Report: Documents Disclose 9/11 Warnings

[squiggly]

http://news.yahoo.com/report-documents-disclose-9-11-warnings-081156564--politics.html

I was totally floored when I read this. Holy shitballs.

Documents show the U.S. was given more warnings about potentialterrorist attacks in the weeks leading up to 9/11, writes Vanity Faircontributing editor Kurt Eichenwald in a New York Times op-ed.
The documents predate the presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, which said, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
“The administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed,” he wrote. “In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.”
The direct warnings to Bush, he writes, date back to the spring of 2001. On May 1, the CIA told the White House that there was “a group presently in the United States” that was planning an attack. On June 22, a daily briefing described the attack as "imminent." Administration officials, however, dismissed the warnings, saying that Osama bin Laden was merely feigning an attack to distract the U.S. from efforts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
“Intelligence officials, these sources said, protested that the idea of Bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist, conspiring with Mr. Hussein, an Iraqi secularist, was ridiculous, but the neoconservatives’ suspicions were nevertheless carrying the day,” Eichenwald wrote. “In response, the CIA prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.”
Briefings on June 29, July 1, and July 24 carried similar warnings. On July 9, Eichenwald writes, one official suggested staff members of the CIA Counterterrorism Center “put in for a transfer so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place.”
“[The Bush administration] got this information and they weren't looking at it in the context of here's this huge threat that's developed,” Eichenwald said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “Look at what the Pentagon said, ‘What's the nation state that's backing them? Oh, we think it's Iraq.’ And so, it was a frame of mind that was not unreasonable for them to have because they hadn't been getting the intelligence until very recently about the evolution and change of al-Qaida.”
Eichenwald, however, was criticized by former New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, for writing the piece.
“I think this is incredibly unfortunate,” he said on Morning Joe, adding that, "I think is incredibly unfair and a disservice to history.”
Eichenwald wrote a book, “500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars,” describing the intelligence briefings and actions taken by the Bush administration before and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

 

[NaturalTherapy]

Never miss an opportunity to benefit from a good tragedy... Invaluable socio/political tool...

This is old news homie, people have been saying it for 10 years, although it was always dismissed as conspiracy theory...-that cspan video clip of Powell (or Rice?) telling about the documents regarding all the various country's secret service groups calling us to warn us... Or the day before the towers went down and the announcement of 2.3 trillion going missing- that was pretty much never mentioned again in the mainstream after the incident...
pretty soon the Bin Laden = CIA asset info may come into the mainstream too...maybe even the fact that most of hijackers were Saudi, what wasn't reported earlier probably because of tight knit relations between Bush and the Saudi Royals. I hope this encourages you to look deeper into it. Things are not what they seem....harsh truths that most Americans have denied because its too ugly, but it eventually comes out, it always does?

 

[squiggly]

Never miss an opportunity to benefit from a good tragedy... Invaluable socio/political tool...

This is old news homie, people have been saying it for 10 years, although it was always dismissed as conspiracy theory...-that cspan video clip of Powell (or Rice?) telling about the documents regarding all the various country's secret service groups calling us to warn us... Or the day before the towers went down and the announcement of 2.3 trillion going missing- that was pretty much never mentioned again in the mainstream after the incident...
pretty soon the Bin Laden = CIA asset info may come into the mainstream too...maybe even the fact that most of hijackers were Saudi, what wasn't reported earlier probably because of tight knit relations between Bush and the Saudi Royals. I hope this encourages you to look deeper into it. Things are not what they seem....harsh truths that most Americans have denied because its too ugly, but it eventually comes out, it always does?

I never bit on any of the conspiracy theory shit, because most of the suggestions of that nature say he actually planned it, or that it never happened and the buildings were destroyed by detonation.

That just sounds like hogwash to me--but there seems to be something to this in the way of evidence. I'm not jumping to any conclusions until that info is vetted by others and I can wrap my own head around it--but man dude.

This is really disappointing for me, because this was one of the few things I stood up for Bush on (as I think many of us did on both sides of the aisle).

 

[NaturalTherapy]

Frankly I'm surprised this even hit the major news, I wonder where it'll go. Bush family must be trying to seize a little too much power from someone else important, so that person or family uses the media as the equivalent of a bitch slap to check a ho... Saw it recently with Burlusconi, but he backed down and the charges were dropped and pushed out of the media again. Sarkozy may be next, if he gives up the title it'll end there, if he stays aggressive to stay in the seat, you may see it get much worse for him.

