That is to do with manupuliation of the media- there was no fair investigation of 9/11 the blame game started as soon as the 2nd plane hit- dont you think thats a bit strange? they are talking about Bin Laden when the 2nd plane hit?

All that tells me is that the US government dropped the ball. The signs were all there, but noone was looking at them. When you have intel that says there will be an alQaeda plot involving planes but you don't believe it/bother to follow up, when the event actually happens, it doesn't take long to tie them together.

Also, you Brits didn't seem to put up much of an argument with Blair. Hell, you even voted him BACK in after he'd sent troops to Iraq. Americans aren't the only gullible ones...

The govenment say that jet fuel didnt melt steel- but large ammounts of melted steel were found there, so either on that one day jet fuel could burn 4 times stronger than ever before or their were explosives there.

The govenment report and the conspiracy nuts both agree that this molten, melted steel was there, they both argee the melting point of steel is 2000.

Also on that one day the force of gravity would have to be x ammount stronger for it to pull the tops of the buildings down through the building underneath at the same speed as if you dropped a bowling ball of the top. Unless of course they were explosives taking out all of the suports so their was no resistance to the fall.

The govenment reports and the conspiracy nuts both agree that the buildings fell down in 10 secs, they both agree this was close to free fall speed, the both agree in the existance of gravity.

occam's razor: the simpliest explination is normally the correct one.

Do you believe that for the first time in history jet fules burned 4 times hotter that day and that gravity was x ammount stronger or do you believe there were explosives in the buildings?

Dont even get me started on WTC7.

But yeah- I believed the official story at the time I was in shock.

But look back on it now.....

occam's razor: the simpliest explination is normally the correct one.

Occam's razor would also suggest that hi-jackers did it. That's by far more simple than any of the conspiracy theories.

Occam's razor is a bunch of hooey.

Well, as long as you "think" that's the case, you must be right. Sorry man, but unless GE was planning 9/11 back in '93 (when GE sold it's aerospace division, including armaments division, to Lockheed Martin), you're reaching a bit. 1 incorrect assumption (which apparently equals "alot") just doesn't convince me.

Forget whatever sterotype you have of Brits- the majority of us are some dumbbed down, thick-as-shit motherfuckers.

Wait....so you are or aren't all football crazed hooligans?

for some reason I thought the rest of the world had us down as tea drinking interlectuals with perfect manners.

Its simple to suggest that the hijackers suspended these laws of gravity and physics?

or infact that they were not suspended ( because that is impossible, duh) and explosives caused the collapse.

Regardless of the 'Who done it' and the blame game- follow the science.

Two out of three ain't bad!

You guys ever heard the rumors that 100s of "high ups" from the trade center were off site that day - like someone planned to make sure none of them got hurt if something was to happen.

You guys ever heard the rumors that 100s of "high ups" from the trade center were off site that day - like someone planned to make sure none of them got hurt if something was to happen.

Yes, although this appears to be unsubstantiated rumor. On the other hand, at the time SF's Mayor, Willie Brown, said he got a call from a government agency on 9/10 telling that he should cancel any plans to travel by air on 9/11. I never knew what to make of that, and Brown refused to answer questions about it after a few days.

Occam's razor is a bunch of hooey.

i think the 'laws of physics' argument is a little soft. the situation with the world trade center was unprecedented as far as i know (can anyone direct me to another example of passenger jets being crashed into skyscrapers?), so its difficult to do more than scientifically speculate on how the building would behave due to the impact, fuel, fire, etc.

i think its kind of a leap to say that the official explanation defies physical laws. I am by no means a physicist, or have any expertise beyond an college engineering education, but i do know that sometimes events take place that are very very difficult to explain scientifically. who can really say with certainty that the buildings could only have fallen the way they did due to explosives? ive watched all the documentaries, read a bunch of conspiracy theories, etc, but just have a hard time with the reasoning. sure, there are a lot of things that dont quite add up, but 'not adding up' is not enough scientific evidence to conclude a broad, complicated conspiracy, involving multiple agencies, corporations, individuals, etc.

i have many many issues with our current administration, but unless some solid evidence emerges, i just cannot believe that our government orchestrated these attacks.