9/11 Conspiracies Theories? - Page 2

[EnderX]

- 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.

[lasher511]

Even with fire proofing the heat from the jet fuel would not have been enough to do anything structually to the beams. Not only that but the majority of that jet fuel was burnt up on impact outside of the building. The plane may well have knocked aspestos off the beams on the level that the planes hit but not on the lower levels. Due to safty regulations there was no other gas in the building that would have gotten hot enough to melt the steel. I also still don't see how they towers could fall so perfectly it just never seemed right to me.

I don't see it as a conspiracy really i see it almost as a mystery there are some things that we do not know but i do not think that means the government was involve or the "illuminati" as Mark Dice would have us believe. However from things like this i can see how some people believe that there is more to it then meets the eye. <-Excuse my terminology

[EnderX]

You're missing the point, Lash. There was no asbestos; asbestos would have worked as fireproofing. The substitute wasn't as effective; the original document I saw this referenced in claimed that some of it adhered weakly enough that it could have been pulled off the wall with no trouble. And the substitute was also, apparently, only rated for temperatures about half as high as asbestos can handle.

[lasher511]

Yeah sorry i did miss that. I don't actually know alot about the fire proofing itself in the WTC although i did see a doco saying the same things as you. However this could well be something over exadurated as a part of the cover up. Its something that can not be proved now that the buildings have collapsed.

The Jet fuel however would still not have been enough to cause the beams to melt. Although the government denyed the presence of molten metal despite fire and cleanup crews reporting seeing molten metal up to and over a week after the buildings collapsed. Which i personally find strange when you consider what forces were involved in the incident.

I have heard people use the argument that by heating the beams so fast they would have become brittle which caused the towers to collapse but personally if there was molten metal i cannot see how this was the cause.

I am not really a conspiracy theorist i am just trying to see this from the conspiracy theorist point of veiw and where they are getting the idea from. I love to argue even when its arguing a point that i don't myself believe in. Helps me to see the big picture rather then just one side.

[quintoncoert]

@ enderx & midimagic

i think i need to get hold of some info regarding the wtc. original construction etc. midimagic makes a good point as to why the building collapsed.

@ lasher511

you are right about seeing other points. i too sometimes argue against what i believe. but i do it just for fun.

[jwenting]

Lash, the beams didn't melt. They didn't have to.
The heat from the fires (which were started by burning fuel but soon fed on anything remotely flamable in the buildings, from wallpaper to wooden desks to computer terminals and books) was hot enough to change the molecular structure of the steel to a far weaker form which was unable to hold the weight of the building.

Anyone who knows a bit of metalurgy knows that this can happen. It's effectively the reverse of the process that forms high tensile steel, where heat is used to strengthen the steel rather than weaken it.
Just as heat can strengthen raw steel when applied correctly and evenly at the right time and for the right duration (and at the right temperature) during production, heat can also weaken steel fatally.
And that's exactly what happened in the WTC towers.
Steel beams were subject to heat enough to weaken its structure, causing it to loose its structural strength which in turn caused joints to fail. Only a few such failure points would have been needed to cause the first floor to collapse onto the one beneath it, which will have set off a chain reaction causing the entire structure to collapse in the manner shown (which is a similar effect as the one that brought down the Oklahoma city federal building in the McVeigh bombing, except there the floors collapsed due to their support columns having been ripped out by the blast).

There was no conspiracy (except by the guys crashing those jetliners into the buildings), merely a structure being taxed way beyond its design limits.

[lasher511]

Even still i know all this although there was a very limited amount of things that could burn in those buildings for safty reasons. What i was actually saying was that they were encountering molten metal in the debris for up to a week after the collapse and that it is strange because there would have been nothing hot enough to cause this. Which i said was a bit of a mystery.

