Slashdot Mirror

Bullshit ass-hole. You like Condoleezza Rice should have known terrorists would hijack a plan and crash it into the Trade Towers.....

You mean the terrorists who hatched that plan and were working on it under the Clinton administration? Those terrorists? The ones who were answering to Bin Laden, a person that the Clinton administration let slip through their fingers more than once, even after his group and associates had already killed hundreds of people, including US Navy personnel? Yeah.

Or do you mean the Bin Laden family who have long ties with the Bush family?

• Bush ties to bin Laden haunt grim anniversary
• Ties Between the Bush Family and Osama bin Laden
• Bush-bin Laden family links

Or how the Bush family wealth comes not only from partnering and or owning everything from banks to Halliburton and selling or financing arms to the Bin Laden family as well as Hitler?

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

How War Made the Bush Family Rich

You mean *those* terrorists?

But isn't this all moot? Unless you are using a satellite phone how exactly is a cell phone supposed to get a signal within a flying plane? I am no expert, but isn't the signals transmitted by ground based stations? I am not sure that they A) have the range, or B) are omni-directional (i.e up). Perhaps at low altitude close to a tower, or on the runway, but I am not sure how well cell technology is going to operate at 30,000ft over nothing.

http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

Seems to indicate that it may be possible, but likely not, and even if it was, impractical.

Wifi is an interesting idea, as it could be used for connectivity. Then again the connection that is used is a satellite one, which likely has some bandwidth restrictions, and is likely costly to operate beyond a certain point.

So for the most part this is a moot argument in the first place.

Please don't listen to Truthers.

The 9/11 Comission did trace the orders back the investors and figured out what information motivated them to place the orders and what motivated the source of the information in the first place..

Upon further research appearently as early as 1996 I can tell the U.S. Government was using the name in memos.

In 2001 Bin Laden used the name on Al-Jazeera and said it was in use since the rebellion against the russians.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/The_al_Qaeda_name

I was quoting from "The Power of Nightmares".

Clearly his organization was Al Qaeda” for a long time.

To further my own argument however, Al Queda was virtually unknown to the mass public and not at all widely used in mainstream media prior to 911.

P.S. The Guardian is UK's propoganda machine ;p

Thanks for the links though. I guess we can agree that Bin Laden was involved. I still can't believe he was directly responsible though.

If I went and payed someone 1 million in untraceable bills to kill someone and that hitman never divulged my name...

911 happened not because of 1 man, or 1 group, but because of many things, and many men, or women. Even in-action on the part of the FBI and CIA.

I doubt the whole truth will be known. And unfortunately instead of bringing Bin Laden to trial to testify he was killed. I can't say this was on purpose. But I would have taken extra care to bring him in alive if it was my duty.

However I am far from ignorant. I have watched and read quite a bit about this historical event.

1) We have documented proof that Reagan sold them. It's not documented that Bush did it too, and Bush Jr isn't going to investigate Dad in the middle of a war. He'll ignore it and wait until a Democrat does and bash them for partisan bias.

Read what I said again. I know Reagan sold weapons to Iraq. We were propping up Saddam at the time to keep Iran in check.

2) Yeah, but that doesn't matter. He materially supported known enemies of the state.

Iraq wasn't an enemy of the state at the time he supplied them.

And not just Iraq. Reagan trained Osama bin Laden. We'd not have had 9/11 if not for Reagan's support of our "allies" (who were known then to be hostile to us).

Not true.

Dancing Israelis

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

I watched a "Special" on 9/11 and they said one of the persons who were supposed to take part on the action was unable to board because of the list.

That must have been quite a "special," seeing as the list didn't even exist at the time.

Another thing that could have helped was the "No Hookers List." If they had that report, they could have seen the Muslims who were racking up charges at strip joints.

Alas, this apparently an urban legend: http://www.911myths.com/html/strip_clubs.html

How's that ignorance?

It's ignorance since you obviously have no clue how things happened in reality.

Did I say who did it? Did I get onto conspiracy mode?

