Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[beachnut]

... No plane...in essence that was no different then office fires in the past. Yet it some how fell. ...

WTC 7 fell because the fires were not fought. Buildings which were also totaled by fire but did not fall, were fires that were fought for hours which saved the buildings from total collapse. It is amazing how you could think a building would remain standing when it has broken windows to feed the fires, no water to fight the fires, and no fire fighting efforts were made. This is your inside job efforts after 10 years, to remain knowledge free of the fact that steel building can fall in fire, but you think steel is magical and stands up to fire and can't fail. We could save money by not using insulation, tons of insulation in each building with your magical version of steel.


You think Flight 93 was shot down, but the FDR shows the terrorist flew it into the ground. How do you ignore real evidence and adopt fantasy and made up nonsense on how the debris pattern is impossible, when the debris pattern is exactly how it would be for the speed and attitude of impact? How do you suspend reality and adopt lies as you are doing?

 

[Oystein]

Well I'll go with Han's faster areaction and higher energy output in a given (read short) time.

Hans and I are not in disagreement at all. It's not higher energy total, but more energy per time unit. That's "power", as I already explained to you. It is LESS energy total. How come? Because the reaction goes faster - it is over after a much shorter time.

That was how I understood it anyway.

It is as clear as day that you understand it incorrectly...

It makes nanothermite the perfect candidate for my hypothesis.

...which is why your conclusions are stupid. The opposite is more true.

Given that unreacted nanothermite has been found in the WTC dust

No, it hasn't.

and confirmed by an 8-man team

These 8 men are the original authors of that nonsense, not the confirmation.

of Ph.d's

Only 3 of them are PhD's, iirc. Ryan and Roberts only have Bachelor's degrees, Legge and larsen a Master's, and Farnsworth was a student still.

Of course, their title, or lack thereof, does not mean that that the work is any good or bad. Far more relevant to look at their respective fields of expertise:
- Harrit comes close; a chemist with some work in nano-tech, yet failed to identify one of the simplest and most common minerals: hematite (Fe2O3 - "rust" comes close, in layman's speak)
- Farrer doesn't know chemistry. He once proudly shared how he had never worked with a DSC before
- Jones is a nuclear physicist. Irrelevant
- Ryan has tested water for a living
- Legge has a Diploma in Agriculture. Lol.
- Farnsworth studies physics.
- Roberts is a business analyst with a background in psychology. Lol
- Gourley I have no idea what he does. His credentials in the paper are given as "International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas" ROFL.
- Larsen is a mineralogist. That is not a bad field, yet he too failed to introdice the word "hematite" into the paper.

in a two year study

They started that thing wanting desperately to find thermite. They could have sent the samples to a good lab, pay them 800 dollars instead of Bentham vanity publishers, and gotten definite results in two weeks.

resulting in an uncontested

the paper is so bad that even I can contest it. It's simply irrelevant in the world of science. Published at an irrelevant vanity journal, with too many obvious-to-spot errors.

peer reviewed paper

No proper peer-review process at Bentham. The editor in chief testified to that in the strongest and most honest form possible: She resigned precisely because the paper was published without proper peer-review.

I think I'm home and dry on this aspect.

Every aspect you mention is a FAIL.

Mr.Hans
' The larger surface contact between the ingredients makes for a faster reaction and hence higher energy output in a given time, not much else. '

'

"In a given time" qualifies "higher energy output". It doesn't mean that you get more energy to work with. Only more power, but that isn't important when melting steel is all you desire. Much more significant is the fact that you get LESS energy output. Which Hans will agree with.

 

[TJM]

He lied you know he lied...anyone who see's that video knows he lied. As far as the second part....give me a break, while I won't speak for them I'm pretty sure they were referring to videos of witnesses seeing Molten Steel, you know videos of the witnesses saying they saw it. As for 6.6 seconds..pretty sure that's not a lie. The 13 seconds that is often quoted is from the start of the pent house, not the start of the main collapse. The main collapse took just under 7 seconds. Want proof Gross had a chance to correct him..and didn't but I'm sure he had better things to do.

So now do you not only know what Mr. Gross thinks, you know what's on my mind too.

Apparently you aren't able to comprehend your own video, but Mr. Gross was addressing the question of the "pools of molten steel" when someone says "there's videos of it." Since there were no pools of molten steel then obviously there's no videos of it.

