starbug1

The wings and tail are made of very fragile aluminum which would break off in a crash.

 

Goto http://www.planecrashinfo.com/pictures.htm and look at some of the pictures. Almost all have detached wings and many are just piles of rubble and a few show huge fires. There are even some pictures of the 9/11 events.

Please JustStuit' date=' I've said many times that the pictures taken of the Pentagon are controversial. Some show rubble and some do not. I've acknowledged that wings and tail would break off in such a crash. They do not do so without leaving any such indication and moreover they do not bend back and follow the rest of the planes fuselage into the building.

Now, for all of the sites I've been directed to, I think I have one that should be looked at. Look at the pictures here, and tell me how you can discount these as unusable evidence for the conspiracy.

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

Do you have any idea what the frame rate on security cameras are? they are quite low which means that an object moving as fast as a 757 has a good chance of passing the camera between frames.

They have an unidentified object on frame. It cannot be proved plane or missile either way.

yes but the buildings werent just lit on fire, they were hit by an oncoming boeing 747 going at top speed with gallons of fuel. the force created by the impact and collapse of the buildings could be enough to knock down adjacent buildings.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that this was WTC building number seven. This is not the north tower or south tower that were hit by two airplanes. It was a 47 floor building that was not hit by a plane. The two main towers collasped straight down, and no part of this affected the structure of building number 7. It is in the pictures. It is in the footage. Clouds of dust and debris do not cause a building to implode or collapse, even if this building had small fires on a few floors.

and no matter what proof you provide, i still wont beleive you for one reason. why the hell would a government like the US government want to murder thousands of its citizens and emergency personel and create endless economic turmoil? and lets face it, bush isnt really smart enough to arrange that type of thing.

are you sure you know what you are saying?

May i suggest that you cite what you are claiming. I' date=' for one, tend to ignore arguments that rely upon uncited facts, because its too dificult to establish wether or not the facts are being interpreted correctly. for example:

 

Quote:

There was also bodies found and easily identified in the Pentagon, when supposedly the fire was "so hot that it disintegrated much of the plane."[/quote']

 

This is a direct quotation of contradiction. The official story, in response to the missing parts of the plane, said that the fire caused by the explosion was hot enough to disentegrate most of the plane. Bodies were found and easily identified near the crash site. I haven't cited the quotation because I'm mostly using the information from my DVD's, which a lot of is not on the internet.

 

Which bodies? how close to the centre of impact? close enough to be incredible, or far away enough to have died from asphixia from the smoke, but not get burnt from the fire? who knows, if you dont cite?

 

The only thing for you to do is to watch the DVDs. I believe someone said Loose Change was found for a free download on Google. And I posted the 9/11: Confronting the Evidence link for a free DVD. There is very little effort involved in downloading or ordering a free DVD. A very important DVD.

 

Conspiracy theories are propagated by people who revel in the idea of knowing more about a particular event or having the inside story even if there extra details are unfounded -

 

These extra details and inside knowledges have been enough to prove that this is not a conspiracy theory.

 

it is a conversation piece at best.

 

Not to everybody, it isn't

 

This particular example is annoying because there are so many real issues that people should be considering. Why is there such a difference in opinion between western values and those of other cultures, etc, etc. This kind of talk just distracts attention from what is really important.

 

Kiddies can constuct their conspiracy theories and be playground prophets if they choose - I would rather discuss the issues that definately face us rather than the ones that might do given a string of spectacular coincidences and secret plots.

 

I know what you're saying, but that's not what we're trying to do here.

 

 

...I'm still waiting for someone who has seen the DVDs

Oh for the love of...

 

READ: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

 

Look' date=' I can make cut and paste responses to all of this bullshit. Maybe you should actually read that.

 

 

 

Eye Witness Testimony

 

Lets look at some eye witness testimony sticking only to people who saw a plane hit the building, and not look at people who saw an airliner, but didn't see an airplane hit the building because they looked away or were too far away (behind a hill, behind a building, etc) to see it actually hit the building.

 

 

"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"

- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

 

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."

- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002

 

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"

- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

 

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"

- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

 

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."

- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 20

 

"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," - Ahwatukee Foothill News

 

Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn't until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment." Massachusetts News

 

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001

 

"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific. It was obvious that some of the victims we found had no time to react. The distance the firefighters had to travel down corridors to reach the fires was a problem. With only a good 25 minutes of air in their SCBA bottles, to save air they left off their face pieces as they walked and took in a lot of smoke," Captain Defina said. Captain Defina was the shift commander [of an aircraft rescue firefighters crew.'] NFPA Journal November 1, 2001

 

 

 

 

Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.