Back on topic...If one takes a sober assessment of the official report, and then takes into account the number of experts who say if the report is accurate it represents anomalies of physics and chemistry not observed before or since... then add in the all the official testimonies from those who experienced it, it becomes clear that the official assessment is plainly false, not in entirety of course, but in the major details that would lead to further investigations and some very unpleasant truths being exposed...

The way I understand it, war is just another industry, made up of publicly traded companies...what would happen to this country's economy if we stopped the war machine? We don't even talk about ending wars anymore

Most people never even read the official report, much less questioned it. Funny huh. "Life goes on if a genocide isn't yours."

 

[ttystikk]

War is just another industry and the Bush administration did everything it could, both before and after 9/11, to ensure that the powerful interests running the defense industry made as much money as possible, while playing to the media and scaremongering for public consumption. Classic distract and grab tactics.

 

[squiggly]

.If one takes a sober assessment of the official report, and then takes into account the number of experts who say if the report is accurate it represents anomalies of physics and chemistry not observed before or since... ."

Whoops, now we went there.

I said I took most of the conspiracy stuff which leans towards saying planes didn't hit buildings as hogwash. The reason I said that isn't because I flatly believe it.

It's because I've thoroughly read into it, with understanding (because physics and chemistry is my shit).

I'll make this as short as I can (in regard to the part of your comment I quoted):

The reason you see these "anomalies" which are poorly named, in my opinion, is because the system in question (giant buildings being struck by 2 huge fuckin' planes full of shit and fuel) is:

1. Not a system we can create to study (before or since).
2. Not a system of few variables (i.e. there are a dizzying number of variables).
3. Not a system which lends itself well to scalability.
4. Not a system we can posthumously measure either initial, final, or intermediate states (structurally--both plane and building, position of passengers, cargo, materials in the building).

Let me try to explain to you what the math equation on something like this would look like.

It would be a gazillion pages long.

It would be longer than Einsteins Theory of Relativity (and arguably more difficult to figure out in its entirety).

That point, while true, is rendered moot by the fact that even if we DID want to write out all of the pages, we don't have any of the data that we need. The complexity is grossssssssssss from a scientific perspective. Thinking of how to solve this equation conjures up images of that youtube video that zooms out from earth to the entire universe.

Just mind-blowingly complex in comparison with calculations that are made in engineering. Most of what engineering is about is ELIMINATING variables, and there is no option for that here.

From a chemistry perspective:

This is actually must more simple to demonstrate, perhaps because I'm more familiar with chemistry.

First I'll write a reaction for the formation of water from H2 gas and O2 gas.

H2(g) + [1/2]O2(g) ------catalyst (Pd)------> H20(g)

Okay now I'll write the reaction for the WTC.

[Fuckshitasston number] both buildings (g,s,l) + 2 plane(g,s,l) --Retardedly Hot Fire--> Who the fuck knows

Once you get the results from that equation, the complexity introduced by it falls back in on the implications of the physics argument.

FINALLY:

Once you're done with the experiments (that you can't do, with the stuff you can't build, and the data you don't have). You then have to do error analysis. This is CRUCIAL in science. It essentially is science. I won't get into that, but just suffice it to say. Science = Error analysis.

With error analysis comes something called propagation of errors. I'll post a sample of that with several variables to give you an idea of the headache.



andom errors in the measurement of x, y, or z also lead to error in the determination of u. However, since random errors can be both positive and negative, one should examine (du)2 rather than du.

​

If the measured variables are independent (non-correlated), then the cross-terms average to zero

​

as dx, dy, and dz each take on both positive and negative values.
Thus,

​

Equating standard deviation with differential, i.e.,

​

results in the famous error propagation formula

​

This expression will be used in the Uncertainty Analysis section of every Physical Chemistry laboratory report!
Example: There is 0.1 cm uncertainty in the ruler used to measure r and h.

If you do this for say, 10 variables. IT SUCCCCCCCCCCCKS.

Can't imagine the complexity of doing it for the crash.

In a sentence, TLDR:

You are giving scientists waaaaaaaaaaay too much credit.