Nice attempt at redefining the collapse of WTC 7, but no cigar. The penthouse falling IS the beginning of the collapse.

 

[DGM]

Yeah..you conveniently don't mention the second part of what I said. But it doesn't matter, you know that's total crap. Removing evidence from a crime scene is in fact a crime, and he goes on TV with it. The FBI should have been there within minutes. Don't say they were busy doing other things that day. I'm sure they could have sent one guy. This guy was never heard from again, nothing...but you believe what you want to believe, opening yourself up to the possibilty you've been lied to is difficult...I know...it was hard for me.

The FBI was at the WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville sites. They were also at Logan, Dulles and Newark airports. Your problem is you don't understand the collapse was not part of the crime, it was a consequence. It's the same reason the NTSB did not need to reconstruct the planes.

 

[beachnut]

... How much thermite was used...well I don't know a few thousand tons 5-15,000. How long would it last? Again I am not an explosives expert but from what I've read that amount of thermite would last..at least a few weeks. But the more important point is that IF (whenever it was found) there was molten steel, the official story is very difficult to reconcile. I am saying that girl is saying..the steel tips were melting or at least my thought is that is what she is implying. Is it true I don't know..that is what she said. She has no reason to lie.

Steel tips did not melt, the shoes, the material got hot and melted, like plastic soles etc. If the steel tips melted the person would be dead. If anyone was next to the fantasy river of melted steel, they would be burnt.

No one saw melted steel. They said melted steel. You know was said means? Who has a sample tested? Any evidence yet; been nearly 10 years? What will you do to break the big story?

Were 5,000 to 15,000 tons of thermite products found? No. No steel showed signs of thermite being used, and thermite leaves product found on steel when used, and the WTC steel was rusted, not thermite.

Thermite burns with no air needed, it would finish burning in seconds and cool off in minutes, not burn for weeks. Office contents have more heat energy than thermite, which is what continued burning for weeks. Using thermite is a waste, rendering the fires systems inoperative, knocking out windows for air, knocking a large opening for air, lighting fires on multiple floors with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel with 10 times the heat energy of thermite, knocking off lots of insulation on steel, would do the job quicker than rigging a building with the thermite which would get you caught.

Is the 19 terrorists did it, what really took place, too complex? The plot was hard to memorize, they must of put it on 3x5 cards.
1. Take planes.
2. Crash planes into large buildings.
Maybe this is too hard to figure out for 911 truth.

How do you fuse your thermite, in your fantasy?

911 truth is just asking questions. 911 truth should try doing answers and evidence. 911 truth, evidence free for nearly 10 years, and you are in the same boat.

You are not of 911 truth? Then why are you using the same lies, delusions, and false information? Coincidence?

Explain how the person survived the melting steel tip shoes? Did his feet burn off? Did he get burned? When will 911 truth present evidence of melted steel?

How many tons of thermite was used in your fantasy?

 

[dafydd]

How many tons of thermite was used in your fantasy?

I've never seen a truther answer that question.

 

[tsig]

They started hauling not long after the collapse. The common wisdon was that people could still be alive and buried in rubble. The thousands of firemen that you guys say were frantically digging in the rubble certainly thought so.

So in that instance they could possibly have been crushiing survivors and mangling the dead bodies. Criminal and sacrilegious behaviour without a doubt.

It tells you what lengths they were prepared to go to to account for the missing steel.

And the firefighters just stood there and watched while they crushed or mangled their buddies?

 

[tsig]

He lied you know he lied...anyone who see's that video knows he lied. As far as the second part....give me a break, while I won't speak for them I'm pretty sure they were referring to videos of witnesses seeing Molten Steel, you know videos of the witnesses saying they saw it. As for 6.6 seconds..pretty sure that's not a lie. The 13 seconds that is often quoted is from the start of the pent house, not the start of the main collapse. The main collapse took just under 7 seconds. Want proof Gross had a chance to correct him..and didn't but I'm sure he had better things to do.




Yeah..you conveniently don't mention the second part of what I said. But it doesn't matter, you know that's total crap. Removing evidence from a crime scene is in fact a crime, and he goes on TV with it. The FBI should have been there within minutes. Don't say they were busy doing other things that day. I'm sure they could have sent one guy. This guy was never heard from again, nothing...but you believe what you want to believe, opening yourself up to the possibilty you've been lied to is difficult...I know...it was hard for me.