 

Look at the nose-on view of a 757 - you can see the body is slightly less than 1/3 the size of the height of the aircraft. The tail certainly isn't going to punch a hole through a reinforced concrete wall; that is why there is no 40 foot hole in the front of the Pentagon in any photos. A 40 foot object didn't hit it, a 13 foot object did.

 

 

 

The Gate Camera

Some people don't seem to see perspective correctly. I've zoomed in, and compared the two frames over and over - here is what I see as the airplane. I will repeat, however, that this is terrible evidence due to the horrible quality of the original images. I do believe, however, that the white smoke in the images is caused by one or more damaged engine from the impact with the multiple light poles on the way in (as seen in the above image).

 

 

I stuck in a 757 that was at relatively the same angle - except it's banking slightly to starboard instead of to port - hence the ONE wing is out of place. If it was banking slightly to port it would fit perfectly... However, once again - this is entirely subjective and the image quality from the released surveillance camera is not good enough to form a factual opinion.

 

 

 

Yes, and people reported hearing four shots at the Kennedy assassination. What does the majority say?

 

 

 

Oh jesus mother****ing christ, will you just read the link?

 

The wheel:

 

The bulkhead:

 

Below: More parts from inside the 757 - note the Boeing green primer on 3 parts in this photo - two circled.

 

Parts from the turbine:

 

Parts with original markings:

 

 

 

I don't offhand, because I don't have to. "How do you explain" [...] "you can't, therefore it was this!" is an ARGUMENT FROM INCREDULITY

 

Please, stop spreading bullshit based on logical fallacies.

I have already said that the original pictures taken right after impact, there was nothing in the form of plane wreckage on the lawn. I've read the site, and I've seen the picture, which disagree with the pictures I've seen. The only security camera footage shows an object that can't be made out. There is just as much reason to believe it is a missile than it is a plane.

The eye-witness accounts you listed are almost laughable. All but three of them made no mention of a plane actually hitting the Pentagon. 1/3 of the testimonies trying to prove what we were told to believe are addressing directly to what they thought was a plane hitting the Pentagon. 1/3 is not even majority, and is a pathetic number to consider for your "proof."

I'm actually trying to debate this sensibly. Bascule, if you want to debate this the right way, that's fine. Making profane and impatient remarks all the time, assuming you have all the evidence isn't going to go over well. You could at least try to consider the evidence I'm giving, try to disprove what I've said without directing me to a site I've already said to have read.

I have posted a link for the DVD, and I've posted other evidence that has been abruptly ignored.

I've already said that the Pentagon only showed ONE SINGLE HOLE. No wing impact, no roof damage or even marks to show tail impact, and no engine impact. Little fire and smoke damage. ORIGINALLY, no wreckage on the lawn, as seen in the photographs. Denial for any firefighters to do an interview. There was also bodies found and easily identified in the Pentagon, when supposedly the fire was "so hot that it disintegrated much of the plane."

Just because the majority says so doesn't mean it's right. And the Pentagon isn't in New York.

Trying to accuse me of ignorance doesn't work when you stated, "it was supposed to be a surprise attack." Anyone can see that you mean "the terrorist attacks of 9/11" not just the attack on the Pentagon. Just because the majority of the citizens of New York didn't think it was a surprise attack may not mean it's right, but it is a fact.

Plane crashing into solid concrete building != plane crashing into tall, steel and glass skyscraper.

This is insignificant to your claim that "Planes are fragile."

Why doesn't it happen? Says who? The buildings collapsed before the fire was extinguished, and several thousand gallons of jet fuel certainly didn't help things.

It's been proved it doesn't. Experts say that it can't happen. ONCE AGAIN: no plane crashed into WTC #7.

My other questions have still been neglected.

I wouldn't expect any. It's supposed to be a surprise attack, after all.

Almost half of New York said they didn't think so.

Planes are fragile. They're not made of depleted uranium--a mass of aluminum and carbon fiber will not break much of a hole through a concrete/brick wall. Think about it.

You didn't read it right. the building had no marks of where a tail or wings would have hit. also, this makes an argument on how a plane crashing in to the World Trade Centers couldn't bring them down. How could them if they are so fragile, they wouldn't leave much damage, right?

What about the WTC main buildings? Most of the damage was caused by fire and jet fuel.

The Bush administration said fire fatigued the steel and caused the building to collapse. This does not happen. Let me ask you, have you ever seen a building completely ablaze? After the fires are extinguished, what's left is a steel frame and the outline of windows, at the very least. All pictures of ground zero show all seven buildings in rubble. Note the the WTC main buildings, fell straight down. Now for those of you who don't believe they were detonated, this still doesn't prove how the other buildings collapsed. Remember that building seven imploded and fell straight down.

