Science is great, but what about the non-scientific smoking guns on 9/11?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
No, that's not what I'm talking about. People claimed there was an explosion then the towers fell. There were no explosions. Any brief flare up of the flames they saw is basic science. Put you hands up to your face and clap. What do you feel? Wind. Why?

So, you think wind is what pulverized over 40,000 cubic yards of concrete? Or are you talking about the squibs? If it is the squibs, then does your hand model force the wind at an extremely high velocity into a syringe like stream of air that doesn't depressurize all the way to your face? Didn't think so.

What's the difference between a plane crashing into a building then exploding and an explosive device?

Have you ever seen a demolition? Did the explosions look like the explosions from the plane crashes? That's a big difference right there. How about an explosion from a plane crash is going to explode in a chaotic manner and not be pin pointed like an explosion from a demolition explosive.

Would you people make up your mind...
When did these explosive explode? When the plane hit or when the building collapsed?

I'm saying that in the area of the plane crashes, we don't know if some explosives went off when the plane hit or not. Or are you superman and can see what's going on behind that huge ball of fire? Would anyone hear the explosions of the explosives as a plane is hitting the building? Of course not. So, what I'm trying to say is that the plane could have set off some explosives and no one would ever know the difference. All speculation on my part though.

No one has yet to answer my question. After the planes hit, what happened?

All speculation by me following. As the planes are hitting the buildings, they (the perpetrators) set off the thermite reactions at the base of the core columns. Ok...the fires are starting to slow down, most of the people have gotten out of the building so they decide to "pull" them before there is no more fire excuse. They set off some charges near the impact points (but how did they know where? Because they planned the whole thing and would be able to hit their mark with some degree of accuracy....it only needs to be close). These charges would start the caps on their way. I do believe that once the caps started to fall (without the support of the core columns from the thermite reaction) the building was doomed. But, they needed to get rid of the core columns to be able to do that. You might say, but the core columns in WTC2 stood after the building fell. I would say that building 2 fell first and the thermite reaction wasn't completely done so they stood for a second before the thermite reaction was finished and then they fell straight down upon themselves (which is very strange because they should have been knocked over sideways not fall straight down upon themselves).

Also, 9/11 happened less than 5 years ago

Not 20.
Technology to call from cell phones has been around.....I'VE USED IT! (pre 9/11)

Have you made a cell phone call from a plane? Show me proof that that is possible pre 9-11.

(there were also calls made from the plane phones btw, like on flight 93 with Todd Beamer)

I believe this whole heartedly. What does this have to do with how the buildings fell anyway?

n the investigations into the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, it was reported that 9 of the 19 implicated terrorists were flagged for additional scrutiny by the CAPPS I system, but none of them were intercepted. Sources have blamed this failure on the notion that CAPPS I was intended and designed to intercept bombs in checked luggage, and supposedly only 2 of the implicated terrorists had checked luggage.

So, these guys were marked as terrorists and nothing was done about it? I mean if 9 suspected terrorists book flights on the same day, doesn't that put up a red flag? How many suspected terrorists fly on a normal day? I bet it's less than 9. Another non-scientific smoking gun?

I have yet to see a building where a plane crashed into it and exploded and that building not collapse.

Can you give some examples of all these buildings that have collapsed from plane damage.....thanks.

This is what happens when explosions occur on the outside of buildings:
What do you think happens when explosions happen on the inside?

Hmm....the plane's explosions were on the outside (at least tower 2). But you believe that was enough to bring the buildings down? Am I getting this straight or am I way off in your thinking here?




[edit on 23-3-2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
So, you think wind is what pulverized over 40,000 cubic yards of concrete? Or are you talking about the squibs? If it is the squibs, then does your hand model force the wind at an extremely high velocity into a syringe like stream of air that doesn't depressurize all the way to your face? Didn't think so.

lol
What in the world are you talking about?
I'm talking about the so called explosions people saw when the towers started to fall. They weren't explosions that was the fires exanding as a result of the collapse not the cause of it.

Have you ever seen a demolition? Did the explosions look like the explosions from the plane crashes? That's a big difference right there. How about an explosion from a plane crash is going to explode in a chaotic manner and not be pin pointed like an explosion from a demolition explosive.