 

[sanvanalona]

I think that in any event like this there will always be differing reports and the "truth" will likely never come to full light, shit I doubt most people would really want to know the "truth" if given the chance. That said, I watched the replay of the "today show" from 9/11 yesterday and it was interesting to see all the people trying to come up with an answer of what has happened. There was a reporter who must not of seen the second plane hit because immediately he claims that it was an explosion even though you can see the plane in the camera angle. I am not sure about all the conspiracies, as far as to what exactly happened, but I can leave it at this: 9/11 was in no way as simple as Osama Bin Laden hated the U.S. and its way of life and encouraged some radicals to join him and kill themselves in this strike. I would believe almost anything else other than this.

 

[kolah]

OBL was good buddies with the Bushes.
The Squiggs article: Old fucking news.

911: the biggest farce in all of fucking history. And the sheeple bought it.

 

[NaturalTherapy]

Sorry homie, don't know what this means: "In a sentence, TLDR:"
google says "too long didn't read"... now you're not giving me enough credit haha)

I still don't feel like I'm giving anyone too much credit....I mentioned the claims of scientists and chemists, and you talk about variables.. My mind operates by examining anomalies, not reasoning them out of investigating. Perhaps a more appropriate response might be to tell me how the myriad variables render those scientists claims invalid- that I'd love to learn about. Also worth considering is the collection of engineers and architects clamoring to reopen the investigation... Plus, how do these numerous variables invalidate the eye witness testimonies of major explosions occurring before and after the planes ever even struck the buildings?
I can dig it, lots of variables- absolutely true... but as soon as you start replacing those variables with specific parameters which can be theorized upon based on the unusual behavior of the process of destruction, then highly accurate computer models can be worked that closely resemble what happened that day.
Anomaly: something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected
Most things about the event were anomalous so I don't understand your problem with that word. These anomalies can be explained with certain factors, (thermite plasma, additional explosives, corrupted structural supports) that fly in the face of the official report-- which begs the real question: Qui Bono? It's in the examination of the anomalies that that answer can be worked toward.


It's a bummer Squiggly, I generally perceive (infer?) a tone of smug annoyance when I read your posts... So I'll just say it in case you've perceived me adversarially- I truly appreciate how differently your mind works from mine! And I revel in witnessing an unusual processing, but I was always led to understand that certainty is a pitfall of limited perception, so I am not interested in understanding your absolutism- and I think that is why our reasoning seem so converse at times, probably why I perceive a tone of smugness in your communications and you (seem to) perceive ignorance in mine. I hope you take notice that I've not once told you that you are wrong (a position you adopt toward us quite often). Anyway, I appreciate these interactions, and I only hope to challenge your tools of processing and interacting... I wish you well bro!

 

[squiggly]

OBL was good buddies with the Bushes.
The Squiggs article: Old fucking news.

911: the biggest farce in all of fucking history. And the sheeple bought it.

I can has proof?


I think it is MUCH MORE REALISTIC to assume that G.B. heard about it, and did nothing--than it is to assume that he was behind the shit.

It could be argued, depending on his intention (as NT suggested, a tragedy could benefit him), that this was either very SHITTY of Bush or very STUPID of him. It's one or the other at this point (assuming the evidence discussed in this article is legit).

I tend not, when making decisions about things like this, to go with information which is either:

1. Made up
2. Guessed
3. Conjectured
4. Lacking evidentiary basis

I also watch VERY CLOSELY information that comes from, shall we say, extremely optimistic analysis.

Most if not all of the conspiracy theories about this stuff to date require some severe stretches in logic to agree with.

What you're saying about OBLs family and the Bushes is totally moot. You're essentially trying to say that the Bushes are guilty by association--despite the fact that OBL's family has disowned him by-and-large.

Trying to prove guilt in this way inexorably leads to a logical fallacy--EVERY TIME.

In other words, you'll have to do better than that.

Let me put it another way.

You believe what you said, but can you prove it?

Generally speaking--saying that you "believe" something in such a way that offers no proof--is just a special way of saying you can't prove it. (I.e. a Christian say: "I believe in God.")

I'll take that analogy a step further.

Christians will often bring their BELIEFS into logical discussion, as thought they are pre-postulated facts. This causes a lot of problems in logical discussion--and generally will lead to an impasse (unless both debaters are Christian).

