Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Mons Venus on September 25, 2009, 05:40:07 AM

Title: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Mons Venus on September 25, 2009, 05:40:07 AM




Building 7 had few fires and collapsed on its footprint. Building 5 burned COMPLETELY and no collapse. ::)

Discuss.....
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Mons Venus on September 25, 2009, 05:59:45 AM




Building 7 had few fires and collapsed on its footprint. Building 5 burned COMPLETELY and no collapse. ::)




Discuss.....

240, have you seen this video? I'd like your input on this subject.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: The Showstoppa on September 25, 2009, 06:00:50 AM

 ::)

Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Skip8282 on September 25, 2009, 06:38:08 AM
Battalion & Company info mons?

Your business website please?


Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: IFBBwannaB on September 25, 2009, 06:41:14 AM
Another genius who is an expert of structural analysis via video  ::)
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: 240 is Back on September 25, 2009, 06:43:09 AM
It is what it is, man.  Sad chapter in American history.  


And you guys are attacking the messenger, not the message. 
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: The Showstoppa on September 25, 2009, 06:55:26 AM
It is what it is, man.  Sad chapter in American history.  


And you guys are attacking the messenger, not the message. 

Did you watch the vid I posted?  Completely refutes every single claim of the conspiracy nuts.  Purdue Univ also did one....it's somewhere on youtube.  Same result.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: 240 is Back on September 25, 2009, 07:19:53 AM
Did you watch the vid I posted?  Completely refutes every single claim of the conspiracy nuts.  Purdue Univ also did one....it's somewhere on youtube.  Same result.

Every single claim?   Uh, no.

And you can rest assured it was a govt grant that paid for it.

it is what it is.  The writers of the 911 commission report demanded a second investigation, admitted theirs was very incomplete.  And that was in 2005.  Lot of info has come out since then.

People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe.  Besides, we already know it was Aug 2001 that bush was given details and didn't act, so in light of all the day's events, we have that.  it is what it is, no point in over-analyzing it.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: The Showstoppa on September 25, 2009, 07:26:18 AM
Every single claim?   Uh, no.

And you can rest assured it was a govt grant that paid for it.

it is what it is.  The writers of the 911 commission report demanded a second investigation, admitted theirs was very incomplete.  And that was in 2005.  Lot of info has come out since then.

People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe.  Besides, we already know it was Aug 2001 that bush was given details and didn't act, so in light of all the day's events, we have that.  it is what it is, no point in over-analyzing it.

You do realize that a president, along with many in the intel community, receivd hundreds/thousands of reports every month, right?  If someone brought you a report that pilots were going to attempt to crash planes into the WTC, just how much credibility would you have given it, pre 9/11?  Of course you will say, oh that would have been priority one....blah, blah, blah.....it's easy to look back and second guess.  You prioritize intel and then act where it's most appropriate.


and as for the conspiracy, I agree people will believe what they want.  I just tend to side with common sense and logic.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Mons Venus on September 25, 2009, 09:41:39 AM




Building 7 had few fires and collapsed on its footprint. Building 5 burned COMPLETELY and no collapse. ::)



Discuss.....

Some building fall on their footprint when  NOT on fire.......while others ON fire just burn.  ;)


Makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: kcballer on September 25, 2009, 09:44:20 AM
Dude you're a retard if you think this was an inside job.  Get a fu*king life it's a disgrace to say such things.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 25, 2009, 09:50:16 AM
Dude you're a retard if you think this was an inside job.  Get a fu*king life it's a disgrace to say such things.

KC - the amount of people that would have to be involved in such a plot for it to be an "inside job" is so large that a "secret" of that magintude could never be kept or hidden in todays' age. 

When you really think of the amount of janitors, security guards, engineeers, etc who all would have to be involved in this, it simply holds no water.

   
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Fury on September 25, 2009, 09:53:28 AM
KC - the amount of people that would have to be involved in such a plot for it to be an "inside job" is so large that a "secret" of that magintude could never be kept or hidden in todays' age. 