Which is exactly what we saw with the twin towers.
I was talking about strength wise though. If you believe explosives could do the job, why is it so hard to believe that an explosive (in this case the airplane) could do the job?

Have you made a cell phone call from a plane? Show me proof that that is possible pre 9-11.

Have you been living under a rock? Yes I have used a cell phone pre 9/11.
I think I know where you're getting mixed up.
Before, cell phone use on planes was banned because it interfered with some of the electronics and communications (mainly during takeoffs and landings), but they now have technology that doesn't disrupt anything. It was also harder to get a signal then, but certainly not impossible.
This article was from 2002
www.usatoday.com...

www.mobile-review.com...

Firstly cell phones were banned in 1991 on FCC initiative in USA. The reason was a probable interference of cell phone with the aircraft's communication and navigation systems. But at that time there were no facts that can prove or disprove that statement. The ban could be considered as a private initiative of airlines and telecommunications companies, which didn't want to lose a revenue from the air-phones installed onboard. Look, a one-minute call in the air was much more expensive than a usual cell phone call and, naturally, people used a cheaper service when they had a choice. The situation was regulated in 1991. Ground carriers had no objections. But we should understand that cellular technologies were not widely spread at that time and revenue of carriers was quite sufficient. It wasn't necessary for them to find other sources to get benefit.

Now why would they ban it all the way in 1991 if they didn't have the technology until now?

I believe this whole heartedly. What does this have to do with how the buildings fell anyway?

Nothing, this was a different topic. Someone said there weren't any Arabs on board suggesting the planes weren't really hijacked.

So, these guys were marked as terrorists and nothing was done about it? I mean if 9 suspected terrorists book flights on the same day, doesn't that put up a red flag? How many suspected terrorists fly on a normal day? I bet it's less than 9. Another non-scientific smoking gun?

You got to understand the U.S. pre 9/11 was nothing like it is now.
The CAPPS system then was nothing like it is now. They weren't marked as terrorists and if they were I doubt the airline security would have found out. They were selected because they did raise a flag. But raising a flag then just meant you had to go through another search.

Can you give some examples of all these buildings that have collapsed from plane damage.....thanks.

Actually it's never happened before. Which is my point.
How do you know what a plane exploding into a building will or will not do?

Hmm....the plane's explosions were on the outside (at least tower 2). But you believe that was enough to bring the buildings down? Am I getting this straight or am I way off in your thinking here?

Not (at least on in 2) the plane definately exploded on the inside. That's why you see the biggest explosion on the other side of the building.

I believe there were several factors in bringing down the building. All of the videos and anti government websites only show what was going on on the outside of the building but don't focus on what was going on inside. Esdad recommended a book earilier in this thread called '102 minutes' which is excellent. I know most people here won't read it because it doesn't support the theory that magical bombs were magically placed in the walls of the building unnoticed with impossible accuracy in relation to where the planes went in. Nevertheless, it gives you a clue to what was going on inside the building (ex. all the buckling and collapsing of the floors). One of my trees in my back yard had a huge dead branch on it. One day (a calm, windless day) the branch just fell. Gravity is an amazing thing. It always wins. With the towers, there is NO evidence at all the the structural damage caused by the plane crashing and exploding in the building was just minor and the integrity of the building was strong enough to overcome gravity and keep it from collapsing. If I'm holding up a heavy box with two hands, then put one hand down...the box will stay up for a little bit longer, but it's going to fall.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I'm talking about the so called explosions people saw when the towers started to fall. They weren't explosions that was the fires exanding as a result of the collapse not the cause of it.

Ok..my bad. Wasn't sure what you were saying. I agree with you here.

I was talking about strength wise though. If you believe explosives could do the job, why is it so hard to believe that an explosive (in this case the airplane) could do the job?

Because the towers stood after the plane explosions. If the plane explosions were what brought them down, then they would have come down when the plane exploded.

Now why would they ban it all the way in 1991 if they didn't have the technology until now?

Yes, in take off and landing. Show me proof that a cell phone can get reception at altitude. And what is the threshold altitude at which a cell phone can still recieve signal and operate.

You got to understand the U.S. pre 9/11 was nothing like it is now.
The CAPPS system then was nothing like it is now. They weren't marked as terrorists and if they were I doubt the airline security would have found out. They were selected because they did raise a flag. But raising a flag then just meant you had to go through another search.