My point is that faith is for religions and other similar things--evidence is for discussions.

Over time I've gone from thinking you're a dingbat, Kolah, to thinking you're a guy who's got way too much time on his hands and is a biased-researcher. Researcher-bias is not only common, its ubiquitous--and you are no more impervious to it than anyone else. In fact, I'm suggesting you're probably a bit less.

That isn't meant as an insult, by the way. I'm sure there are MANY things that I look into that I'm being biased about researching--sometimes knowing what I'm doing isn't exhaustive research, and sometimes not being aware of it.

Much like the plane and buildings argument I made above--when it comes to the people-centered cause/effect relationships that LED to the tragedy, you do not have all the data--and you couldn't fit it in your head and parse it with all-at-once-ness even if you did. When it comes to advanced human interactions, this is impossible--because we haven't boiled down the human mind to an equation just yet.

Thus, without BEING the people involved, it is impossible to know exactly why this or that happened. Beyond that, most of what is discussed in the conspiracy theories is complete hearsay.

These days, kolah, I like you. Because you're fair-tempered, helpful in other ways, and you treat everyone just about equally--very awesome qualities to have, and I'm sure there are many more I don't know about.

However, as always--I think your theories sound like the blatherings of a crazy person, especially when you make such WILD claims without providing a shred of evidence (most of the time)--or provide evidence which is incomplete, and extremely one sided, being comprised of at least 50% hearsay.

I will admit your research in the past has been thoroughly exhaustive, but the problem is where you started your search.

You wanted to find the connections, you wanted to make it all FIT. That's called researcher bias, bro-ham.

When you do an experiment and you parse the results in a way that assumes too much, and proves to little, 99.9999% of the time you will end up with a favorable result. Happens all the time, and thats why we have peer-review in academia--and why your position and process must be repeatable (I.E. we--the sheeple--need to understand your thought process and evidence to believe what you're saying).

Beyond that--its all too picture perfect to have from the mouth of someone who wasn't involved in it even slightly. It should be speculative, it could be interesting, it might even be somewhat damning. What it won't be is the ANSWER, not without a CONFESSION. Not when we're talking PEOPLE.

It sounds more realistic (like the world I live and breathe in) that a guy either knew it was gonna happen, and let it (for political gain). Not a lot of dots to connect there.

The guy was stupid and didn't take the threat seriously enough. Just one dot on this one.

Generally the simplest answer is the best one.

The ONLY ONLY ONLY time where anyone normal (sheeple, as you say) will take you seriously when you have a very complex answer for something is when you can prove it.

9/11 moves make great money in theaters, and they might even be slightly entertaining--but ultimately they don't represent a true analysis of reality, which is far too complex to boil down into a 2 hour move, or a post on a forum.

Either way, its your BELIEF to have--I'd just appreciate it if you didn't hate on people for not BELIEVING as you do.

That's exactly what Christians do, and for exactly the same reason. Researcher bias.

 

[squiggly]

Sorry homie, don't know what this means: "In a sentence, TLDR:"
google says "too long didn't read"... now you're not giving me enough credit haha)

I still don't feel like I'm giving anyone too much credit....I mentioned the claims of scientists and chemists, and you talk about variables.. My mind operates by examining anomalies, not reasoning them out of investigating. Perhaps a more appropriate response might be to tell me how the myriad variables render those scientists claims invalid- that I'd love to learn about. Also worth considering is the collection of engineers and architects clamoring to reopen the investigation... Plus, how do these numerous variables invalidate the eye witness testimonies of major explosions occurring before and after the planes ever even struck the buildings?
I can dig it, lots of variables- absolutely true... but as soon as you start replacing those variables with specific parameters which can be theorized upon based on the unusual behavior of the process of destruction, then highly accurate computer models can be worked that closely resemble what happened that day.
Anomaly: something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected
Most things about the event were anomalous so I don't understand your problem with that word. These anomalies can be explained with certain factors, (thermite plasma, additional explosives, corrupted structural supports) that fly in the face of the official report-- which begs the real question: Qui Bono? It's in the examination of the anomalies that that answer can be worked toward.