When you really think of the amount of janitors, security guards, engineeers, etc who all would have to be involved in this, it simply holds no water.

   

It's funny. People will tell how Bush was retarded, a moron, unintelligent and yet they then turn around and try to imply that he concocted a plan of this magnitude AND has managed to keep it hidden all these years. Funny stuff.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: 240 is Back on September 25, 2009, 10:00:25 AM
try to imply that he concocted a plan of this magnitude AND has managed to keep it hidden all these years. Funny stuff.

I think many of the people who believe it was an inside job DO NOT credit Bush with anything but sititng back and watching things unfold that day.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 25, 2009, 10:02:04 AM
It's funny. People will tell how Bush was retarded, a moron, unintelligent and yet they then turn around and try to imply that he concocted a plan of this magnitude AND has managed to keep it hidden all these years. Funny stuff.

Look, I tried actually considering how a plot of this nature would have to be executed and to me, its literally impossible when you consider how many people would have to be involved in this and still be silent and still be no evidence available.  

In order for this to hold water:

The security guards would have to have been in on this.
The janitors would have to been in on this.
The company with the security taspes would have to have been in on this.
A demolition company would have to be in on this.  
The president and VP in on this and whoever they used to relay the plans and messages.

In addition to the abovbe, we have to assume that no one leeked anything to wives, friends etc.  Additionally, we have to assume that no one ever had a crisis of conscience and backed out.  

We also have to assume that no one ever tried to write a book or make a film on this since they would have made millions or executed.  

We have to assume that this plot was thought of, hatched, planned, war gamed, and executed within 8 months.

These theories are patently absurd to anyone with the capacity to think behind their emotional hatred of Bush.  

Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: kcballer on September 25, 2009, 10:09:51 AM
KC - the amount of people that would have to be involved in such a plot for it to be an "inside job" is so large that a "secret" of that magintude could never be kept or hidden in todays' age. 

When you really think of the amount of janitors, security guards, engineeers, etc who all would have to be involved in this, it simply holds no water.

   

proof enough is that the people questioning it are alive.  If a govt was prepared to kill 1000's of it's own citizens in public why wouldn't it send special ops to kill anyone providing so called evidence of an inside job?
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Eyeball Chambers on September 25, 2009, 10:12:50 AM
Some building fall on their footprint when  NOT on fire.......while others ON fire just burn.  ;)


Makes perfect sense.

It's weird  :-\
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 25, 2009, 10:14:15 AM
proof enough is that the people questioning it are alive.  If a govt was prepared to kill 1000's of it's own citizens in public why wouldn't it send special ops to kill anyone providing so called evidence of an inside job?

It just doesnt make sense from logistics point of view. 
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: big L dawg on September 25, 2009, 10:26:07 AM
I wish someone would just explain how building seven fell.....
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Mons Venus on September 25, 2009, 10:39:57 AM




Building 7 had few fires and collapsed on its footprint. Building 5 burned COMPLETELY and no collapse. ::)

Discuss.....

Compare the above video to this:

 
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Mons Venus on September 25, 2009, 10:44:04 AM
Compare the above video to this:

 



Now add this video:

Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: IFBBwannaB on September 25, 2009, 10:44:41 AM
I wish someone would just explain how building seven fell.....

I heard that there were lots of brotha's in the building and their boom boxes were blasting in the resonance frequency of the building it then reached structural failure....true story I heard if from Rev.Wright.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: headhuntersix on September 25, 2009, 10:46:00 AM
Hey MONS.,........Unit shitbag...Unit..where is it....nobody else cares what u have to say...unit
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: OzmO on September 25, 2009, 10:47:28 AM
ahh yes, master level science logic.....  both burned....  one collapsed and one didn't.

Must be Elivis and Tupac.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Mons Venus on September 25, 2009, 11:00:12 AM
I wish someone would just explain how building seven fell.....

WTC 7 OWNER Larry Silverstein explains what happened.


Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: George Whorewell on September 25, 2009, 11:01:30 AM
Normally I detest KCB and everything he posts here, but for once we are in complete agreement.

