Food for horses, maybe.  She lives in a world of straw men.  As do all the 9/11 truthers.

Not to mention 'miracles' - 'What you saw happen with your own eyes could not happen, therefore did not happen.'

Daiwa ... so in your cryptic way you are telling me that you do believe the USG and their storyline ... and you can do this with a straight face I suppose. It is difficult to back up your comments when you don't answer the questions nor do you offer anything at all to the conversation that is meaningful. You mostly just talk about how smart you are.

Daiwa, just as a recap then, what is it exactly that you find so discomforting and fabricated?

1. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed "collapse."

2. They underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.

3. The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers.

4. The rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars had only light damage, if any.

5. The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends. There were reports that "The Gap" was looted.

6. The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.

7. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up.

8. The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet and the seismic signal was not significantly greater than background noise.

9. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.

10. The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.

11. One file cabinet with folder dividers survived.

12. No toilets survived or even recognizable portions of one.

13. Windows of nearby buildings had circular and other odd-shaped holes in them.

14. In addition to the odd window damage, the marble facade was completely missing from around WFC1 and WFC2 entry, with no other apparent structural damage.

15. Fuzzballs, evidence that the dust continued to break down and become finer and finer.

16. Truckloads of dirt were hauled in and hauled out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day.

17. Fuming of the dirt pile. Fuming decreased when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat.

18. Fuzzyblobs, a hazy cloud that appeared to be around material being destroyed.

19. The Swiss-Cheese appearance of steel beams and glass.

20. Evidence of molecular dissociation and transmutation, as demonstrated by the near-instant rusting of affected steel.

21. Weird fires. The appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating.

22. Lack of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. No evidence of burned bodies.

23. Columns were curled around a vertical axis like rolled-up carpets, where overloaded buckled beams should be bent around the horizontal axis.

24. Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often alongside cars that appeared to be burning.

25. Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, and into Liberty Street in front of Bankers Trust, and into Vesey Street in front of WTC6, plus a cylindrical arc was cut into Bankers Trust.

26. All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes (120 seconds) after WTC 1 had been destroyed.

27. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers.

28. The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings.

29. More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it.

30. Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged and destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix.

31. The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared.

32. For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood have continued to fume.

33. The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings.

34. The WTC7 rubble pile was too small for the total mass of the building and consisted of a lot of mud.

35. Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions.

36. Eyewitness testimony of Scott-pack explosions in fire trucks and fire trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC.

37. There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage.

38. Magnetometer readings in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the earth's magnetic field with each of the events at the WTC on 9/11.

 39. Hurricane Erin, located just off Long Island on 9/11/01, went virtually unreported in the days leading up to 9/11, including omission of this Hurricane on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean was shown on the map.

40. Sillystring, the appearance of curious cork-screw trails.

41. Uncanny similarities with the Hutchison Effect, where the Hutchison Effect exhibits all of the same phenomena listed above.

Two words - Fluid. Dynamics.

Ya got it, ya flaunt it.

Humm, I have done extensive work in thermodynamics, heat transfer and fluid flow, nuclear theory and physics and mathematics ... but I can derive little explanatory information about 911 from these experiences. We had janitors working for us too you know... You haven’t flaunted anything yet besides your ego so if that is all you have it’s no wonder that’s all you talk about.

Well, we didn't get very far on this one and I see no reason to expect any real change soon ...

No wonder your hair is so buoyant. 

Judy Wood does nothing to prove that some of these things couldn't or shouldn't have happened. She poses questions but does nothing to prove that it couldn't have naturally happened the way it did. She compares certain things with controlled demolitions. If it wasn't a controlled demolition then it wouldn't be comparable in some ways to a controlled demolition. There is nothing controlled in a situation where a plane full of jet fuel is involved is there?  She says the dust particles seem too small but when a question is posed she says she doesn't know how small they would be. These buildings were loaded with spray on asbestos coatings. Some estimate as much or more than 400 tons. That type of thing is removed before a controlled demolition is performed. Maybe that explains the extent of the dust? Maybe that also explains oddities in some of her questions concerning fires, and lack of heat in resulting convection currents. Maybe cars experienced fires because they have gas tanks in them, and there are circumstances which cause fire-less explosions which may explain other "oddities".

Personally I think there is more information to support this as being an act of terrorism not performed by the US gov't.  I do believe however that the government has conspired to hide the extent of intelligence they had prior to 9/11, conspired to hide the health risk in the area during the clean up, and conspired to deceive the public while beating the war drums after 9/11.

As far as conspiracies go I'm far more interested in what our government is currently doing.  For example in regards to Iran, Afghanistan, or Pakistan.

Michael Moore used to come to post on this site years ago, and would get his a.. handed to him by the republican owners.  I got interested in this site when I saw it was TOOO one-sided, with Democratical thinkers being frustrated by the attacks they'd endure just for not being on the 'right' side of issues.

Now I'm back and will be posting some material for the republicrats to consider as this dying empire tastes the scales of its' own tail.  Just wanted to see if I can post for now.  

Really.  I missed him, I guess.  Well, anyone (who doesn't violate the TOS) is welcome far as I know.  Used to have a lot of liberal/progressive/lefty types, particularly during the Bush/Kerry campaign in 1994.  They mostly evaporated after that election, though.

Assholes have been banned for repeated assholedness, so I can probably wrap my mind around the idea that Moore was here and is now gone.

