Some believe, others don't, I fall in the believers side. Why? Maybe because I don't see how such a thing can be lied about at a time when everyone was watching everyone and I just don't see why anyone would lie about such a thing while the rest of the world simply sits there and accepts it. Besides, The Mythbusters disproved all the myths about how the videos were not real.

The good thing about theories is that it gets people thinking, looking and learning at the same time and I believe this to be the best way for people to stay at least a bit in reality as oppose to simply sitting there and "drinking the kool-aid"

I'm no construction expert but I just find it hard to believe that somehow our own Govt was able to rid these 2 buildings in a way that would allow them to be brought down after 2 planes crashed into them and all of this without anyone knowing except those who knew and kept it quiet. If such a thing is even possible I would be even more horrified of the people who work in our Gov't and would almost find myself having a better understanding as to why terrorist want to destroy us.

I can not accept that our own Gov't would be this crazy, I just can't. I don't care how crazy some poeple out there might be, I simply refuse to believe that the citizens are this nation would be capable of voting in that many crazy people in order to have enough of them to pull off such an action. Even if some of them hired people, I just can fathom how we could have that many crazy people running this country. Either way I could not possibly do enough research to be able to reach a well educated conclusion on whether this was the case or not as it would require me to become somewhat of an expert of explosives, construction design, architecture, construction materials strength, durability and composition and also airplane engineer because there is no way i could possible understand everything that would have been involved that could allow me to determine if this catastrophe was man made. But that's just me of course.

Here I probably could agree that our reasons for entering WWII were probably a lot more than nobility and to"avenge" the attack on Pearl Harbor and what ever other reason history cites. Things most of us would probably never consider or probably think possible but were willing to look the other way and pretend to be ignorant of it.

Definitely more than meets the eye. Even I can agree to this.

I call Horse hockey!

So you have never seen a building come down like the 2 trade centers did without the intervention of man.  Given you have already acknowledged the intervention of man (and hence an intelligence behind the plan to crash the planes), please cite examples of where buildings did not come straight down due to natural forces that did not involve shaking, wind, water or any other lateral force that would account for the buildings movement in a non-vertical manner.

In other words, you are quick to say "never" yet have given no examples of your "ever".  In my years, I cannot recall a single "ever" to corroborate your story.

Wind blows, fire burns, water wets and earth is dusty.

If one thinks about it, how many times have we seen planes crashed into tall building and then watch them collapse to compare?

Boots, I would guess THAT YOU will not be having much to say here because I WILL NOT accept your presumptions of my acknowledgments … because I mad absolutely NONE! Seemingly you take exception to this THEORY (9/11) and that is just fine, but save your sarcasm for someone who gives a shit. You are seemingly concerned with this nonsense enough to demand I show you examples of things I laid no claim for in the beginning. Since this is just a theory to me (and not one of my making), I would suspect the responsibility falls on your shoulders to back up your assumptions … and not on mine.

Charles, I have no idea (provable) at all why these buildings did what they did, but that doesn't preclude me from searching for things that I can sink my teeth into. There is no doubt that the design of the buildings was faulty from the perspective of making the buildings ‘collapsible proof’. These buildings were primarily designed to maximum usable floor space … at the expense of structural safety should the worst case scenario happen. I suspect that this was the reason why BOTH buildings behaved in the same manor. So from this perspective alone … MAN was involved in the collapses … be it intentional or not. It is NOT the fact that the impetus was initiated by the plane crashes … the theories are concerned with what happened next in the course of events.

Although if one were to place stock in this specific theory, they would have to go into the things that allowed the plains the chance to do their dirty deeds in the first place … one, maybe … four is unacceptable to me and begs for an explanation. All we have gotten so far are excuses and that also begs for clarification … and we all know the government is very accustomed speaking with forked-tongues.

I NEED to think along these same lines too (for sanities sake)... but, I do not think the times or the conditions have any bearing at all. If there were monsters capable of promoting so much tragedy (this would have to be assumed true to proceed), then what concern would they have on the troubles we are already facing? 

That's a strange way to look at it. I don't think anyone could design a building that could withstand a crashing airplane and keep it from falling. I seriously doubt those designing the Twin Towers were even thinking about such an idea. This seems more like trying to find blame in places that seem vaguely possible in an attempt to place blame on someone just because you are looking for anything to blame them for, in this case the Gov't. This is a long stretch as far as I'm concerned. This is waaaay beyond my understanding of structural design and the destructive capabilities of a jet fuel fueled fire.

I don't think we go around burning buildings to see if they fall or not. At least not like this one.

I think you do him a disservice.  IN the paragraph on 9-11 in your initial post, you state:

Ok, if the planes did not hit the towers (the initial interaction by man) what is it that there is no doubt about?

I will allow Boots to answer the rest of the charges, but could not let that one go.

Boots:

I apologize for my haste remarks. You caught me in the middle of something that has been frustrating me for some time now ... and you jumped in with this TRUTH nonsense, my oh my. I still advise you to use that term sparingly on JU. Just look at this nonsense from the good Dr. I need to involve myself in (principles and all). I am waiting for some of your posts...

