Originally Posted by rightwinger

Not much. It's a lot of the same old claims, and no real evidence.

A lot of the quotes are pretty nutty. I'll give a few examples:

Karen Kwiatkowski: "It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it doesn't satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the world trade centers clearly violate the laws of probability and physics"

She has no background in physics. She is not really a scientist. She is not in position to analyze collapses.

Then there is Ralph Kolstad, who claims that he, as an advanced pilot...couldn't have made the moves this guy did. This has already been gone over. The movements of the terrorist at the Pentagon is not one of a highly trained pilot. He was a trained pilot, but he had a very dangerous and amateurish style of flight, knocking over light poles...and having a rapid drop in altitude. These are not things an experienced pilot would do.

I would ask what this person is suggesting....that a more advanced pilot flew himself into the pentagon?? WTF? Why?

Major Jon Fox gives off the tired line of "Jet fueled fires not hot enough to weaken steel" which is complete bull shit. He even got the conspiracy theory wrong. It's "not hot enough to melt steel" Jon. Pay more attention to the lines you're being fed. And again. We have a pilot talking about physics, and engineering...why?

Then you got Lenkford repeating the "first time in history" line that is very tired. And also mentions the "could be knocked down with a couple hoses" line. Which of course, is another complete lie of the truth movement. The fire fighters were talking about fires that were on different floors. This is another completely debunked claim. I forget which floors exactly, but the point of structural failure, and place of the worst fires, was a few stories up from the fires that could be "knocked down by a couple hoses" He then repeats the "pull it" line....so basically, this guy is just parroting the lines of the truth movements without actually doing any research.

I can keep going if you like....most of the claims of these people, are completely old, and completely tired....I will stay away from the "We need a new investigation because the 9-11 commission report sucked" type comments...because they aren't very specific. I'd like to know what sucked about it, and where'd they'd like to see improvements. I am troubled that the report gets confused with the actual investigation that took place though.

And a lot of the quotes, are very non-specific. So, I really don't know what you want me to think of it. Why don't you go on over to the J-Ref forums, and see what they think about it. They are much better at this stuff than me.

One quick question though RATSOADM, have you called any engineering departments or anyone schooled in structural engineering and collapses yet, like I suggested?

But, again, this seems like it's doomed to get very convoluted once again, due to the posting of pages of stuff and then saying "What do you think of that?" well...I think you're incredibly lazy, and rely on conspiracy websites to do your thinking for you. Just like the last link from the "whatreallyhappened" site. Do you wanna give me some bullet points to maybe narrow this thing down a bit?