Get a copy of the free dvd. It's worth a look at:

Confronting the Evidence

How to burn a copy: https://secure.reopen911.org/copythedvd.htm

Oh really? Where do you see those corroborating the official story using the absence of evidence as evidence that a 757 the Pentagon? I'd really like to see that.

 

The conspiracy theorist argument seems to be "There's no evidence of a plane (which is wrong to begin with) therefore it couldn't have been a plane' date=' it had to have been a missile or some other projectile!" (when there's no evidence of that)

 

My apologies for the strawman... but I hope you get the picture.[/quote']

 

 

 

1) there is no empirical eye-witness evidence with which to rely as pure evidence saying a plane actually flew into the pentagon.

 

2) the hole made was smaller than the plane. As you know there are conflicting reports on this. And since I am no expert on missile impact, I have only read about and watched all to prove that it may have been a missile but less likely so a plane. The website "hunting the boeing" has photographs that show how a 757 could have made the damage at the pentagon. These photographs were taken of the hole after the roof collapsed. Other photographs show a smaller hole, and other than the "hunting the boeing" website, no valid photographs or evidence showed the hole to be large enough. these photographs show the actual size of the impact hole before the roof collaspes. The original hole is 14X16 ft. Additionally, there is no damage to the roof, where the tail of the plane should have hit. Likewise, there is no damage where the wings should have hit. Only a small hole, and no wreckage on the lawn.

 

3) The security camera clip showing the crash into pentagon does not show a 757, it does not show any plane at all, only an explosion.

 

4) furthermore, the evidence and the photographs are curiously different for the impact of a plane. The official story says there is evidence, but the conpiracy evidence cannot wholly be disproved. So the strawman does not work. And there is evidence to prove that it was a missile. People are quoted to have said, "it sounded like a missile," "it was not a plane," and all the variations. The majority of pictures taken directly after the crash show there to be no evidence of a plane. The firemen who put out the fire at the pentagon were scheduled for an interview, but were kept from speaking to anybody about it.

 

 

To further my argument, we know the pentagon isn't the only issue here. How would you explain how World Trade Center building number 7 was found in rubble, when no plane ever hit that building? The Bush administration says fire was responsible. Fire responsible for demolishing a 47 floor steel building? At 5:30pm that day the building imploded, after having only a few small fires. Even if the building was completely ablaze, it's been proved that fire has never completely caused a steel building to implode or result to rubble because of fire.

 

How would you explain the mysterious objects attached to the bottom of flights 175 and flight 11, and the flashs on the front of both planes just prior before they hit? The only known footage of flight 175 shows distinctly the same flash as was seen on the footage of flight 11 impacting the south tower.

just because something is scummy doesn't mean it's a mold.

i missed the smiley at the end of my statement to show my sarcasm.

I'm sorry' date=' I missed the part about Wikipedia authors being experts on plane crashes and missile impacts.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html[/quote']

 

 

I've read it all. It's apparent my opinion is going nowhere. If anyone knows how I could possibly upload the dvd on my computer, because the dvd really has the meat of persuasion, that would be my best bet. Probably not possible, but if anyone knows, that'd by great.

.999999999 repeating (infinite 9's) would be different than even a large finite amount of nines. I was unsure as to which you were refering.

True; but in practical measurement, infinite 9's cannot exist,..so I guess the question I asked isn't pertinent to the original proof. my mistake.

What would be to gain even if it was a conspiracy?

Truth

My argument is evidence based. Yours comes from an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

I read the link bascule, and I see evidence there as I see it in the conspiracy websites. Both sides have plenty of evidence, and the incredulity is also thrown both ways. Really, from what I've gathered, there is more 'logical fallacy' on the side saying they were terrorist attacks.

starbug1' date=' I missed the part where you established yourself as an expert on (or even familar with) planes, plane crashes, missile impacts, and the like.

 

So how is one to evaluate statements like [i']"This is only done by the explosion of a missile." "the damage inflicted on the Pentagon was much less than if a 757, even with less than half a tank of fuel could have inflicted" "If indeed a plane flew above cars and people, low enough to reach the bottom floor of the pentagon in time, by means the people and cars would have been blown off the road, or at least moved, by the power of the jet engines" "Jet fuel does not explode and extinguish under thirty minutes. That amount of jet fuel does not burn down considerably for several hours or more."[/i]

 

that you make?