Mons- get a fucking life you douchebag.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: big L dawg on September 25, 2009, 11:02:32 AM
I heard that there were lots of brotha's in the building and their boom boxes were blasting in the resonance frequency of the building it then reached structural failure....true story I heard if from Rev.Wright.

classic response deflection with an ill attempt at humor....
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 25, 2009, 11:05:03 AM
classic response deflection with an ill attempt at humor....

Wanting something to be true does not make it so.  
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: big L dawg on September 25, 2009, 11:11:06 AM
Wanting something to be true does not make it so.  

This doesn't answer my question....It's funny when this subject is brought up...theres a bunch of name calling & deflecting but nothing in the form of an educated rebuttal for the the collapse of building 7....
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Mons Venus on September 25, 2009, 11:12:24 AM
WTC 7 OWNER Larry Silverstein explains what happened.




*bump*  ;)
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: 240 is Back on September 25, 2009, 11:37:59 AM
This doesn't answer my question....It's funny when this subject is brought up...theres a bunch of name calling & deflecting but nothing in the form of an educated rebuttal for the the collapse of building 7....

it is what it is.  

RPF posted a clip lately- a new angle.  it screams controlled demolition... 500 feet of building becoming 20 feet of molten steel in 7 seconds.  The uniform collapse.  Complete with squibs and smoke down both central columns prior to fall.

it was either a contorlled demolition, or the most unusual and improbable collapse in the history of engineering and fire.  Which one you believe will depend upon your political party.  in 20 or 30 years, the politics will be out of it, and people will look at it more objectievely.

We're just pissing in the wind fellas.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Mons Venus on September 25, 2009, 12:33:43 PM
it is what it is.  

RPF posted a clip lately- a new angle.  it screams controlled demolition... 500 feet of building becoming 20 feet of molten steel in 7 seconds.  The uniform collapse.  Complete with squibs and smoke down both central columns prior to fall.

it was either a contorlled demolition, or the most unusual and improbable collapse in the history of engineering and fire.  Which one you believe will depend upon your political party.  in 20 or 30 years, the politics will be out of it, and people will look at it more objectievely.

We're just pissing in the wind fellas.

Not sure why WTC 7 is considered a CT....owner Larry Silverstein freely admits the building was pulled.
 

Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Coach is Back! on September 25, 2009, 01:29:31 PM
Oh brother, not this conspiracy crap again.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: kcballer on September 25, 2009, 01:33:42 PM
Not sure why WTC 7 is considered a CT....owner Larry Silverstein freely admits the building was pulled.
 



yeah the fire dept is pulled.  Look into it further.  He admits they pulled them out not pulled down the building. 
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Mons Venus on September 25, 2009, 01:40:41 PM
Oh brother, not this conspiracy crap again.

No conspiracy. WTC 7 Owner Larry Silverstein says his building was "pulled".

I believe the owner.


Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Mons Venus on September 25, 2009, 01:42:16 PM
yeah the fire dept is pulled.  Look into it further.  He admits they pulled them out not pulled down the building. 

Nice spin!  ::) Hahahaaaaa
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: kcballer on September 25, 2009, 01:43:24 PM
Nice spin!  ::) Hahahaaaaa

Um yeah okay.  Enjoy the tin foil hat there buddy.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: 240 is Back on September 25, 2009, 01:46:52 PM
Oh brother, not this conspiracy crap again.

you might be surprised to learn a large number of republicans subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Obama was not born in the USA.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Mons Venus on September 25, 2009, 02:01:40 PM
Um yeah okay.  Enjoy the tin foil hat there buddy.

The owner says the BUILDING was pulled. You say it wasn't.


I believe Larry Silverstein.



Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: kcballer on September 25, 2009, 02:05:36 PM
The owner says the BUILDING was pulled. You say it wasn't.


I believe Larry Silverstein.





Haha yes pulled.  As in pulled out of by firefighters. 
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: OzmO on September 26, 2009, 08:13:04 AM
yeah the fire dept is pulled.  Look into it further.  He admits they pulled them out not pulled down the building. 