Yes you did. Since the official record differs from your assumption, it would mean that you think that there is a conspiracy at work.

Look kid. Welcome to the real world. Taped, archived and accesable interviews with eyewitnesses (fireman, and alike) from cable tv networks all around the world said that they heared explosions from underground when they where inside the building.

Well grandpa, many of those interviews were taken out of context or they were made by people who had no idea what's going on. Just because some panickinggue tells that "OMG, I heard explosions!" does not mean that there were actual explosions.

phosphor

Is this the "there were traces of thermite!"-argument? That's debunked here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html

and here:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Evidence number 2. NASA posted infra red satalite images from days after the collapse showing alarming heat still comming from the WTC site.

And what does that prove? That there were fires among the rubble? Surely not!

Evidence number 3. Pictures of the days after showing 21 meter long steel bars from the core structure cut in a pricise way show evidence from a demolition.

Debunked here:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

The cuts were done by the rescue-workers AFTER the collapse...

Evidence piece number 4. Then we've got confirmed, on public-, cable television by the head of the WTC 7 tower that tower 7 was collapsed by a demolition.

Debunked here:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Evidence piece number 5. Want me to go on?

Please do, I love laughing at your retarded arguments.

Notice that this is not theory, but actual court grade evidence?

None of the things you listed would pass as "evidence".

All I know is that this is not speculation and it's comming from highly credible sources and not John Doe dragon fighter xXx p0rn l33t 0wN3r's, AOL homepage. Kindergarten is someplace else.

"Highly credible sources" indeed.

Go look at the the FBI website. Osama Bin Laden is not wanted by the FBI for the attacks of 9/11.

I love this... OK, so you're suggesting that the Bush Administration has lied about OBL's involvement in the 9/11 attacks... ...but they couldn't get the FBI onboard?

Fat Osama only fooled easily lead sheep who are also fooled by other blatantly ridiculous shit...

Actually, "Fat Osama" isn't as blatantly ridiculous as you'd like to believe: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Confession_video

First, this is nothing new. Bin Laden has always denied involvement.

Holy bullshit. He's taken responsibility for the attack more often than he has denied responsibility.

The only time he acknowledged being responsible, was in some supposed sham video that was "found" in Afghanistan, and claimed by the CIA as some sort of smoking gun proving he did it.

Again, bullshit.

Catch up a bit: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Responsibility

OTOH, as someone else pointed out, WTC 7 was NOT hit by a plane, and IT imploded right after its new owner was overheard on a cell phone by several people and a television news crew saying the words 'pull it', which is construction industry jargon for 'ignite the explosives'.

Alternatively, the guy could have been talking about pulling out the teams of firefighters that were trying to put out massive fires in WTC7, in order to avoid the kind of fatalities that happened in the two main towers.

I highly recommend looking at this site: http://911myths.com/. It's got a /lot/ of extra info on top of the crap you get fed in things like Loose Change, including many many snippets of video footage, pictures (taken from different angles to the ones shown by most of the conspiracy theorists), and lots and lots of examples of 911 conspiracy theories being based on highly selective evidence, dubious editing and egregious misquoting of people. Well worth the couple of days of intermittent reading it takes to go through the site.

himi

I've seen some convincing (and surprisingly simple) modelling of the collapses using conservation of momentum which suggests that the floors below the collapse retarded the fall by only a few seconds, through momentum transfer between the moving upper floors and the intact floors below..

Ah, here it is: http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

The simplicity and elegance of the model is part of what makes it believable.

himi

So you don't consider several hundred thousand tonnes of gravity assisted building crashing into the remainder to be a credible physics explanation? If that's too simple for you, here is a link to a report that explains it to you in excruciating detail. I fully expect you to pretend it doesn't mean anything. Must...protect...precious...conspiracy...delusions.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

this podcast is always interesting to listen to and has a related episode - http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4085

I do not see the good documentation you claim.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

Do they mean to say that a fire can cause a building to collapse?

Name another steel skyscraper fire where the building collapsed.