They were busy getting all the 100 tapes of the scene.

Ya know I'm all choked up about your....problem...I feel for ya....but I can't reach..you.

 

[dafydd]

And the firefighters just stood there and watched while they crushed or mangled their buddies?

I thought that we'd stopped taking Bill seriously a while ago.

 

[tmd2_1]

So now do you not only know what Mr. Gross thinks, you know what's on my mind too.

Apparently you aren't able to comprehend your own video, but Mr. Gross was addressing the question of the "pools of molten steel" when someone says "there's videos of it." Since there were no pools of molten steel then obviously there's no videos of it.

Nice attempt at redefining the collapse of WTC 7, but no cigar. The penthouse falling IS the beginning of the collapse.

I said I won't speak for them, I took it as they were saying video of people saying there was molten steel. Besides here is a copy of an e-mail from Mark Loizeaux president of CDI. So if the guy in the video is lying so is Mark Loizeaux.
"I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy."

As for your little Penthouse being the start of the collapse, take a look at this link, it does a good job of explaining it. Again Gross could have but chose not to correct him.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/09/clarifying-collapse-time-of-wtc-7.html

Besides even if (and this isn't the case here) someone like those guys were to lie, while still wrong, it is a world of difference. One guy is officially supposed to get to the bottom of biggest crime in U.S. history. The other is just some guy.

The FBI was at the WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville sites. They were also at Logan, Dulles and Newark airports. Your problem is you don't understand the collapse was not part of the crime, it was a consequence. It's the same reason the NTSB did not need to reconstruct the planes.

How does what you said have any relevance to the point of my posts. You have tsome doofus in the studio with a piece of the plane, and if that isn't hard enough to swallow, there's a picture from an official military photographer placing him somewhere else at the time.

They were busy getting all the 100 tapes of the scene.

Ya know I'm all choked up about your....problem...I feel for ya....but I can't reach..you.

Try addressing that some guy is in the studio of with a piece of flight 77, and if that isn't bad enough a photograph of him places him somewhere else at the time.

 

[tmd2_1]

Steel tips did not melt, the shoes, the material got hot and melted, like plastic soles etc. If the steel tips melted the person would be dead. If anyone was next to the fantasy river of melted steel, they would be burnt.

No one saw melted steel. They said melted steel. You know was said means? Who has a sample tested? Any evidence yet; been nearly 10 years? What will you do to break the big story?

Were 5,000 to 15,000 tons of thermite products found? No. No steel showed signs of thermite being used, and thermite leaves product found on steel when used, and the WTC steel was rusted, not thermite.

Thermite burns with no air needed, it would finish burning in seconds and cool off in minutes, not burn for weeks. Office contents have more heat energy than thermite, which is what continued burning for weeks. Using thermite is a waste, rendering the fires systems inoperative, knocking out windows for air, knocking a large opening for air, lighting fires on multiple floors with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel with 10 times the heat energy of thermite, knocking off lots of insulation on steel, would do the job quicker than rigging a building with the thermite which would get you caught.

Is the 19 terrorists did it, what really took place, too complex? The plot was hard to memorize, they must of put it on 3x5 cards.
1. Take planes.
2. Crash planes into large buildings.
Maybe this is too hard to figure out for 911 truth.

How do you fuse your thermite, in your fantasy?

911 truth is just asking questions. 911 truth should try doing answers and evidence. 911 truth, evidence free for nearly 10 years, and you are in the same boat.

You are not of 911 truth? Then why are you using the same lies, delusions, and false information? Coincidence?

Explain how the person survived the melting steel tip shoes? Did his feet burn off? Did he get burned? When will 911 truth present evidence of melted steel?

How many tons of thermite was used in your fantasy?

