<p>First off, this is a hilarious sentence:</p>
<p>"Yeah true but you should try and read the weapons that were using against them. And how many supply commands turned out to be synagogues and other normal places."</p>
<p>The fact that the poster is placing synagogues in a predominantly Muslim country known for oppressing Jews shows the general lack of real understanding of the situations at hand.</p>
<p>Now to deal with the so-called "issues" of the 9/11 crashes.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Why is there not a lot of wreckage left? Well, let's think about it kids. First off, think about some PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY. Those planes were full of fuel that burns really really hot. You know what happens to wreckage when it gets really really hot? It melts!</p></li>
<li><p>
[quote]
How was a plane that was almost completely vaporized with no huge wreckage left behind able to leave DNA for every single passenger? Why wasnt this the case in NYC. All that survived the complete vaporization there were the passports of the terrorists.
[/quote]
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>What the hell are you talking about? They identified the passengers by iteneraries and purchase logs, dolt.</p>
<ol>
<li> Why was the Pentagon affected differently? Well, because the plane hit the ground at a different speed, and it didn't hit the Pentagon dead-on like the planes in NYC hit the trade towers. It struck the ground a bit first, and then sort of collided afterwards with the building.</li>
</ol>
<p>Now for this gem:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also believe that regardless of whatever that Bush wanted to start the war for oil (err terrorism) at all and any costs necessary. I believe that I would rather rely on the integrity of building construction rather than believe a measly tank of gas caused a building of that proportion to fall (mightily perfectly I might add). I believe that FEMA shouldn't have been in NYC the day before the attacks (even tho they were). I believe that people heard a disjolting bang bang bang in well timed sucession before the fall. I believe that the metal under the building shouldn't still be melted until the rubble after a week or two. I believe that airport security is tighter than letting 19 crackpots (also hung-over, btw) fly with amazing precision into both towers and the Pentagon. I believe that wasn't a 767 flying into the Pentagon. C'mon at least watch the flash video. That will entertain and inform you (it's got music from Fight Club in it). I believe that cells phones weren't powerful enough to have multiple ones go through in an airplane. I believe there are way too many questions about 9/11 to let it go and believe the gov't whole-heartedly (which lied to us anyways about the WMDs). I believe that the numbers dead in our own country is far less than the numbers of innocent Iraqis we've killed overseas. Why do you think other countries hate us? Why do you think other countries think of us as stupid, ignorant Americans? These are rational beliefs and questions, don't you think? I will believe this information until someone points out evidence to the contrary.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let me keep at it, point by point...</p>
<p>** I believe that I would rather rely on the integrity of building construction rather than believe a measly tank of gas caused a building of that proportion to fall (mightily perfectly I might add).**</p>
<p>I'd rather rely on the fact that a Boeing 757-200, carrying almost 44,000 liters of fuel, is going to burn VERY hot. I know that physics and chemistry are awfully dull subjects, but listen up. Yes, the buildings were designed to take the impact of a 707 airliner, but they weren't designed to be able to take a fire buring that hot. When the planes hit the buildings they removed a lot of the external fireproofing that otherwise would have protected the steel. The upper floors began to fall, and that started a chain reaction downwards. Basically, "the buckling of the horizontal steel supports separated them from the vertical supports. The horizontal steel floors were supported by trusses which were inadequately fireproofed and hence the steel supports softened when exposed to fire and failed. This failure caused the floor to fall downwards. When a floor failed completely, this set off a chain reaction where the floor fell, sheared away the floor below it, and then the combined mass fails even more quickly. This process was considerably slower than the terminal velocity of the rubble alone, but faster than the terminal velocity of relatively small objects that people are generally familiar with, which have much higher surface area to volume ratios, and are generally less dense."</p>
<p>And after all, who's to say that the towers were well-designed and/or built?</p>
<p>I believe that FEMA shouldn't have been in NYC the day before the attacks (even tho they were).</p>
<p>This is like those people who send out chain letters because John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on July 4. OOHHHH CREEPY!!! Instead, FEMA should have been conducting studies in Nevada, for fear of attacks on Las Vegas.</p>
<p>I believe that the metal under the building shouldn't still be melted until the rubble after a week or two.</p>
<p>You ever notice how the insides of a pot with a top on stay warm for long periods of time? Insulation, anyone?</p>
<p>I believe that airport security is tighter than letting 19 crackpots (also hung-over, btw) fly with amazing precision into both towers and the Pentagon.</p>
<p>Sorry, but you obviously never flew before Sept. 11th. No, scratch that, you've never been on an airplane. It's still frighteningly easy to take otherwise dangerous things on a plane. That, and how precise do you have to be when flying a mechanical beast that practically guides itself? I mean, they didn't have to land the goddamn things...</p>
<p>I believe that wasn't a 767 flying into the Pentagon.</p>
<p>Right, because a missile is so much more logical a conclusion. And after all, the government can make hundreds of passengers just dissappear without a trace. The same government that couldn't cover up the Bay of Pigs, Iran-Contra, and the affairs of various elected officials managed to stage a huge conspiracy. Makes lots of sense. </p>
<p>I believe that cells phones weren't powerful enough to have multiple ones go through in an airplane.</p>
<p>How do you know? Have you ever actually turned one on while on a plane? Neither have I. </p>
<p>I believe there are way too many questions about 9/11 to let it go and believe the gov't whole-heartedly (which lied to us anyways about the WMDs).</p>
<p>I believe in adhering to the all-powerful Occam's Razor and going with the simplest answer. And for the record, it wasn't "the government" that lied to us, it was a small portion of the executive branch that used crappy intelligence. The rest of the government just went along and worried about reelection. What, you think Diane Feinsten of CA actually was in concert with the Bush Administration? You are kookier than I thought...</p>
<p>I believe that the numbers dead in our own country is far less than the numbers of innocent Iraqis we've killed overseas. Why do you think other countries hate us? Why do you think other countries think of us as stupid, ignorant Americans? These are rational beliefs and questions, don't you think? I will believe this information until someone points out evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>Hmmm, for once you said something remotely reasonable. Yes, more innocent Iraqis died than Americans in 9/11. And, since you obviously just buy anything the far far leftist contingent says, no, most people don't think we're stupid. Just indolent and arrogant. Try traveling, Sr. Poopmeister. </p>
<p>You guys set up these barrels, and put fish in them, and don't expect me to shoot them? Give me a break.</p>