All of this is mentioned by people other than me on the links I gave. The wikipedia article to start. I'm still going over the dvds collecting information.

If it truely in .9999 rucurring and not just a lot of 9's

????

using the assumption that .99999999999 = 1...In any practical circumstances wouldn't this rounding be an error. The methods make sense, but all it is really doing is rounding; would this be an errant miscalculation in anything that needed to be precise, say, in engineering or watchmaking?

are you happy yet?

Not even close.

How is it that you are so sure of yourselves? I'm willing to look over the evidence any of you can show.

Bascule, the pathological meme would prove both ways. It may be that the supposed truth is the BiG lie. You may be believeing in the BIG lie. Explain that one.

Okay, while I'm checking that sites information and comparing it to what I've found, I want you or someone else to try to falsify at least some of the claims made HERE

Conspiracy theories are pathological memes.

Yes, conspiracy theories are pathological memes. I never believe them. Unless of course there is evidence to prove the theory true.

For the love of God be a skeptic. Think about practicality and parsimony when information is presented for you. Look for logical reasoning supported by evidence.

I was absolutely a skeptic at first. that is why I did the extra research. For parsimony: the resources are there, I've looked at the Wikipedia links. Here for instance, which tell you the hard facts. I also checked all the presented information Here, which gives you the "conspiracy" aspect. I've also checked the outside sources, the external links, and I've taken it from both sides, I've thought about it logically. As much as I hate the whole idea of a "conspiracy theory," I believe it.

As for logical reasoning supported by evidence, that is exactly what I have found. The DVDs especially go into extensive detail about what exactly happened. I'll say again, I was very skeptical at first, though it is VERY hard to deny the explanations and evidence they show. Also note: the DVD, 9/11 Confronting the Evidence, is presented in an unbiased format. The narrator/commentator never comes out to say it was a conspiracy, he puts all of the gathered evidence, footage, and interviews and follows the accounts logically.

There was a 9/11 conspiracy. It was perpetrated by Al Qaeda under the direction of Osama bin Laden. As an independent organization unaffiliated with any country, they managed to strike a blow at the heart of one of the most powerful countries on earth.

To be honest, I'm actually surprised. I thought that you, Bascule, would be one of the ones that believed otherwise.

Here's a thought: have you tried looking for evidence against the conspiracy theory? There's ample evidence out there. For example:

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

I'll first look at the evidence from your link:

Origins: The notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud. [b']Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that "the American government is lying.

While Meyssan did not offer an explanation, many people did. For example, there are several accounts saying that only a missile could have hit the pentagon because there is absolutely no wreckage of the plane left, no fuselage, no engines, and corresponding damage to the pentagon. The pictures of the wreckage are minimal and substantially lacking to prove an entire plane crashed there. The picture of the tires were proved to be not the type found on the 757 that supposedly crashed at the Pentagon. Furthermore, the damage inflicted on the Pentagon was much less than if a 757, even with less than half a tank of fuel could have inflicted. So to say that:

It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall.

is faulty and misleading. How much damage? The fifth ring may have been penetrated, but try and find any pictures or evidence that show or give solid damage on any rings other than the first three.

Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:

Explain how the roof is undamaged after a plane blows up inside. Would there not be any fire damage? Not even a collapse past the first ring? The damage inside the Pentagon is minimal. When you look at the photos, there is relatively no fire damage. A plane would burn up and leave at least some evidence that a fire lasted for any time at all. things inside the pentagon, right at the crash site, are still intact. This is only done by the explosion of a missile.

2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

This is the wrong question. A 757 can crash into the ground floor. They are making it too easy. the fact is that the plane was twice as long as the impact hole, and twice as high. I don't remember the exact dimensions, but superimpose a 757 over the the dimensions of the hole, and they don't match up. there is no evidence where the wings should have clipped off, no wings were even found. No evidence of where the tail impacted, no tail was found.

The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building.

Firstly, the light poles are bent in the opposite direction that the plane clipped them in.

The eyewitness accounts of hearing a plane that low are fallacious. If indeed a plane flew above cars and people, low enough to reach the bottom floor of the pentagon in time, by means the people and cars would have been blown off the road, or at least moved, by the power of the jet engines. None of this happened. No eye witness accounts can even accurately atest to seeing a plane. they only (thought they) heard one.

The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees.

Jet fuel does not explode and extinguish under thirty minutes. That amount of jet fuel does not burn down considerably for several hours or more.

any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash

The burning point of titanium alloy (not sure of the exact element) was proven to higher a higher melting point that that at which jet fuel burns. How do you explain how most of the plane, including the wings and engines, get incinerated in a "huge fireball." When that fireball isn't even hot enough to melt let alone incinerate the metal?