It's hard to argue with idiots isn't it?  In this case they take even the most vague reference and even though its explained they hold on to it for dear life.

People that believe the common 9/11 myths, such as deliberate demolition, missiles into the pentagon etc..  are very stupid people. 
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: 240 is Back on September 26, 2009, 09:27:06 AM
People that believe the common 9/11 myths, such as deliberate demolition, missiles into the pentagon etc..  are very stupid people. 

Agreed.  When that 911 commissioner accidentally said a missile hit the pentagon, or when Rumsfeld said terrorists forced us to shoot down a plane over Penn... Stupid people, youre right.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: OzmO on September 26, 2009, 09:48:02 AM
Agreed.  When that 911 commissioner accidentally said a missile hit the pentagon, or when Rumsfeld said terrorists forced us to shoot down a plane over Penn... Stupid people, youre right.

Successful accomplished people still make gaffs, mistakes, or repeat incorrect info at the time.  But only idiots think the WTC's were wired with explosives the day before or a cruise missile was painted to look like a airliner.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: 240 is Back on September 26, 2009, 09:52:19 AM
Successful accomplished people still make gaffs, mistakes, or repeat incorrect info at the time. 

Which do you think Rummy was when he said we shot down an airliner?

Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 26, 2009, 09:53:01 AM
Successful accomplished people still make gaffs, mistakes, or repeat incorrect info at the time.  But only idiots think the WTC's were wired with explosives the day before or a cruise missile was painted to look like a airliner.

Ozmo - see my post above.  

Even if a rougue element in the govt wanted to accomplish this, the logistics of any CT require literally hundreds of people to be involved, 100s of people to have turned a blind eye, hundreds of people and their spouses keeping a secret this long and never having a crisis of conscience, and literally thousands of eye witnesses never saying a thing, including security guards, janitors, eye witnesses, security camera monitors, etc.

People cant even keep affairs with other women a secret, yet somehow this massive conspiracy was pulled off with such brilliance, such precision, such timing and secrecy, that only 240, Mons, and other fools know the "the truth"???
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: 240 is Back on September 26, 2009, 09:55:41 AM
that only 240, Mons, and other fools know the "the truth"???

I never claimed to know "the truth" more than I accused you of masturbating to pictures of Martha Washington.

Rummy said we shot down a plane, and he didn't correct himself nor release any statement about it.   That defies the official report.  The only "truth" is that we have two versions of what happened to a US airliner.  As an american, i'd like to see it investigated.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: OzmO on September 26, 2009, 09:56:42 AM
Which do you think Rummy was when he said we shot down an airliner?



Probably the same place OBL was right?
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: 240 is Back on September 26, 2009, 09:56:58 AM
Even if a rougue element in the govt wanted to accomplish this, the logistics of any CT require literally hundreds of people to be involved, 100s of people to have turned a blind eye, hundreds of people and their spouses keeping a secret this long and never having a crisis of conscience, and literally thousands of eye witnesses never saying a thing, including security guards, janitors, eye witnesses, security camera monitors, etc.

Weird that you're a birther who demands to see Obama's birth cert.

Your CT is so silly - it would involve an entire state, an entire political party, and all the networks playing along to keep this manchurian kenyan in office.

That one is actually a lot larger than a 911 CT would be.  
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 26, 2009, 09:58:36 AM
Weird that you're a birther who demands to see Obama's birth cert.

Your CT is so silly - it would involve an entire state, an entire political party, and all the networks playing along to keep this manchurian kenyan in office.

That one is actually a lot larger than a 911 CT would be.  

I only repeat the BC CT for fun to get you pissed off.  BTW - where is the long form BC?  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: 240 is Back on September 26, 2009, 09:59:15 AM
Probably the same place OBL was right?

nice way to change the subject.  I expected a better arguement from you.  Hey, maybe kadaffi's son might know?

Come on man.  You know rummy said it.  You wanna change the subject because you don't have an answer for it.  I'm tired of 911 discussions, but some of the other members just keep calling my name into it.  33 is a birther, which is a bigger CT than 911, and he's in here shouting and grabbing his junk mocking "The truth".

