposed many facts, corrects Cornwell, and adds contextual perspectives that counter those presented in Hitler's Pope. Rychlak was acknowledged by the Vatican to have been given special access to their closed archives for his research; however, the "exclusive access" that Cornwell claims to have had to Vatican and Jesuit archives is not corroborated. The Vatican denies Cornwell's assertion that he received any special access.

Rychlak contradicted Cornwell's claim of having found a "time bomb letter" by pointing out that the letter in question had actually been written not by Pacelli but by his assistant, and moreover had been fully published and discussed in a 1992 book by Emma Fattorini (a highly respected docent at the University of Rome).

With respect to Cornwell's allegations of anti-semitism, Rychlak pointed out that "When Pius XII died in 1958, there were tributes from virtually every Jewish group around the world".

Rychlak also questioned the veracity of Cornwell's statements about his faith.

Furthermore, Rychlak exposed Cornwell's manipulation of the photograph on the front cover of the American edition of the book. He further alleged that the caption had incorrectly dated the photo as having been taken in March 1939, the month that Pacelli was made Pope. Rychlak charged that the manipulation of the photograph and error in the date had been performed deliberately in order to give the impression that Pius had just visited Hitler when, in fact, the photo had been taken in 1927 as Pius was leaving a reception held for German President Paul von Hindenburg. In fact, Pacelli never met with Hitler, neither before or after he was made Pope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Pope

[Mitch Cronin]

My sense is that many who have completely dismissed any notions that these buildings might have been helped to fall, may have done so with little to no examination of the gathered evidence that could support that theory. I suspect doing so is a rather rational, fairly normal reaction, by intelligent people, to having first been exposed to the idea as presented by those who first considered the possibility. That is to say, it was first presented by people who also imagined all sorts of other wilder extensions to the facts as known; people who might be inclined to those conclusions anyway. ...it was easy to write them off as nutbars, and close the book.

I think I did so myself.

Sometime recently, however, I began seeing the question raised a little more frequently, and I caught a piece on the History channel (I think) which claimed to "investigate" the "Truthers" claims, and debunk them. But even I could see that some of their methods and assumptions were terribly flawed. The TV show was hopelessly inadequate to "prove" a damned thing, but that they'd even bothered to try, ...and that the people who believed the building had some help in falling had been given a name, made me wonder if there might be some within the evidently growing numbers of folks who make the claim, who weren't nutbars. ...So I started looking.

To my surprise I found that quite a few well educated, and seemingly sane individuals had taken up the cause... Among what I've seen since, are some very interesting questions which, as I've said earlier, I believe "deserve" answers.

Chief of which, in my mind, is:

How do steel buildings accidentally fall as beautifully as a very carefully engineered, controlled demolition?

I think Sherlock Holmes said once you've eliminated all other possibilities, whatever you're left with must be the truth. But you can't eliminate anything without first examining the evidence!