Dr.:

The statement I made and you quoted stated "There is no doubt what happened initially to the twin towers (is there)." Now I am not one to argue (hehehe) but the only way for you to get from this statement to yours ... "Ok, if the planes did not hit the towers (the initial interaction by man) what is it that there is no doubt about?" ... was if you did not want see that little ? at the end of the sentence. I cannot answer you further because I do not understand what you are asking here? Maybe some clarification would help me, too.

Charles:

“This seems more like trying to find blame in places that seem vaguely possible in an attempt to place blame on someone just because you are looking for anything to blame them for, in this case the Gov't.”   I do not know why you are so want to do this nonsense. The only thing I am (WAS) looking for was some juicy conversation … but to you, I am just some troublemaker looking to seek out and create havoc, how sad is that. I do not know if they have a fantasy section I can post to, but it wouldn’t work anyway, right. If you want to throw out things like “The Big Bang Theory” or “Theoretical building design”, you should do some research FIRST, before you start this kind of ploy and open your big pen.

First, this is all theoretical as I have tried to make plain. I did say I do not believe much of it past the fact that two planes crashed into two buildings, but thats about it. I am guessing you are not an architect or engineer, but I ASSURE you, the design of the buildings did promote their collapse. I do not believe the Empire State Building would have crashed from a similar plane crash … because of the design (among other things).

It is well that you have opinions, but the designers knew exactly what they were doing and why, the problem is that this just wasn’t supposed to happen. I’m not saying they made it less secure with malicious intent … but they knew it could have been built much more secure from this extreme possibility anyway … but as usual in these kinds of things, that means a lot more $$$ and time at the cost of usable floor space. Guess which side won?

Now, a question for the thinker: “Can you tell me for a TRUE REAL FACT, that our government had nothing to do with 9/11?" Only because you are pretending it is important to you here, mind you.

1. is there no doubt (in your mind) about any facts of 9-11?

1a. If yes to #1, what is the fact there is no doubt about?

2. If there is doubt about the planes hitting the buildings, ignore the rest of the questions

3. If there is no doubt about the planes hitting the towers, that is a calculated interaction by man.  Thus further examples of buildings with man's interaction (that there is no doubt about, not speculation) would be needed to jump to the conclusion that additional interactions by man would be needed to cause the buildings to behave the way they did.

Simply put - many of the "truthers" maintain that the buildings could not have reacted the way they did because nothing reacts that way.  Yet give no examples of past instances where their theory was born out.  The reason for the latter is simple - there are no previous examples.

Doc:

The only thing I said I believe without question is the fact that the planes flew into the buildings ... after that I only made speculations. So if I seem to be missing the logic here? Doc; this is under Conspiracy Theories (NOT MY THEORY), not true crime, let up ok. I am not going to give you my personal thoughts because you will just ask me for proof ... which you know I do not have ... else we wouldn't be discussing this THEORY. You know I cannot let you take me here because then it would BE MY THEORY, sorry. If you are speculating with me that's just fine, but if you are just being cranky again ... I am as concerned with the truthers as much as the bible ... I make my own speculations, than you very much.

There are some things in this thread that are very interesting and a couple I would like to join in on.  First of all, the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 in the forties.  There was a fire but the building survived just fine.  Airplane strikes were part of the design parameters for the twin towers, the Sears Tower, and almost every other super-tall building in the world.  But at the time that the WTC was designed, the most common airliner was the 707...we've come a long way, baby.  But yeah, WTC was designed to withstand a 707 strike.   There have been any number of TV presentations about all the 911 conspiracy theories and for the most part, the explanations seem logical, at least to my simple brain.  WTC 7 seems the most troubling of the group but stuff happens and it could just be that all that stuff happened the way it was presented.  But there is one simple problem that stifles all the conspiracy rants, for me, and that is simply this...if the government was responsible, who did it?  There isn't a single agency in the federal structure that isn't as leaky as Beanie's Leakin' Lena...how many people would have to be involved?  How do you keep them all quiet for almost ten years?  Nope, couldn't do it. 

As for WWII, Japan wanted more resources, oil being only one of many they needed, Hitler was a nutcase who wanted to control all of Europe and rid the world of impurities (he had six million jews exterminated or worked to death...but he also had 7 million others killed off,too...mental deficients, catholics, gypsies, slavs, political prisoners), we were in a fight for a lot of reasons, not the least of which was the fact that we had been attacked by Japanese at Pearl Harbor and by German U-boats that had been sinking American freighters and tankers in the Atlantic by the hundreds.

Iraq...if oil was the motivation...it sure didn't work out too well for us, did it?  I suppose it has always been a luxury of the homefront to pick apart the decisions that leaders make about going to war.  Hindsight is 20/20 after all.  Which are the good wars and which are the wars that are motivated by the nasty intentions of wicked men.  Ahhh, well.  This one is not worth the tummy acid.  Nice article, Boobs.

Big Fat Daddy:

... I will throw this into the play, hehehe … As much as I believe that all humans are inherently good at heart (and they ARE!), our past provides us with an unbearable and unbelievable amounts of history to induce speculation … income conspiracy theories. History provides us with ample proof of the depths to which humans can descend to in the pursuit of who knows what … so I would have to ask … are our champions, those in control of our ‘everything’ … somehow imune … through their exuberance and professed concern for the People Of the United States of America … somehow immune to succumb to the depths of their predecessors … ?