If you think about it however the fires were only really burning on the floors that the plane crashed on and maybe the ones above however the floors below would been reasonably unaffected. The way you talk about the each level collapsing because of the strain above it makes it sound as if there was some massive amount of extra mass in the floors above. Those floors were able to support the towers weight for all this time and suddently they cant? Even if this is the case i do not think the entire tower would go all at once if its severly weakend structure could hold itself up like that for the amount of time it did. Surely the lower levels which are still reasonably in tact are going to be able to hold the weight for at least a little while. If the damaged structure was strong enough to hold that weight without it bowing off to the left or right surely the lower floors would be able to withstand a bit of the weight.

Which brings us to the question was there another force at work inside the tower that caused it to collapse?

Also if you look at footage of the towers collapsing you can see flashes several floors below where the tower was collapsing. Personally i believe there were explosives placed inside the world trade centre. This does not mean they were placed there by the government it could simply mean that the attack was better thought out then assumed. To be honest i think this is a much more realistic scenario for the collapse that we saw rather then a merely weakend structure due to heat.

[Dave Sinkula]

How about something more current?

American Hiroshima, for example.

[lasher511]

huh? im lost.

[Dave Sinkula]

huh? im lost.

Better link: ?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46127

I'd thought in the day and age of search engines I'd just salted it enough. :(

[lasher511]

yeah i know but im not sure the relevance and what your going for.

[lasher511]

Ive heard about this though. Personally i think he is in the pocket of the government. Employed to scare people into thinking that they need their government. This guys has watched way to many episodes of 24 and other such TV shows nothing more.

Did anyone watch that movie i forget whats its called where they pointed out that the footage of osama bin laden taking responisbility for the 9/11 attacks was a fake? I think it was loose change.

Basically their argument was that the footage was faked by the US government because he was taking notes with the wrong hand and he was wearing a wedding band.

[Dave Sinkula]

yeah i know but im not sure the relevance and what your going for.

Well it was kinda...

How about something more current?

American Hiroshima, for example.

huh? im lost.

Without quotes, as the thread a grows longer, it becomes increasingly difficult to discern to what it might be that you are replying to.

[lasher511]

indeed it does

[jwenting]

Even still i know all this although there was a very limited amount of things that could burn in those buildings for safty reasons.

Make it hot enough and anything will burn... The limitations on flamable materials are only related to things like carpeting and non-structural wall panels.
Desks, chairs, paperwork, computers, human beings, everything burns quite well.
And flame resistant (which is how requirements are set up) doesn't mean non-flamable, it just means it takes a while before it starts burning.

encountering molten metal in the debris for up to a week after the collapse and that it is strange because there would have been nothing hot enough to cause this.

Again you're wrong. Isolated pockets can easily be far far hotter than the surrounding area, there doesn't even have to be open flame.

the strain above it makes it sound as if there was some massive amount of extra mass in the floors above.

Which there was, the floors themselves and everything located there.
Plus the roof containing things like elevator machinery, airconditioning equipment, etc. etc.
And as the already weakened joints weren't designed to take much more weight than the floor itself and the people and their equipment stationed there, having to bear the weight of everything over it suddenly would make any floor collapse.
That's basic physics and mechanical engineering 101.

Surely the lower levels which are still reasonably in tact are going to be able to hold the weight for at least a little while. If

The first one might have held for a few seconds, the ones after that failing progressively faster as the weight on them gets higher with each floor that collapses.

If you have 20 floors above you, each coming in at 100 tons, that's 2000 tons.
Now that collapses, and the next floor down gets to bear 2100 tons, the one below that 2200.
Take that down 80 floors and the weight is considerable.

Also if you look at footage of the towers collapsing you can see flashes several floors below where the tower was collapsing.

Gasmains bursting, electrical cables sparking, big boom.

No secret Bush/Cheney conspiracy to blow up New York, just normal physics at work.

To be honest i think this is a much more realistic scenario for the collapse that we saw rather then a merely weakend structure due to heat.

Sure you do, it's after all what you're spoonfed to believe, that the US government is EVIL and its enemies are brilliant, so brilliant in fact that the government in their attempts to destroy those enemies deliberately doesn't try to turn public opinion against those enemies.