It's a bummer Squiggly, I generally perceive (infer?) a tone of smug annoyance when I read your posts... So I'll just say it in case you've perceived me adversarially- I truly appreciate how differently your mind works from mine! And I revel in witnessing an unusual processing, but I was always led to understand that certainty is a pitfall of limited perception, so I am not interested in understanding your absolutism- and I think that is why our reasoning seem so converse at times, probably why I perceive a tone of smugness in your communications and you (seem to) perceive ignorance in mine. I hope you take notice that I've not once told you that you are wrong (a position you adopt toward us quite often). Anyway, I appreciate these interactions, and I only hope to challenge your tools of processing and interacting... I wish you well bro!

I'll comment further if you want, but its going to get mathy.

I've READ (again, with understanding) the full report by MIT engineers, and also reports by several other teams detailing a few of the supposed conspiracies of 9/11 as it relates to physics and chemistry.

What they're seeing is weird because they haven't seen it before, not because it didn't happen how it seemed to happen. We DON'T KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT from this analysis, and that is why the word anomaly makes no sense--I'm fully aware of its meaning.


Anomaly: something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected .


I'll make it simple for you--if we know crash dynamics so well, why the hell do you think we have crash dummies and auto tests. We know every variable in the car (We even have it computerized in a document), we know every variable in the wall.

Why not just compute?

Because sometimes reality deviates from the perfect mathematical system in which our analysis is based.

Math = Perfect
World = Not

Example.

You have two apples, you give me one--how many apples do you have?

Math: 1 apple
World : 1.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000197 apples, some of apple 2 rubbed off on your hand.

As systems get bigger and more complex this becomes increasingly more significant.

Not to mention that we arent even SURE if the standard model of physics is RIGHT (we don't even know how gravity works, or what carries the force).

Again:

Too much credit.

 

[ttystikk]

"[Fuckshitasston number] both buildings (g,s,l) + 2 plane(g,s,l) --Retardedly Hot Fire--> Who the fuck knows" -Squiggly

Hell yeah! I wanna take a chemistry class with YOU sometime, bro!

I've been asked why, if two planes hit the towers, weren't there any airplane parts found at the site? This answer is dead-nuts simple, and yet no one has ever mentioned it in the media so far as I've seen; those planes were made of aluminum, and ALUMINUM BURNS. Very nicely, in fact, to the point where powdered aluminum is a common component of rocket fuel!

So much for that piece of 'evidence' for a conspiracy theory...

 

[NaturalTherapy]

Wow. Excellent diversion... Are we to completely disregard that the architect of the WTC designed the building to withstand just such a blow, you think he didn't know what to expect?

Actually we do have some idea of what to expect since these are not the only buildings in history to be hit by a plane, but they are the only buildings so far recorded that have collapsed as a result of it.

We have evidence of controlled demolition, and we know what to expect as a result of it.
We have evidence of the use of thermite plasma, and we know what to expect as a result of using it.

Now, otherwise hard to explain (because of all the variable you delineated) phenomena witnessed there do have precedent, but are only unexplainable in the context of official findings.

Add in thermite plasma and the pools of molten metal lingering for weeks have precedent, and it's more likely than any other explanation.
Add in controlled demolition to the numerous explosions and the free fall nature of the buildings' collapse, and it's more likely than any other explanation.

To deny these would be to overlook the main arguments against the official story...whatever reason you have I can't pretend to understand

And then there's the building that collapsed for no apparent reason
TV said "probably from the concussion of the planes hitting, or maybe the heat of the fire weakened that building and it collapsed, too much structural damage incurred when the other buildings collapsed"... bullshit... remember the BBC report about the collapse of building 7, given moments before it actually collapsed, while the reporter stood in front of a studio window that showed that very building still standing in the background.


Now move your attention to disputing every other claim made here while avoiding the redundant arguments you've already made.

Plenty of literature out there documenting this stuff... Bush crimes go back to funding the Nazi war machine, before George Sr ever even sat in his CIA post

 

[NaturalTherapy]

"[Fuckshitasston number] both buildings (g,s,l) + 2 plane(g,s,l) --Retardedly Hot Fire--> Who the fuck knows" -Squiggly

Hell yeah! I wanna take a chemistry class with YOU sometime, bro!

I've been asked why, if two planes hit the towers, weren't there any airplane parts found at the site? This answer is dead-nuts simple, and yet no one has ever mentioned it in the media so far as I've seen; those planes were made of aluminum, and ALUMINUM BURNS. Very nicely, in fact, to the point where powdered aluminum is a common component of rocket fuel!