Let me start by saying aren't you the guy that thought flight 175 was the one that went down near Pittsburgh? If I were to make a mistake like that...and it was no type-o you did it twice, you guys would still be laughing. I mean and now I read this. Your last question How many tons of thermite was used in your fantasy? I mean you yourself wrote what I wrote, see the highlighted section above. You literally typed the answer to your own question. I truly don't even know where to start with this...I really don't. There's so many things I could say..but I won't I'll try to address your questions.
No steel showed showed signs of thermite?
Watch these two videos by Jon Cole who actually took the time to do experiments. Yes in fact steel beams were found with Sulfur on them, which should not have been there..cole explains much better then I would. If you don't like his results do exactly what he says, prove him wrong by experiment. Should be no problem since all the physics and chemistry is on your side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=channel_video_title
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

As far as pictures go (aside from what cole presented) look at these two videos. They are both of John Gross (lying I might add) with pictures that look pretty close to Molten steel in fact it just might be but it can't be can it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM

I've never seen a truther answer that question.

See above

So you can't let go of the "lie" (in scare quotes because it's nothing of the sort) by Gross yet Richard Gage can tell lie after lie - real ones - throughout his slide show and it doesn't bother you one bit?

BTW, can you link to the all the papers Gage et al have published in engineering and architecture journals? Surely a group of 1,500 engineers and architects for Truth^TM must have quite a large body of work, yes?

I mean, I'm sure Gage didn't just parrot a theologian like David Ray Griffin, did he? He wouldn't do that, would he?

So please, link to some of Gage's work!

I don't know how you want me to answer this. Anything they have done can be found at their site. Whether you think it is of value or not is up to you.
http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

[Sam.I.Am]

...a bunch of bull from tmd2 1

This is making my head hurt... I tried to read this thread but your typing style is that of a kid so I'm going to assume that you're very young and don't have much (if any) experience with the materials that you are basing your claims and assumptions upon.

The issue with using explosive has always been, and will continue to be, the following core issues in no particular order:

Mankind has literally millions of man hours worth of experience with every type of explosives imaginable. Over the course of centuries tens of thousands of lives have been lost to accidents and mishaps directly related to accidental detonation. Just about every accident has involved shock and fire in some way. These conditions were in abundance at the WTC. No person with even some basic experience would ever come up with the cockamamie idea of placing explosives in the middle (or even close to) those types of conditions and expect them to be anything close to stable enough to use as the CTs suggest.

But even if that weren't the case or some idiot decided that it would be a good idea anyway and told his minions to do it against their well founded objections then they would have to deal with doing the deed without it being noticed that they were "Doing something" by both the occupants and building personnel who would most certainly have noticed anything or anyone out of the ordinary or extra work being done.

Then there's the issue of just how massive the protection from shock must be to ensure that at least a majority of the devices wouldn't go off right at the time of the planes impact. Ships that carry explosives keep them inside armored vaults with steel thicknesses measured in inches. This is in addition to keeping them as far from the engineering spaces (heat) as possible and not placing them against the hull itself.

Fire protection is a slightly easier issue however that type of protection is relatively fragile and so it too need about the same level of protection from shock as above.

Those are just some of the major core issues that any "CD" claim must satisfactorily answer first. I haven't even gone into the after effects of the detonation that these imaginary explosives would have to leave that are inherent to any type of explosives no matter the type simply because of how they work.

 

[NoahFence]

Try addressing that some guy is in the studio of with a piece of flight 77, and if that isn't bad enough a photograph of him places him somewhere else at the time.

 

[tmd2_1]

This is making my head hurt... I tried to read this thread but your typing style is that of a kid so I'm going to assume that you're very young and don't have much (if any) experience with the materials that you are basing your claims and assumptions upon.

The issue with using explosive has always been, and will continue to be, the following core issues in no particular order:

Mankind has literally millions of man hours worth of experience with every type of explosives imaginable. Over the course of centuries tens of thousands of lives have been lost to accidents and mishaps directly related to accidental detonation. Just about every accident has involved shock and fire in some way. These conditions were in abundance at the WTC. No person with even some basic experience would ever come up with the cockamamie idea of placing explosives in the middle (or even close to) those types of conditions and expect them to be anything close to stable enough to use as the CTs suggest.

But even if that weren't the case or some idiot decided that it would be a good idea anyway and told his minions to do it against their well founded objections then they would have to deal with doing the deed without it being noticed that they were "Doing something" by both the occupants and building personnel who would most certainly have noticed anything or anyone out of the ordinary or extra work being done.