You've forgotten all about the secret CIA nukes that were really used to destroy the WTC in combination with the halucinogenic drugs distributed by the Mossad in the world water supply to make everyone think they saw aircraft flying into the buildings.

[lasher511]

Make it hot enough and anything will burn... The limitations on flamable materials are only related to things like carpeting and non-structural wall panels.
Desks, chairs, paperwork, computers, human beings, everything burns quite well.
And flame resistant (which is how requirements are set up) doesn't mean non-flamable, it just means it takes a while before it starts burning.

Yes but there is only a certain level of heat that these things can generate and as i have said nothing to the point of changing th structure of the metal

Again you're wrong. Isolated pockets can easily be far far hotter than the surrounding area, there doesn't even have to be open flame.

You still have to have a heat source hot enough to form the molten metal. It does not have to be an open flame and there was nothing
in the buildings capable of doing this.

Which there was, the floors themselves and everything located there.
Plus the roof containing things like elevator machinery, airconditioning equipment, etc. etc.
And as the already weakened joints weren't designed to take much more weight than the floor itself and the people and their equipment stationed there, having to bear the weight of everything over it suddenly would make any floor collapse.
That's basic physics and mechanical engineering 101.

Actually the buildings were desighned to be able to withstand a Jet crashing into the sides of them. Given we are only talking something as big as a 747 not a 767 but that is still going to give it a bit of extra strength. As i said the lower floors were always holding that much weight the only difference was that it was not as evenly distributed.

The first one might have held for a few seconds, the ones after that failing progressively faster as the weight on them gets higher with each floor that collapses.

I find it far more likly that if so many support beams were severed or weakend by the plane crashing into the building then the top would have started to at least lean before doing what we saw it did.

If you have 20 floors above you, each coming in at 100 tons, that's 2000 tons.
Now that collapses, and the next floor down gets to bear 2100 tons, the one below that 2200.
Take that down 80 floors and the weight is considerable.

As i have said that weight was always there just not evenly distributed. I can see the theory behind what you are saying and it does make sense. What i am saying is we would have seen a far slower collapse to begin with then what we did.

Gasmains bursting, electrical cables sparking, big boom.

No secret Bush/Cheney conspiracy to blow up New York, just normal physics at work.

There was no Gas in either of the WTC building because of safty reasons. The Flashes are way too cordinated for them to be something like this anyway. What you see in the footage is an explosion (backed up by people saying that they heard this) several floors below where the building had even started to collapse.

I never said that it was a Bush/Cheney conspiracy.

Sure you do, it's after all what you're spoonfed to believe, that the US government is EVIL and its enemies are brilliant, so brilliant in fact that the government in their attempts to destroy those enemies deliberately doesn't try to turn public opinion against those enemies.

You've forgotten all about the secret CIA nukes that were really used to destroy the WTC in combination with the halucinogenic drugs distributed by the Mossad in the world water supply to make everyone think they saw aircraft flying into the buildings.

Once again never said that it was the government that was doing it what i meant was that its far more likely that whoever was responsible be it the taliban or otherwise that there was explosives placed in the building before the planes hit.

"This does not mean they were placed there by the government it could simply mean that the attack was better thought out then assumed. "

As i have said already i am simply trying to point out the reasons people think that it is a conspiracy and offer my own solution. I am not a conspiracy theorist.

[EnderX]

Yes but there is only a certain level of heat that these things can generate and as i have said nothing to the point of changing th structure of the metal

Ever ruined the temper on a pocketknife, Lash? That's about what's being described here. Not an exact comparison, I admit, but if the steel's been specifically tempered (or treated in a similar manner) to strengthen it, then removing that will seriously weaken it. And given that it's possible to ruin the temper of a knife in an ordinary fireplace or firepit, I'd presume that the sustained, high-heat fires in the WTC could do the job. Especially since, from some of what I've read, in addition to being worthless at adhering to a surface, the fireproofing used in place of asbestos was only good up to 1100 degrees. (The same source placed asbestos as good up to 2100 degrees.) Considering every temperature estimate I've ever had thrown at me for the WTC fires was above that, it'd mean that there would easily be enough heat to leach through the 'fireproofing' and begin ruining the supports.