The truth is somewhere in the middle of "19 guys eluding norad and making Bush stall an investiation for over a year" and "inside job".  Anyone who claims to know the exact truth is an ass.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: 240 is Back on September 26, 2009, 10:00:22 AM
I only repeat the BC CT for fun to get you pissed off.  BTW - where is the long form BC?  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Yeah, whatever   ::)


You "repeat" it for fun.  Weird.  Sounds more like you believe it but don't want that truther stink on you.  grow some balls and either say it's a non-issue, or it's an issue.  posting dozens of times demanding to see the BC 'for fun' = you're just scared to piss off obama ;)
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 26, 2009, 10:01:24 AM
Yeah, whatever   ::)


You "repeat" it for fun.  Weird.  Sounds more like you believe it but don't want that truther stink on you.  grow some balls and either say it's a non-issue, or it's an issue.  posting dozens of times demanding to see the BC 'for fun' = you're just scared to piss off obama ;)

I would KTFO Kaddafi's son in a heartbeat. 

Obama is not a real brother when it comes to fighting.  More like Erkle. 
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: 240 is Back on September 26, 2009, 10:02:24 AM
I would KTFO Kaddafi's son in a heartbeat. 

Obama is not a real brother when it comes to fighting.  More like Erkle. 

uh okay
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 26, 2009, 10:06:07 AM
uh okay

240 - to me the BC issue is part of a larger issue, that being, Obama has refused to allow the release of any of his records, whether it be the BC, his school records, etc.  Its not just the BC he is concealing. 
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: OzmO on September 26, 2009, 10:42:41 AM
nice way to change the subject.  I expected a better arguement from you.  Hey, maybe kadaffi's son might know?

You thought that statement was an argument?

And you thought that me not meeting your expectations is supposed to motivate me to give a better one?

wow.

Quote
Come on man.  You know rummy said it.  

did he?  Or was he programmed by aliens to say?  Has he stood by what he said? 

Quote
You wanna change the subject because you don't have an answer for it.  I'm tired of 911 discussions, but some of the other members just keep calling my name into it.  33 is a birther, which is a bigger CT than 911, and he's in here shouting and grabbing his junk mocking "The truth".

You are not tired about 9/11 discussions.  You love it, you know it.

 ;D
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: 240 is Back on September 26, 2009, 11:10:46 AM
did he?  Or was he programmed by aliens to say?  Has he stood by what he said? 

You are not tired about 9/11 discussions.  You love it, you know it.
 ;D

eh, I feel like i'm screaming at kindergarteners about santa.  pointless.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: OzmO on September 26, 2009, 11:24:02 AM
eh, I feel like i'm screaming at kindergarteners about santa.  pointless.

And yet you keep doing it and doing it and denying you want to do it.

You are kind of like the Bret Favre of the political board.

 ;D  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: Hedgehog on September 26, 2009, 06:07:43 PM
If there was a government conspiracy - why would they choose something as risky as flying aeroplanes into the buildings? there were always the chance that the terrorist recruits would bail.
why not simply make a bomb threat. and set off the bomb when a few thousand people were still left in order to get the political leeway.
the conspiracy theory doesn't have merit because it's simply not likely.
Title: Re: WTC 5 Building Completely Destroyed By Fire But Did Not Collapse
Post by: BM OUT on September 28, 2009, 06:22:14 AM
Every single claim?   Uh, no.

And you can rest assured it was a govt grant that paid for it.

it is what it is.  The writers of the 911 commission report demanded a second investigation, admitted theirs was very incomplete.  And that was in 2005.  Lot of info has come out since then.

People are gonna believe what they're gonna believe.  Besides, we already know it was Aug 2001 that bush was given details and didn't act, so in light of all the day's events, we have that.  it is what it is, no point in over-analyzing it.

So if a government grant pays for it its bullshit.OK then enough of this idiotic talk of the lies of global warming ALL of which is paid for by government grants.