Then there's the issue of just how massive the protection from shock must be to ensure that at least a majority of the devices wouldn't go off right at the time of the planes impact. Ships that carry explosives keep them inside armored vaults with steel thicknesses measured in inches. This is in addition to keeping them as far from the engineering spaces (heat) as possible and not placing them against the hull itself.

Fire protection is a slightly easier issue however that type of protection is relatively fragile and so it too need about the same level of protection from shock as above.

Those are just some of the major core issues that any "CD" claim must satisfactorily answer first. I haven't even gone into the after effects of the detonation that these imaginary explosives would have to leave that are inherent to any type of explosives no matter the type simply because of how they work.

I'm getting tired of explaining myself. Look through the entire thread, I'll just give some key points here. Look at Jon Cole's videos I have them linked several times. This explains a lot of what your saying. Also do me a favor...since you being so smart and all prove him wrong by experiment, should be no problem for you. Also look at Steven Jones paper again I referenced several times.

As far as noticing weird things going on in the building...how many times do you actually ever stop and look at what maintenance is doing? They also would not be smart enough to do it late at night when no one is there would they? The bad guys wouldn't be that smart.
Ok do tell me what exactly was burning and causing extremely high temperatures for weeks afterwards? Despite millions of gallons of water being dumped on it, along with several rain falls. Because that the normal behavior of fires even those enhanced by jet fuel right?

 

[tmd2_1]

[qimg]http://www.ipokeraffiliate.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/retards.jpg[/qimg]

Brilliant reply cleared that right up.

 

[NoahFence]

Brilliant reply cleared that right up.

Aw hell, you ruined my thread, so I'll ruin your point....

man, where's that Post I saw a while ago......

 

[WildCat]

I don't know how you want me to answer this. Anything they have done can be found at their site. Whether you think it is of value or not is up to you.
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Excuse me? I though you said these guys were professional architects and engineers? Is this how groundbreaking work is done in these fields, by starting a web site???

Where's the papers published in respected journals? It couldn't be that 1,500 highly qualified architects and engineers haven't published anything nearly 10 years after 9/11, could it?

Why do you suppose they dont?

 

[NoahFence]

Ah...

Here it is. Courtesy of El Mondo!

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate View Post
Well, I can only speak to your conspiracy theory so far, since it seems to be in a somewhat flexible state.

Nonetheless, let's see if we can compare the two. I shall deal here only with the hijacking/remote takeover of the planes, since this seems to be the crucial element.

Let's put the two hypotheses side by side and see how they stack up.



The Accused

The hijackers were:

19 people willing to attack their sworn enemy and gain instant access to the most exclusive district of Paradise.

Each of them has been named and identified:



The Mossad conspirators were:

An estimated 40-60 people willing to attack their sworn ally and keep quiet about it for ever. How the 40-60 estimate was arrived at I have no idea, nor whether it includes people who were subverted but not "in the loop".

Few names have been named. Occasionally a Truther will try to make out a case against Larry Silverstein on the basis that he once said "pull".



The Motive

The hijackers' target:

Al Qaeda's sworn enemy.

Mossad's target:

Israel's sworn ally.

Consequences for the hijackers if they're detected before the execution of their plot:

Al Qaeda loses nineteen operatives, causes some terror, is already at war with the US so has nothing to lose on that score, possibly attracts more donations.

Consequences for Mossad if they're detected before the execution of their plot:

Israel loses its best ally, probably all its other Western allies, and most likely its chances of survival.

Consequences for the hijackers if their identity is discovered after the crime:

None whatsoever.

Consequences for Mossad if their identity is discovered after the crime:

See above; only worse, because an actual atrocity is more shocking than a thwarted one.

The hijackers stand to gain:

Al Qaeda's greatest victory ever against the infidel, plus 72 virgins apiece.

Mossad stand to gain:

The support of the US for Israel ... which they already have ... and would lose instantly if they were found out.



Previous Record

Previous Muslim terrorist attacks or attempted attacks on American soil:

The Millenium LAX bomb plot.
The 1993 WTC attack.
The blind sheihk plan to bomb the NYC tunnels.
The plot to blow up a NYC subway in Brooklyn.
The murder of tourists on the top of the Empire State Building.

This list is not necessarily exhaustive, nor of course does it include attacks on Americans abroad, such as the attack on the USS Cole.