There was certainly smoke coming out of the towers where the planes hit. I don't remember a lot of smoke around WTC7.

Well, you probably weren't a firefighter there, then. Some of their eye-witness accounts

but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good.

How about this video of a lot of smoke around WTC7?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist myself, but I have to laugh heartily at some of these debunkings. The Madrid Tower actually works against you here, and the cited articles actually admit it. For starters, the Madrid Tower is far shorter than the WTC buildings and is much more prone to a complete collapse, which is what we're talking about here. Collapses in taller buildings will tend to leave at least something intact because of pancaking. Secondly, look at the huge intensity of that fire relative to the size of the building itself. It encompassed the entire building:

http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html

That didn't happen in the WTC collapses. Alas, that debunking just raises far more questions than answers. You can't melt all the steel in a very large building to induce a complete collapse, especially not in the lower floors of a building where a fire rages multiple storeys up, and the building will not collapse completely when the upper floors collapse because the lower floors are still sound enough to keep at least something left standing.

Second, the steel portions of the building exposed to the fire did in fact get all melty and collapsey

After being methiodically stripped of all insulation before the fire and after burning for dozens hour hours.

Unlike this building, which had its insulation intact and which burned for only a few hours before collapsing.

Details, details.

Also, the hijackers weren't using assumed names, they appeared on the flight manifests, and they were known. It doesn't take very long to add 2 and 2...

I just wanted to add this: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Identifying_the_Hijackers

Also, a much more informative link from the same site about the bin Laden family flight: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_family_flight

Also, the hijackers weren't using assumed names, they appeared on the flight manifests, and they were known. It doesn't take very long to add 2 and 2...

I just wanted to add this: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Identifying_the_Hijackers

Also, a much more informative link from the same site about the bin Laden family flight: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_family_flight

It's in how the government knew exactly who was responsible, the minute it happened, and flew them the hell out of the country. WE KNOW THIS. Why doesn't anyone focus on it??

Total nonsense. The rest of bin Laden family had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.

Also, the hijackers weren't using assumed names, they appeared on the flight manifests, and they were known. It doesn't take very long to add 2 and 2...

Also, bin Laden's relatives were allowed to leave the country after the national ground stop was lifted and not without being questioned. http://911myths.com/html/family_flights.html

Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing [...]

I'm pretty sure you're talking about the Windsor building in Madrid.

I've got news for you, buddy: It actually works against you.

First, the Windsor building had a concrete core and two concrete technical floors. A very different design from that of the Twin Towers.

Second, the steel portions of the building exposed to the fire did in fact get all melty and collapsey. The only reason the building is still standing is because of the features I mentioned above.

http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html
http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm

Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing [...]

I'm pretty sure you're talking about the Windsor building in Madrid.

I've got news for you, buddy: It actually works against you.

First, the Windsor building had a concrete core and two concrete technical floors. A very different design from that of the Twin Towers.

Second, the steel portions of the building exposed to the fire did in fact get all melty and collapsey. The only reason the building is still standing is because of the features I mentioned above.

http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html
http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm

There are several points to be made here. . .

I've been impressed for some time now with the work done by the guys at http://www.debunking911.com/index.html and http://www.911myths.com/. There's a lot of rational thinking going on there. Since the day of 911, I couldn't understand the assertion that the towers had been destroyed through controlled demolition. It didn't make sense; a series of jet liners being hijacked in an orchestrated manner, and the crashing of them into the twin towers would have been entirely adequate to start a war. If the buildings had not come down, the deaths of the people and the hampered rescue efforts and the fires would have been a huge tragedy which people would still be talking about today. The buildings collapsing was icing on the cake, if you'll pardon the glibness of the term.