I may be reading it wrong, but didn't your quote say that they were red flagged as terrorists?

How do you know what a plane exploding into a building will or will not do?

I don't. But I would think of it as similar to a main gas line explosion. I'll look to see if I can find a building being demolished by a main gas line explosion.

I believe there were several factors in bringing down the building. All of the videos and anti government websites only show what was going on on the outside of the building but don't focus on what was going on inside. Esdad recommended a book earilier in this thread called '102 minutes' which is excellent.

That book is on my list. How big is the book? Maybe I'll just go ahead and order it.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Griff]

DAMN IT!!!

At first it was funny, but now it is aggravating. Will you people PLEASE look into the BS story you believe BEFORE you start defending it?

I know you didn't read it the first time, so here it is again...

Originally posted by truthseeka
DAMN it!

From wtc.nist.gov

The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, perimeter columns, and floors. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation and the subsequent multifloor fires. …

I don't wanna hear anything else about the planes causing the collapse. Please. Your own story spinners say it was FIRE, not the planes.

Oh, forgot.

That post was for That'sJustWeird.

truth...

I believe there were several factors in bringing down the building(s)

...what part of that was difficult to understand?


When did I ever say I was going by the official story anyway?
Just because I don't believe magical bombs were placed in the buildings means I'm some super government defender now?

Get real man.

**

Yes, in take off and landing. Show me proof that a cell phone can get reception at altitude. And what is the threshold altitude at which a cell phone can still recieve signal and operate.

It really depends on your phone and your service provider. Some phones can work at any altitude. It's interference that's the problem (the real effects are still being investigated even today however) . On 9/11 though, I doubt many people were thinking about any interference problems....

Flying with cell phones: 5 myths

Myth #2: Onboard wireless is new. Hardly. People have been communicating wirelessly from the main cabin since there have been wireless devices (never mind those overpriced satellite phones). A few years ago, I reported that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was looking the other way while air travelers were firing up their personal digital assistants (PDAs) in-flight and checking e-mail. I have personally used a cell phone on a plane, and I have flown next to people who have used their cell phones, particularly when they are over a populated area or flying at a lower altitude. What is new is that the FAA appears ready to sanction equipment designed to send and receive wireless signals onboard.

That book is on my list. How big is the book? Maybe I'll just go ahead and order it.

The hard cover is just over 350 pages....



[edit on 23-3-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]

For the 2nd time today, someone whose posts support the official turn around and say they don't support it when they're pressed. OK...

TJW, don't turn around and pretend like you didn't say the explosions from the planes played a huge role in the collapse. I'd quote you, but I don't feel like it right now; you know what you posted anyway.

Originally posted by truthseeka
For the 2nd time today, someone whose posts support the official turn around and say they don't support it when they're pressed. OK...

TJW, don't turn around and pretend like you didn't say the explosions from the planes played a huge role in the collapse. I'd quote you, but I don't feel like it right now; you know what you posted anyway.

What are you talking about?
Yeah I said that......I'll say it again. The explosions from the planes had a big role in the collapse. If the planes didn't explode you more than likely wouldn't have had the collapse. Can you show otherwise? Can you show that the explosions had nothing to do with the collapse? If so you haven't done it yet so please....let's hear your story.

As far as the "official story," I didn't turn around from anything. If what I have said is similiar to whatever the official story is....then wow! Big whoop. Millions of credible people have also come to the same conclusion.
What's your obsession with the "official story" anyway (which if I'm not mistaken isn't even complete yet. The NIST report comes out this month right?)?



Griff:

I may be reading it wrong, but didn't your quote say that they were red flagged as terrorists?

No.
Here's the quote:

it was reported that 9 of the 19 implicated terrorists were flagged for additional scrutiny by the CAPPS I system

It says 9 of the terrorists were flagged.
They weren't flagged because they were terrorists, they were just flagged to go through extra security. Doing certain things would get you (anyone) flagged, liked paying for one-way tickets with cash.

Hey, truthseeka, I am still waiting on that evidence that explosives were involved in the WTC. Since you are so adamant that your view is correct, and since you started the thread, it is time for you to PROVE it or move on.