As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire

I believe I've already mentioned what happened here.

When you look at this photo or any of the Pentagon you will see the impact zone. There is nothing left on the lawn. There is no damage to the grass. No wing marks where they hit after they supposedly "bent towards the fuselage before they followed the plane in".

When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"

"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

They explain:

The fire chief wasn't asked "where the aircraft was"; he was asked "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" He did indeed provide an answer to the question he was asked: There were no large sections of the plane left by the time he was asked (the day after the attack) because they had been smashed into smaller pieces by the impact and then burned up; all that remained were smaller pieces visible only from the interior of the Pentagon.

There is no logic or evidence at all for this answer.

If you look at this picture OF THE IMPACT, you'll see no wreckage and minimal fire damage. On the inside of the building there is no damage. the collape is only on the first ring.

Although 9/11: Confronting the Evidence has better clips, this video does pretty good giving a rundown on the crash.

http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf

would weather have a factor in any of this?

I really hate you for wasting my time.

 

What exactly was the point of that?

I was in a bad mood when I posted this. The guy ruthlessly rids himself of his girlfriend when I don't have one. It disappointed me.

Recently, I have been researching the events of 9/11. I hadn't given it much though before, and to be honest it really didn't interest me very much. It was just a terrorist attack that endlessly plagued the news. I was outraged, of course, because all of those people died, and now we would be going to "official" war against terrorism, but that didn't change the fact that I was only 13, and none of that would ever phase me.

Not so of late. I was given a couple of DVD's by my uncle, who is a powerful debater when it comes to politics and all that. I watched them and they blew my mind. I was on the edge of my seat, taking in every word carefully. For the first time I took an interest into politics. For the first time I really considered the depravity of the Bush administration. For the first time I realized how obvious 9/11 was when the facts are all layed out for you. the terrorist attacks on the track center were a deliberate event. 9/11 was a conspiracy.

I talked to some of my friends and their parents about it surreptitiously just to see what they thought. None of them were any wiser than what they were told from the newspapers and news on tv, when it is so apparent for anyone really knowledgeable on the matter that it was a conspiracy. It kind of blew my mind, initially, that everyone thought it was a terrorist attack, plain and simple. The ignorance is what killed me, and I couldn't even debate the matter because they wouldn't know enough anyway.

Obviously, some of you know this already. And for those who don't believe 9/11 was a conspiracy, I'm prepared to change your mind. I, of course, can't give you the DVDs, but I can tell you what they are, and I can feed you links that accurately explain the same stuff.

I watched: 9/11 Confronting the Evidence, and

Loose Change

To be honest, Valentine's day was more eventful when we were in elementary school, when we made those decorated shoeboxes where everyone went around putting in valentines.

recent rise and/or long term affect as a health concern? the problems arising from high blood pressure?

Because we became bipedal and the apes did not. Hence, being 'less hary' had a bigger effect on our bodies ( since they were more exposed).

Would becoming bipedal and losing hair have anything to do with our genitals becoming exposed? Now, to me, this would be a big push towards loinclothes and ultimately more and more clothing.

the waveeditor nor the wavepad work on a mac.

when i want to be lazy i read at around 200wpm when i'm relaxed its 435 words per minute and when i really push myself i can do 500wpm. i'm usually just relexed when reading.

I retested myself and I'm about the same.

I also found an ancient article disproving speed reading:

Speed Reading

 

Although advertisements for speed-reading courses sound like scientific reports on a major advance in human education, the ads appear to be closer to science fiction. These ads claim that an average person can triple his or her reading speed with no loss in understanding. But the evidence suggests that we cannot increase reading speed without affecting comprehension. Speed-reading courses do not increase your reading speed. They teach you to skim or scan material--to control what you attend to. Most of us read between 150 and 300 words per minute with complete comprehension. Researchers have shown that an intelligent person reading very easy material cannot comprehend most of it at rates above 500 to 600 words per minute.

So this article is saying that speed reading is scanning, and has no realistic proof otherwise. I don't necessarily believe this because it was written several years ago, and new evidence has come into light. The wikipedia articles disprove the above article and so do the accounts I've read online. I think you can learn how to significantly raise reading level while maintaining comprehension. This article is BS.

I always thought it was fungus-singular --- fun-j-eye, fung-eye plural, moreso fung-eye. I've never heard any different.

Were Cheney and Whittington wearing the bright orange hunting jackets and caps you're supposed to wear? If they were...I think it's very hard for accidents like that to happen unless you are a) drunk b)colorblind c)with an idiot friend.