Smoothseas, is it Star Wars time yet, hahaha. As you can see, this post has been going on for some time now but I'm afraid I lack the appetite to expand on the details of the theories in question from the perspective that nothing has as yet been discussed here. Not sure why everything has to be correct and irrefutable though … it is just some theory after all. No matter what one thinks, there are things that happened on 911 that just don’t fit into the scenario of a plane crash alone. The dust is one example: the search I did confirmed that these particles were on the 1 micron (.000039 in) scale and that cannot be explained by conventional explosive ordinance or from the collapse of a building regardless how it was undermined. Human hair runs between 20 to 150 microns as a comparison. This abnormal particle size partly explains the higher than it should have been plume. Things don’t pulverize beyond recognition (even chemically) just from a 1,000 foot fall.  They remove everything possible before a controlled demolition so I am not sure what asbestos has to do with anything. Whatever happened to the towers was not a controlled demolition as we think of it (as seen on TV), not conventionally anyway. But just for conversation, say they did a controlled demolition of a completely furnished building … do you think the results would be pretty much unrecognizable anything … desks and chairs and whatnot, all unrecognizable? Well, that is all that is supposed to have happened … the buildings fell down. As a matter of fact, you can take a bunch of stuff and drop it out of a plane 5 miles up … and you will still find recognizable pieces at the drop site. As far as the cars go, they just look like unattended burnt out hulks … but how does a falling building generate these fires particularly since there is so little impact damage? A lot of questions remain unanswered and every attempt to explain things is classified as a conspiracy theory … what conspiracy? I just want some facts that can justify some of the unknowns … so if that qualifies me as a conspiracy theorist so be it. I still want some answers that make sense.

Judy Wood is the conspiracy theorist. The response was to the video you posted of her and my reply specifically used her name not yours. Unfortunately most of the questions will never be answered. The event caused a lot of chain reactions, there are many unknowns, and most of the forensic evidence is gone. Hence there will be many questions that will not and probably can no longer be answered.

As to your specific response. The buildings didn't "simply" fall down. There are many reasons for a falling building to create fires. Jets heavily laden with tons of fuel oil apparently started the chain of events for starters. Gas lines gets ruptured, Office buildings often have heating oil tanks, or drums of other chemicals and solvents. Vehicles have fuel tanks which can ignite under certain conditions that do not require impact damage, the list goes on and on.

I specifically mentioned asbestos because its flame retardant and insulating properties may have something to do with why some things burned and others didn't A large portion of the dust contained asbestos since a concrete/asbestos mix was used in the buildings construction to meet certain fire safety standards back when they were built. Also because that was something hidden by the EPA rather quickly. I remember seeing Christine Whitman declaring the area safe for the clean up workers and doubting that to be true at the time.

It doesn't. That's why I specifically stated

as opposed to many who resort to calling people crackpots and such. At this point in time I believe there is more information supporting the theory that it was not a USG planned conspiracy. There are several things that were covered up, but that is the tendency of government  in any case.

I'm sure it is. I certainly hope we have some interesting toys up our sleeve seeing how much money we spend on the military. I just don't think 9/11 would have been deemed a good testing ground for such things. Seems to me there are easier/far less costly ways to sway public opinion when you need to beat the drums of war.

Smoothseas, anyone who mouths anything against the USG is immediately labeled a nut or a conspiracy theorist. Ms. Wood called my attention to several things I hadn’t given a lot of thought over lately … I like that. This same kind of thinking got me into the thick of it in the very beginning when I tried to say Moore actually had some good things to say … most thought not. However if the shoe fits … she is a theorist … so what. The truth of the matter is the building did just fall down … that is a big part of the problem. If one buys that a plane alone were impetus enough to down one of these buildings … I would remind them that there were two buildings hit from different perspectives and elevations. These buildings were designed for such events … or does one suspect they did their modeling with no fuel in the planes or that the gas peddles were not floored? Doesn’t a little common sense need to come into play here? There are too many things that don’t add up for me … so now I am back to the buildings again is all. How do you figure building 7 figured into all of this … I haven’t been able to myself???

There is no reason that the buildings couldn't 'just fall down' after being damaged in the way they were.  What actually happened did not violate any laws of nature.  To pretend that what actually happened was somehow impossible is a pointless exercise with no resolution.  The number of 'How could that be?' questions on the other side of the argument (that this was a controlled demolition or some other method of intentional destruction abetted by our government) far exceeds those on the 'What you saw with your own eyes is exactly what happened' side of the argument.

I'm afraid magic is the only alternative explanation.  If you believe in that, you're good to go.  For some (not speaking of you specifically, Boobz), the burden of proof has been shifted and it's up to others to prove magic didn't happen.

Daiwa, you know I am sure I said on two occasions that the buildings just fell down ... I think??? If there is nothing in between believing in magic and the information presented by the government, I would be inclined to say you missed a few things. I don't know how much research you put in on this but from your answers I would guess not much. On 911 as I watched the situation unfold, I observed several things that didn't seem right at the time but I was as absorbed as everyone else was. And as the war drums started beating that very night ... well attention soon shifted to "war" mode and off we went after the rag heads (don't think we cared who). One thing I don’t understand though is why there are no real clear clips to be found. A lot of the photo work was done by many different professionals who would not tolerate (IMO) such ambiguity (of critical shots) in much of what we see on film. Is it your opinion then that the only reason all the towers fell was because two airliners flew into the two separate buildings … EOS? That is the status quo I believe. I think otherwise which is why I am looking … and you are not. I guess it does come down to ‘something unknown’ (don’t like magic here) to get me where I am on this though. I will let you know if I find anything hahaha.

I can assure you I have devoted all the energy and time the notion deserves.  As in very little.