Originally posted by esdad71
Hey, truthseeka, I am still waiting on that evidence that explosives were involved in the WTC. Since you are so adamant that your view is correct, and since you started the thread, it is time for you to PROVE it or move on.

i say it's time the government proved it or moved on.

CNN did a poll yesterday, asking if people agree with charlie sheen that the towers were demolished.

vote for democracy, take the poll

No 18% 1526 votes

Yes 82% 6947 votes

why don't you go way down the no votes with your wisdom, esdad. looks like the no's could use it.

i'll recalculate with your vote added, just assuming you're voting 'no'...

No 18% 1527 votes

yes 82% 6947 votes

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a new, and tragic smoking gun. a student member of 911scholars for truth, Michael Zebuhr, was murdered by shot to the head in the street, yesterday.

three somalis arrested

Investigators will be doing ballistics tests to see if any of the recovered handguns match up to a bullet that may have been recovered from the body Zebuhr. The 25-year-old Clemson graduate student, his mother, sister and a friend were returning to their car parked south of Calhoun Square after dinner on Saturday night, when two men approached and demanded the mother's purse. She handed it over but one of the robbers pulled a gun, and without provocation, shot Zebuhr in the head. He died on Monday, March 20.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by billybob]

Wait a minute...TJW, you're just baiting me and trying to throw me off. Yeah, that's what you're doing. You saw where I quoted NIST TWICE, but you still keep talking about the explosions from the plane.

Ridiculous, because 1) the story you agree with says the planes were not a big factor 2) common sense would tell you that if the explosions from the planes did have a huge role, the towers would have collapsed MUCH sooner than they did, and 3) your plane explosion theory says NOTHING about bldg 7.

The reason we are tearing down the official story is much bigger than a we're right, they're wrong thing here. We're trying to expose the group that's flushing this country down the toilet with us going along for the ride. Maybe you can dig the elites, maybe you think you're one of them, but I don't.

Nice try billybob.

You know that Charlie Sheen and the 82% that agree with him are tin hat wearing loonies. You know that poll means nothing. All it says is that more and more people are going crazy and believing wild conspiracy theories.

Originally posted by truthseeka
Nice try billybob.

You know that Charlie Sheen and the 82% that agree with him are tin hat wearing loonies. You know that poll means nothing. All it says is that more and more people are going crazy and believing wild conspiracy theories.

it's true. CNN polls are totally skewed towards conspiracy theory. angry bush-lovers would never vote in such a poll.

i have a great idea, though. in order to protect the benevolent powa playas, we should empty the sanitariums, and put the globalists where they will be safe from loony toon joe q. public.

Originally posted by truthseeka

Wait a minute...TJW, you're just baiting me and trying to throw me off. Yeah, that's what you're doing. You saw where I quoted NIST TWICE, but you still keep talking about the explosions from the plane.

Ridiculous, because 1) the story you agree with says the planes were not a big factor 2) common sense would tell you that if the explosions from the planes did have a huge role, the towers would have collapsed MUCH sooner than they did, and 3) your plane explosion theory says NOTHING about bldg 7.

wtf
What is so hard that you can't comprehend simple things.
The story I agree with is what I have written in this thread and others. If some stuff in what I wrote disagrees with the "official" story then....WHO GIVES A FLYING (rhymes with DUCK)!

You can quote the NIST 1000000000000000 times for all I care. If I never said I was following the NIST report then what do they have to do with anything!?

And we weren't discussing building 7 that's why I didn't talk about it.
I have posted many times about building 7 so please feel free to search.

The reason we are tearing down the official story is much bigger than a we're right, they're wrong thing here. We're trying to expose the group that's flushing this country down the toilet with us going along for the ride. Maybe you can dig the elites, maybe you think you're one of them, but I don't.

Well good luck.
But...so far....you haven't provided one shred of credible evidence that
1. These people exsists and that
2. They planned and carried out 9/11 or
3. Any of their intentions

Who are these elites? Where did they come from? How do you become an elite? What was the purpose of 9/11? Why has there only been one 9/11? Where do these elites come from? When is their next move?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
And we weren't discussing building 7 that's why I didn't talk about it.
I have posted many times about building 7 so please feel free to search.