You still have to have a heat source hot enough to form the molten metal. It does not have to be an open flame and there was nothingin the buildings capable of doing this.

Exactly what metals were supposed to have gone molten? Every picture I've seen of debunkers pointing out 'molten metal' always looked more like a sparkshower to me. Admittedly, I'm no expert on that topic, though.

Actually the buildings were desighned to be able to withstand a Jet crashing into the sides of them. Given we are only talking something as big as a 747 not a 767 but that is still going to give it a bit of extra strength. As i said the lower floors were always holding that much weight the only difference was that it was not as evenly distributed.

Both of these can be answered by the premise of 'kinetic energy', I believe.

At your first objection: Were the WTC towers designed to withstand a plane crashing into them (where presumably the pilot is attempting to avoid the buildings) or a plane ramming into them (where the intention is to cause impact)? A ramming incident would most probably have a far higher kinetic energy value, which might explain why it overwhelmed the building's presumed 'anti-crash' defenses.

As to the second, consider this: You say that the floors were already bearing the weight. (True, although your comment about how is incorrect, I believe; a point of uneven distribution would seem to me to be a weak spot.) However, they weren't prepared to bear the weight of the floors above them being dropped on them. The instant the first set of supports gave out and collapsed, there would be an additional kinetic impact due to gravity factored into the equation. This would have placed a strain on the floors below as well, with a cascading effect as each floor gave out under the impact from those above, adding its own mass to the falling material. Some floors might have stood up to the impact better than others, but the additional strain would have weakened their supports as well; it would delay, but not necessarily stop, the cascade.

There was no Gas in either of the WTC building because of safty reasons. The Flashes are way too cordinated for them to be something like this anyway. What you see in the footage is an explosion (backed up by people saying that they heard this) several floors below where the building had even started to collapse.

What is your evidence for these statements? From what source do you draw your statement that there was no gas in the WTC? And on what grounds do you call the 'flashes' coordinated?

I never said that it was a Bush/Cheney conspiracy.

No, you simply rehash the same kind of arguments that the conspiracists do; the same arguments that the fully-blown 'No More BUSH!' brigade uses to hammer away at the executive branch.

Once again never said that it was the government that was doing it what i meant was that its far more likely that whoever was responsible be it the taliban or otherwise that there was explosives placed in the building before the planes hit.

"This does not mean they were placed there by the government it could simply mean that the attack was better thought out then assumed. "

And how and when, pray tell, would the 19 9/11 hijackers (or their hypothetical confederates) have managed to get explosive devices into the building and carefully placed without having been stopped, or at least seen by someone? The 'man inside' argument you seem to be making here is a method I've seen used to explain why nothing is safe from attack; the hypothetical attackers can somehow overcome all obstacles to getting their own agent in at the proper time/place for whatever they're doing. (I've usually seen this one being used with regard to hypothetical attacks on nuclear power plants, though. I believe you're the first to have pulled it up for the WTC.)

As i have said already i am simply trying to point out the reasons people think that it is a conspiracy and offer my own solution. I am not a conspiracy theorist.

Lash, the main reason some people think it's a conspiracy is that they live in paranoid little worlds of their own devising, where everyone is out to get them, but especially those with authority over them. Anything could be a conspiracy if you look at it in the right frame of mind.

[jwenting]

and the ultimate proof that he is a conspiracy theorist is given by his insistence that every bit of scientific evidence debunking his claims is false for no other reason than that it's not coming from his sources.

[MidiMagic]

Ah, but you can't prove that UFOs didn't cause that phase shift that caused the blackout

But why do we need to presuppose a UFO, when starting a large air handler or industrial motor was enough to cause it?