So much for that piece of 'evidence' for a conspiracy theory...

What are the engines made of? were those recovered?

The the PA crash too... so many lies no clear answers

 

[ttystikk]

What are the engines made of? were those recovered?

The the PA crash too... so many lies no clear answers

There were no magic materials in the engines that could withstand both A. a crash at 575mph, AND B. weeks in the pile at temperatures hot enough to melt carbon steel. If we ever discover such materials the engineers will be all over 'em, because they'd make awesome jet engine parts!

There was nothing out of the ordinary (from a properties of materials standpoint, at least) about the crash site in Shanksville, PA. Everything found- including engine parts- was completely consistent with what would be expected where a modern airliner augured into the ground at high speed.

The idea the planes didn't exist is ridiculous. The conspiracy lies elsewhere. And, as my favorite fictional slueth Sherlock Holmes often pointed out, eliminating what could not be the cause is often essential to finding what did.

 

[sanvanalona]

Obviously we are all talking about something no one can prove. It is not too hard to think that there was some sinister plan going on with G.W., the resulting war in Iraq and the constant lying out of his administration all give good reasons for this. Moore made good connections between the families Bush and Laden in Fahrenheit 911 and there is a lot more connecting those dots than what is presented there: the Afghanistan-Russian war where we directly funded Bin Laden, the fact that the Laden family were the only people outside the highest office of government to be flying on 911, the instant blame on Bin Laden, the policies that came directly resulting from this (remember "imagine" by Lennon was banned from airplay for over a year), the whole situation is more than fishy and deserving of a proper investigation. Is there an actual good argument that Bush knew nothing and this came as a surprise? I have never read one in my life.

 

[kolah]

Squiggs, You post an article in regards about information that many of us have known for over 10 years. I think its safe to say you are a lagging behind just a wee bit. enuf sed' :)

...not the dreaded 911 discussion again???? oh no...lol

I'm fuckin otta here. Toodles.

 

[NaturalTherapy]

The idea the planes didn't exist is ridiculous.

Yeah that one seemed a bit hard to fathom in light of all the video documentation.

Obviously, since I wasn't there, I've only seen the pictures of the supposed crash sites in PA, which were the most widely spread, looked more like meteor damage then plane crash, in comparison to some other photos of plane crash sites.

That is another strange bit of reality, that government efforts to keep this info secret adds all the more to the theories that effectively separate people in a time when solidarity is needed.

 

[ttystikk]

To lay to rest the argument that architects 'knew what to expect' when designing the WTC complex and somehow failed- intentionally or otherwise- to account for the possibility of intentional attack by jumbo jets; I call bullshit. The only existing major example of a large aircraft hitting a skyscraper was just after WWII, when a B-25 Mitchell crew got lost in the fog and flew into the Empire State Bldg. This is a poor comparison, because the internal structure of the Empire State is completely different than the WTC for sound engineering reasons, AND because a B-25 is a flea on the ass of a Boeing 767; size, fuel load and (less relevantly, speed) were all drastically different.

And yes, the engineers of the WTC were completely confident in the ability of the WTC buildings to withstand the crash of another B-25 sized plane. By the way, some of that testing- the wind stress and effects portion- was carried out at my alma mater, Colorado State. That's the kind of thing the engineers were actually and rightfully concerned with.

Another point; if the WTC WERE to be built to withstand such an attack- and I would doubt the word of anyone who could claim with confidence that it's even possible with current technology- the project would have become prohibitively expensive, like 10 times the already outrageous cost of construction.

The attacks HAVE had a significant impact on post 9/11 construction in America, however; other than the Freedom Tower, we're not building many skyscrapers anymore.

 

[ttystikk]

Yeah that one seemed a bit hard to fathom in light of all the video documentation.

Obviously, since I wasn't there, I've only seen the pictures of the supposed crash sites in PA, which were the most widely spread, looked more like meteor damage then plane crash, in comparison to some other photos of plane crash sites.

That is another strange bit of reality, that government efforts to keep this info secret adds all the more to the theories that effectively separate people in a time when solidarity is needed.

You throw a big airliner into the ground at over 500mph at a steep angle and the results will look very much like a meteor strike. No surprises here, either.