Previous Mossad attacks or attempted attacks on American soil:

I got nothing.


The Means

The hijackers needed:

Four trained pilots, which they had.
Knives, which they bought.
Airplane tickets, which they bought.

Mossad needed:

Nonexistent real-time voice morphing software which could imitate the voices of people who Mossad couldn't have predicted would be on the planes with such perfection as to fool their own families.
A nonexistent device which allows them to fly a jumbo jet by remote control.
Some way of smuggling nerve gas onto airplanes without getting on board themselves.
To fake all the actions, not to mention the appearance, of the nineteen "hijackers" for a couple of years, undetected by their family and friends, including one final tour de force where they manage to pretend to board airplanes while in reality "slipping out the side".


The Opportunity

The hijackers needed:

To get on the planes, which they did.

Mossad needed:

Sheesh, where do you start? Just how many people do they need to subvert to have any opportunity?



The Evidence

The evidence for the hijackers taking over the planes by force includes:

Their martyrdom tapes.
Further claims of responsibility by Al Qaeda top brass.
Their acquisition of piloting skills (with no subsequent attempts to become commerical pilots).
Their purchase of the requisite weapons, plane tickets, etc.
Evidence and witnesses showing that they checked in and boarded.
DNA evidence matching bodies from ground zero to vehicles and hotel rooms used by the hijackers.
The fact that five (or in one case four) of this group now known to be associated with one another and with al Qaeda were on each of the hijacked planes.
Cockpit recordings of men speaking in Arabic.
Eyewitness accounts from the planes.

The evidence for Mossad taking over the planes by remote control includes:

Zilch.

The evidence against the hijackers taking over the planes by force includes:

Nada

The evidence against Mossad taking over the planes by remote control includes:

It's technically impossible.
There's no evidence for it.
All the evidence that proves that the planes were actually hijacked, including tricky stuff like eyewitness acounts and DNA evidence and al Qaeda claiming responsibility.


The Plea

Al Qaeda:

Proudly claim responsibility.

Mossad:

Say that al Qaeda did it.



The Verdict

Well, 9/11-researcher?

Against whom is there the stronger case?

As has been pointed out to you, you are accusing people of mass murder, this is not a game.

Substitute "mossad" for anybody other than the terrorists. Same thing. You can REALLY say that's more likely than 19 dolts from psycho-land?

 

[tmd2_1]

Aw hell, you ruined my thread, so I'll ruin your point....

man, where's that Post I saw a while ago......

If by ruining your thread, you mean providing a plausible theory with evidence (something you asked for) to back it up, and answering any and all challenges, then yes I ruined your thread. As far as ruining my point...seems like no one has yet.

 

[tmd2_1]

Ah...

Here it is. Courtesy of El Mondo!


Substitute "mossad" for anybody other than the terrorists. Same thing. You can REALLY say that's more likely than 19 dolts from psycho-land?

What on God's earth are you talking about???


You know what let me reply to that. I can easily make something that sounds just as good.
Let me try.
Do you honestly believe that a cave man...living thousands of miles away, was able to plan and execute the greatest crime in the history of the US?
I mean 19 men beat aircraft security, 4 different times. They successfully took over the planes 4 different times, armed with box cutters. I mean box cutters of all things, they mine as well not have been armed at all. All 4 planes were able to somehow slip past the greatest military in the world, with the most sophisticated equipment in the world. That 3 out of the 4 planes successfully hit there targets, and if it wasn't for the courage of the passengers of one plane it would have hit their fourth. That cell phone calls were made several times when they were all but impossible. That extremely novice pilots showed impressive flight skills especially the pilot at the pentagon, who reportedly had trouble flying a Cessna. That our military just happened to find a tape lying around in Afghanistan of Bi Laden confessing. Even with the tapes dubious authenticity, some of the translation is very much in question. That the FBI didn't have Bin Laden as wanted for 9/11 and when asked why simply stated we have no hard evidence against him. Then after almost 10 years of trying to catch this guy when we finally do, absolutely no proof is shown. We wanted to "honor" muslim traditions by burying him within 24 hours, and didn't want to "spike the football" as Obama put it.

Now does that sound at all reasonable to you? There's many more things I could...but you get my point, but hey that was fun thanks for giving me the idea.