- I can disprove the "dimpled and prengnant chad were attempts to vote" conspiracy myself. I used to service the same kind of Documation card readers they used in the election. As a weekly test, we used to run decks of new blank cards through the readers multiple times. Dimpled chad appearing on the new cards was an indication that the machine should be changed out for service. Dirt was jamming the sense-pins.
Sure, but 'dirty machines' wouldn't give Algore the votes he needed to lay claim to the Alabaster Domicile.
- The fires in the World Trade Centers were more than hot enough to cause the buildings to fall, and they would have caused them to fall in the way they actually fell. The temperature did not have to get hot enough to melt the steel. It just had to get hot enough that the steel changed back into iron and lost its extra strength. That happens at about half the melting temperature.
The WTC was constructed with all of its vertical supports around the exterior of the building. Then, steel cross members held up the concrete floors. What happened is that the heat from the jet fuel fires raised the temperature of the cross members high enough that the steel stopped being steel. Then, all it took was one floor coming loose.
The steel on one floor failed enough to let the concrete slab drop onto the slab below it. But the steel on the floor below wasn't strong ehouch to hold up TWO slabs, so it failed too, dropping both slabs onto the next floor. This process continued all the way to the ground. Meanwhile, without the cross members keeping them straight, the vertical supports failed, letting the top of the building follow the rest of it down.
Addendum: Based on some information I've seen, the WTC buildings were supposed to have Asbestos fireproofing; the 'no asbestos' argument lead to a substitute being used. Supposedly, the substitue was weak enough at bonding that the plane slamming into the building would have knocked it off the surfaces it was supposed to have been protecting.
These two facts makes me think there is another conspiracy - A "Get Bush" conspiracy in the news media. After these events appeared briefly on the news, they have been suppressed ever since. They should be the major evidence in determining what really happened. But reporters still claim that Bush would have gone to war no matter what.
There's not a 'Get Bush' conspiracy in the media. There doesn't have to be. The media is biased anti-Bush enough without having to postulate a conspiracy behind it. Read Bernard Goldberg's works for more information.