Electric motors normally cause this kind of phase shift. All coils of wire do this. Normally the power generators soak up some of this phase shift, if they are close. The power companies install capacitors at various locations to compensate for the rest of the phase error.

The phase between voltage and current was hovering right at the trip point before the blackout, as shown by instrument readings on a chart-recorder just before the blackout. This was because a power plant in Ontario was down. That plant normally absorbed phase shifts in the area. Its absence put a phase-shifted load on New York generators.

No doubt some conspiracy theorist will come up with a crackpot idea about the CIA having some secret device that makes people think transmissions come from somewhere else than they really do.

That wouldn't fool a ham. The beam antenna is NOT SENSITIVE to signals from the wrong direction, so it would not receive any fake signal coming from the wrong direction. The CIA would have to place a source in space at the fake location of the spacecraft to get all of the beam antennas in the world to receive signals from the correct direction.

If they had produced a fake signal, the hams would have quickly located the fake transmitter's location during the mission. We do transmitter-hunt contests as practice for rescues.

[MidiMagic]

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.

The asbestos scare hadn't materialized yet when the WTC was built. The asbestos fell off because the binder was faulty.

[MidiMagic]

Even with fire proofing the heat from the jet fuel would not have been enough to do anything structually to the beams.

Wrong. The quoted "temperature needed to melt the beams" is about twice the temperature needed to anneal the hardness out of the steel. The jet fuel easily produced these temperatures.

The plane may well have knocked aspestos off the beams on the level that the planes hit but not on the lower levels.

Even if the asbestos jhad remained intact, it wouldn't have protected the beams from a vfire that large. Asbestos is a heat sink, not an insulatng material. It protects by carrying the heat away from the hot spot. But if all of the area is hot, asbestos doesn't work.

Due to safty regulations there was no other gas in the building that would have gotten hot enough to melt the steel.

The steel didn't have to melt! It just had to lose its hardness. When it changed from steel into iron, the steel in the horizontal beams lost the strength needed to hold up the concrete floor.

I also still don't see how they towers could fall so perfectly it just never seemed right to me.

This can be blamed on the design of the building. They put ALL of the vertical supports around the OUTSIDE EDGE of the building. They did this so there would be no load-bearing walls inside, so the floors could be freely remodeled.

Each floor was fastened to the vertical supports via the aforementioned horizontal beams. but unlike other buildings, the floors were not connected to each other with interior walls. Note that each set of horizontal beams was designed to hold up its own floor, but could not hold the weight of TWO floors.

When the strength was taken out of its horizontal beams, the floor above the fire fell onto the floor below it. This instantly caused that floor to break its horizontal beams and fall. Now both of those floors fell onto the floor below, breaking that floor loose too, etc.

Without the horizontal beams to stay them, the vertical supports broke too. This allowed the top to fall straight down.

[MidiMagic]

Even still i know all this although there was a very limited amount of things that could burn in those buildings for safty reasons. What i was actually saying was that they were encountering molten metal in the debris for up to a week after the collapse and that it is strange because there would have been nothing hot enough to cause this. Which i said was a bit of a mystery.

I never heard any of this from reputable news sources. But there are a few possible causes for melting metal in the compressed wreckage:

- The story that a worker pulled a steel beam out of the wreckage with the other end still melting is bogus. The entire beam would have been too hot to handle if that had been the case.

- If workers were unable to shut off some power, a short circuit not large enough to trigger power company breakers could have melted metal.

- Fire in compressed wreckage could have become hot enough to melt metal.

- Chemicals which are normally safe when not together may have been stored on different floors of the WTC. The collapse may have brought the chemicals together.

- What about all of the automobiles filled with GASOLINE which were parked in the parking garage under the building? Those cars also had BATTERIES in them, which would produce heat when the body of the car was smashed flat against the battery terminals or wiring.

If you think about it however the fires were only really burning on the floors that the plane crashed on and maybe the ones above however the floors below would been reasonably unaffected.

And all of the cars in the parking garage the building fell onto.