Well good luck.
But...so far....you haven't provided one shred of credible evidence that
1. These people exsists and that
2. They planned and carried out 9/11 or
3. Any of their intentions

Who are these elites? Where did they come from? How do you become an elite? What was the purpose of 9/11? Why has there only been one 9/11? Where do these elites come from? When is their next move?

Boy, do you live in a bubble. But, I bet it's a nice, happy world inside your bubble.

I brought up bldg 7 because it shows how much of a GD LIE it is that the planes brought down the towers. If you insist on believing otherwise, fine, but don't be surprised when people bring this up again when replying to you in these threads.

But, your last paragraphs were certainly more interesting than your other responses. You believe that there's NO SUCH THING as a group of elites.



NO SUCH THING!!



Honestly, I don't know where to start on that one. I know the Rothschilds and the Saxe Koburg Gothas will go RIGHT over your head, so I'll just start with the super wealthy. You ARE aware that there are super wealthy people in the world, right? If you can't grasp that one...I dunno what to tell ya.

Start from there, and then work your way up to the Bildeberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and so on. But, you probably won't do this, but you can't say I didn't post evidence of elites.

Where did they come from? The common ancestor of Homo sapiens like all of us, of course. (though they do make you wonder sometimes)

The purpose of 9/11? Pretty deep one, there, but you can start with PNAC and Zbigniew Brzezenski; they called for a helpful Pearl Harbor-like event to get the American people behind a war in the Middle East. If you haven't heard of Brzezenski, I'm not surprised, but if you haven't heard of PNAC...look into it.

Only 1 9/11?



The only truth to that statement is that 9/11 was the only time in HISTORY that a steel building (3 actually ) collapsed due to fire. I suggest you look into history for examples of govts attacking themselves and blaming enemies. I and others have posted examples of these, but, alas, you must have missed that too. Don't worry, I'll list a couple of examples right here...

Hitler burned the Reichstag to blame it on his enemies.
The Romans burned Rome to blame it on their enemies.

This one doesn't line up perfectly with the other 2, but it's important because the US govt did it. The US govt had prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor, but allowed it to happen to get the public behind war.

You asked where the elites came from twice. Read up on evolution or see the first answer to this one.

The time of their next move? I dunno, I don't have a crystal ball, but judging by the fact that they keep telling us there WILL be another terror attack, they're working on it.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Who are these elites? Where did they come from? How do you become an elite? What was the purpose of 9/11? Why has there only been one 9/11? Where do these elites come from? When is their next move?

How can you be a member of ATS and not have a clue on these questions? Do some searches on the NWO and I'm sure you'll come across all kinds of relevant info, on everything from the Triliateral Commission, to the US military industrial complex, to the international banking families that own or have stakes or connections to most everything on the planet that've been built up over a few hundred years by now.

The sad fact is that we have been lied too, there is no NWO and there is no elite ruling class. Realistically, Old money will last a few more generations, and it will be gone. People are rich with options and credit, not with currency. New money is the internet boom and the selfish baby boomers who buy 200,000 cars and million dollar homes.

9/11 was an attack that put into motion the decline of the United States as the only superpower, and the biggest monkey in the jungle. Do any of you remember the first WTC bombing? This was just the second try, thats all.

Also, The documents that are now being revealed show that Iraq is linked to Al-qeada, so we would have been there anyways. It was not needed to go to war.

It occured because we were not watching our own backdoor the way we should have, and allowed ourselves through non-departmental cooperation the abilty to be struck on 9/11.

The rich would still be rich without 9/11, and the poor would still be poor. The only difference is I could still go to NYC and see them jsut like when I was a kid.

Originally posted by esdad71
Hey, truthseeka, I am still waiting on that evidence that explosives were involved in the WTC. Since you are so adamant that your view is correct, and since you started the thread, it is time for you to PROVE it or move on.

PROVE IT or move on, I love it! Not "provide evidence," but "prove it." I guess this means the official story has been proven to be correct?

Here's the thing. First off, I'm not saying my view is totally correct. What I'm saying is that the official story is a GD lie. Second, this thread is not about proving that explosions brought down the towers; it's about the non-scientific smoking guns that damage the official story. But, you did know that, right; I think you've been reading English longer than I have.

