Building number 7 descended in free-fall...


Why repeat this kind of easily and thoroughly debunked crap? And if you can debunk the debunking, do that. Focus on one thing, and actually make a case for it. Don't just throw out crap like this and pretend there isn't plenty of well researched answers that are a Google search away for anyone.

But, then again, don't bother. Aside from any particular physical evidence, even more clear is the fact that the "alternate" story doesn't make any sense. You want to start a war with Iraq or Afghanistan? How about you find some terrorists from one of those places instead of the random Saudis? Or do a reasonable job planting some WMDs (not memos or hearsay but real bloody stuff that you can bring back hard evidence of) in Iraq (which would have been a hell of a lot easier and better, surer motivation for war). Another idea: find a terrorist plot that would work on its own, instead of a weird compound plot where you fly in some planes, but then also have explosives. It makes no sense.

And why the hell would you bother with tower 7? It just increases your risk of detection without anyone giving a single crap. How many people were going to say, "well, the terrorists got the big towers... but they didn't hurt tower 7, so we don't need to go to war". It's just so very dumb, and it's the kind of mistake not compatible with an otherwise apparently magical, omniscient, undetectable operation.

I can scarcely imagine a bizarre universe where any of this makes sense. If I'm some Illuminati type who can pull of 9/11 the way these guys describe, I could have come up with a million cheaper, easier, surer plans - or even just simple variations that would have decreased risk of detection, funneled American reaction better, and generally been not batshit insane.

Sure people have profited from 9/11 - a lot of varied, disconnected people have probably got moderately rich. But if they needed money and had this kind of skill and willingness to kill thousands, they could have got it a lot of easier ways. Again, if you want to go to war with Iraq, launch a few missiles out of Baghdad into Israel. Boom. Easy (comparatively at least). Or just find a few Iraqis and blow them up somewhere sensitive (and maybe, again, plant some good evidence). Again, just put enough explosive (or, hell, a nuke) in their semi truck to blow up the building - no synchronized controlled demolition required. Or millions other easier, more foolproof plans.

It's like the fantastic idiots who believe Russians surgically modified children and crashed them in experimental aircraft by Roswell (or whatever). Yeah, sure, whatever... I guess it's possible (as in doesn't contravene laws of physics) and I suppose it is an explanation for certain people's claims of experiences. But it's also complete nonsense. It's not a plan that makes sense to work towards any possible goal. And, like these WTC conspiracies, it's trivial to come up with much better plans that don't require nearly the work or risk and accomplish goals easier and better.

Actually, yes. The fact that composites are all hand-laid and very strong and light has opened up a new frontier of homebuilding aircraft. You don't need a large engine, so they are very efficient and fast, that's why it's called "sport pilot liscence"

..."The Sport Pilot certificate was created in September of 2004 after years of hard work by the Experimental Aviation Association (EAA). The intent of the new rule was to lower the barriers of entry into aviation and make flying more affordable and accessible. It has proven to be a huge success." (Wikipedia)

Seriously, if people want to fly and own or possibly build their own aircraft, new materials and processes have made it possible. Look at what's been achieved, if you consider that. SpaceShip2 was pretty much "home built" and is capable of low earth orbit.

Great for everybody but John Denver. Ooh. I feel a playlist coming on. a mix of Denver and experimental aircraft.

*promote ?