The way you talk about the each level collapsing because of the strain above it makes it sound as if there was some massive amount of extra mass in the floors above. Those floors were able to support the towers weight for all this time and suddently they cant?

Let me tell you about how I made a steel knife one time.

1. I got a bar of mild steel at a junkyard.
2. I heated the steel to a temperature of 800 C (about half the melting point).
3. I let the steel cool slowly. This changes it into a form of soft iron.
4. I was able to use saws and grinders to work the "steel" into the desired shape. This would have been imnpossible with hardened steel.
5. When I got the knife in the desired form, I heated it to 800 C again.
6. I quickly plunged the 800 C knife into an oil bath. This quickly cooled it to near room temperature - and hardened the steel into steel again.
7. I heated the knife to about 400 C to relieve strains in the metal, and cooled it slowly.

These steps were used to make the beams in the WTC.

But then the jet fuel did steps 2 and 3, changing the hard steel into malleable soft iron. The iron bent and broke, and the floors fell.

Even if this is the case i do not think the entire tower would go all at once if its severly weakend structure could hold itself up like that for the amount of time it did. Surely the lower levels which are still reasonably in tact are going to be able to hold the weight for at least a little while.

You are assuming conventional construction with load-bearing walls in the interior. There were none.

If the damaged structure was strong enough to hold that weight without it bowing off to the left or right surely the lower floors would be able to withstand a bit of the weight.

But each floor was structurally ISOLATED from the floors above and below it. The only common supports were in the external columns around the exterior of the building. The failure started when one floor broke loose and fell onto the floor below it.

Also if you look at footage of the towers collapsing you can see flashes several floors below where the tower was collapsing.

The leading edge of the wave of collapsing floors was several levels below (ahead) of the visible collapse of the external wall. The flashes were the points where each floor broke loose from its support and its electric supply shorted out.

Personally i believe there were explosives placed inside the world trade centre. This does not mean they were placed there by the government it could simply mean that the attack was better thought out then assumed. To be honest i think this is a much more realistic scenario for the collapse that we saw rather then a merely weakend structure due to heat.

But the actual design of the building by itself is enough to explain these effects, without resorting to any malice on the part of others. Never assign to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity.

The design was good only as long as the building stayed intact, because each part of the building depended on the other parts of the building to stay in place. As soon as a small part of the building was compromised, the entire structure was endangered to the point where it failed.

I suspect that this design will never be used again.

[EnderX]

The asbestos scare hadn't materialized yet when the WTC was built. The asbestos fell off because the binder was faulty.

According to the source I quoted, the first ~35 floors (I think) were built with Asbestos on them...as evidence, it pointed out a fire in the WTC in 1975 that the building survived. However, this source also claimed that most of this was removed later due to the huge asbetos suit claims and health scares.

[MidiMagic]

Here's the proof:

Watch the 9-11 Conspiracy Theories show on the History Channel tonight (11/4/07 at 8pm eastern time).

Wait for the part about Building 7 falling. They show the section of video I saw on 9/11/01.

They will show a video of Tower 1. You can see a floor start to BEND down, due to the loss of strength in the steel (the fire removed the hardening). The instant that floor touches the floor below it, the building collapses.

The floor below couldn't hold up the combined weight, and failed.

[joshSCH]

Yeah, I am not surprised that you believe in a 9/11 conspiracy.. you obviously know nothing of math, physics, technology, economics, etc.

[MidiMagic]

I don't believe in a conspiracy. My proof of NO conspiracy was posted earlier.

Don't take my word for it. Watch the show.

[bumsfeld]

Is there a lawsuit against the poor construction of the towers?

[The Dude]

I have seen enough evidence to make up my mind.....

[jwenting]

Is there a lawsuit against the poor construction of the towers?

We're talking about the US here. I'd almost start to believe in conspiracy theories if there were NO lawsuit...

[bumsfeld]

So, all we need to do is to find out if there is one "unsafe for any fire" construction lawsuit on the books!