Ok, now for the prove it thing. Here's the problem. It's kinda hard to PROVE something when you have little physical evidence to go on! Here's an example:

A lot of people thought OJ killed Nicole and thought he should have been convicted. They had DNA evidence that supposedly should have convicted him, good DNA evidence being such a near dead-on way of IDing a person. But, you know what happened? The police TAMPERED with the evidence and ruined it so that it was impossible to use it to implicate the Juice. Thus, not guilty. And this was a court of law.

Now, imagine what would have happened if the police had SOLD the DNA evidence. No, no, what if they not only sold it to someone, overseas, but they put a GPS tracker on the truck that was taking the evidence from the crime scene. What kind of a case do you think they would have had against him then?

I must be an idiot; I didn't know it was a common practice to sell evidence DIRECTLY from a crime scene! And, not just any old crime scene, either. Not only was this THE biggest terror attack on US soil, but it was the ONLY time in history that steel buildings collapsed due to fire. Amazing that architects, structural engineers, and physicists didn't want to scrutinize the remains of the buildings thoroughly when such a fantastic event had happened. Truly amazing.

So, how do you expect us to PROVE the inside job theory when most of the evidence was sold as scrap? Remember, you don't want EVIDENCE, you want PROOF.

So you are admitting that there is no way for you to prove what you believe in and Why you believe it is a lie? OK, If not explosives, what other non-scientific reasons are there other than the ones you mention. I have read everything you have posted, and I have provided answers with good links where I could, and I have not ducked anything.

I would just like it if someone provided a new idea or a reason why something has occuered relating to 9/11.

Originally posted by esdad71
The sad fact is that we have been lied too, there is no NWO and there is no elite ruling class. Realistically, Old money will last a few more generations, and it will be gone. People are rich with options and credit, not with currency. New money is the internet boom and the selfish baby boomers who buy 200,000 cars and million dollar homes.

9/11 was an attack that put into motion the decline of the United States as the only superpower, and the biggest monkey in the jungle. Do any of you remember the first WTC bombing? This was just the second try, thats all.

Also, The documents that are now being revealed show that Iraq is linked to Al-qeada, so we would have been there anyways. It was not needed to go to war.

It occured because we were not watching our own backdoor the way we should have, and allowed ourselves through non-departmental cooperation the abilty to be struck on 9/11.

The rich would still be rich without 9/11, and the poor would still be poor. The only difference is I could still go to NYC and see them jsut like when I was a kid.

It justs get better and better.

The best thing is, I don't need to post any links when responding to you. 1, it won't matter anyway, and 2, this stuff is pretty well known on ATS and among alternative radio show hosts.

There is no NWO.



I guess Bush Sr., Jacques Chirac, Pope Benedict, that guy from the CFR on 9/12, Henry Kissinger, and others are just plain NUTS! They ALL called for this invisible, imaginary NWO. Perhaps you should take a gander at the appropriate forum...

There is no elite ruling class?



I must have missed it when middle class and poor guys from around the world, not just Europe and the US, get to go to the annual Bildeberg Group meetings? This same group who said the war in Iraq would start in March 2003 instead of 2002 like the media was saying. This same group Bill Clinton attended in 1991 before he became president in 1992. Oh, sorry, that last one was another coincidence, stupid me.

I also missed it where middle class and poor get to go to Bohemian Grove. Members of the Grove claim that the idea of the Manhattan Project started here.

Old money lasts only a few generations?



Tell that to the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Saxe Koburg Gothas, hell, even the Bushes, though on a smaller level than the other 3.

REAL wealth is options and credit?



No, that one's too rich, it deserves more laughs.



I guess stuff like gold, oil, diamonds, land, and other natural resources are not real wealth. Boy, am I dumb.

The internet boom? I'll spare the smileys, as this post is getting full of them. FYI, I am still laughing. Last time I heard, the dotcom bubble burst; hell, I just heard that yesterday. But, I guess you mean stuff like google and ebay, so I'll give you that one, money's there.

Lastly, WTC 1 had the Fed's fingerprints all over it, just like Waco. It's good to bring that up, though. I refuse to believe that the govt is so stupid that it didn't know WTC could be attacked when it was unsuccessfully "attacked" before.