I remember early on, within the first couple of months, a proliferation of conspiracy ideas all landing at the same time. There was one link forwarded to me, which showed a missile striking one of the towers. It was very convincing, upon checking it thoroughly and looking at other samples of the same footage, it turned out to be a very poorly compressed video. The background, which moved very little in the frame looked fine, but the moving object, (the plane), devolved through the encryption process and really did look like a torpedo or cruise missile. I pointed this out loudly, and then never saw that clip ever again. It struck me as odd at the time that such an article would make its way on to the web. Surely the guy who compressed the video and posted it as, "Look! A Missile!" knew that he was creating something very misleading. Perhaps it was a series of mistakes; a poor compression found by somebody else who posted it. But it did seem weird that it and a dozen or so other theories and bits of misleading evidence showed up all at once, several of which continue to hold sway to this day. The process through which disinformation is known to be deliberately distributed to confuse and divide the public seems to me to be a large part of what may be going on here. Covert perception management has been a large part of conducting war in the U.S., and there is plenty of documentation to support this.

I really didn't think much more about the controlled demolition claims until much later when some very well produced items, like "Loose Change" came along and raised doubts again, but for the most part, after looking through all of this stuff, I really don't think that the buildings were deliberately demolished. --I think there is some strong argument of foreknowledge of those attacks, and I noticed that de-bunk sites linked fail to address the more damning of those claims.

And the Pentagon is another matter. I have yet to see anything which convinces me that a passenger jet struck that building. There are a multitude of questions which the de-bunking sites, again, either ignore or answer with very stretched and unconvincing arguments. --The best piece of evidence in my mind in favor of a large jet is the combustion chamber debris, but the first thought which struck me was, "Why not just load some 757 engine parts into the attack vehicle?" I'm surprised that nobody has ever considered this. It seems to me that it would have been a rather obvious ploy. The nature of the wreckage and the missing parts and the withholding of camera images, among numerous other points, are also very awkwardly addressed, if addressed at all by the debunkers. I tend to think that it was not a missile, but perhaps a different type of aircraft which could have been remotely controlled to ensure a 'safe' show-piece disaster at the Pentagon.

In any case, the larger issue is not really in much question. --As one of the sites you linked to put it, "The evidence for a conspiracy to use 9/11 to invade Iraq is significant. While there is not one

Now Slashdot has been invaded! Is there nowhere I can go to escape these conspiracist nutbags? I will make a feeble attempt to counteract this inane review of an inane book, with a list of various debunking links:

September 11th
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
http://www.911myths.com/
http://wtc.nist.gov/

Income Tax and the Federal Reserve
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html

Other
http://www.debunker.com/conspiracy.html
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000140.html

General
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.h tm
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/
http://www.no911conspiracy.com/mythsvsfacts.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar y_law/1227842.html?page=1
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

Stuff your paranoid delusions.

http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/12 27842.html?page=1&c=y
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

NORAD response information:
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercepts__norad_and _the_faa.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/andrews_afb.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/fighter_speeds.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/recognising_the_threa t.html
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?tit le=NORAD
http://calan8.livejournal.com/

NORAD response information:
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercepts__norad_and _the_faa.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/andrews_afb.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/fighter_speeds.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/recognising_the_threa t.html
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?tit le=NORAD
http://calan8.livejournal.com/

NORAD response information:
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercepts__norad_and _the_faa.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/andrews_afb.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/fighter_speeds.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/recognising_the_threa t.html
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?tit le=NORAD
http://calan8.livejournal.com/

NORAD response information:
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercepts__norad_and _the_faa.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/andrews_afb.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/fighter_speeds.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/recognising_the_threa t.html
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?tit le=NORAD
http://calan8.livejournal.com/

NORAD response information:
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercepts__norad_and _the_faa.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/andrews_afb.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/fighter_speeds.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/recognising_the_threa t.html
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?tit le=NORAD
http://calan8.livejournal.com/

Call me crazy but maybe the large chunk taken out of the bottom 10-20 stories (which happen to be where the support trusses were located) as well as a building wide fire had something to do with that one.

Just a guess.

But then again the argument that "never in the history of 110 story buildings collapsing into neighboring 40 story buildings with funky architectural design have they ever collapsed" holds up equally well for this case.

Any yet the very first link when searching for WTC7 DAMAGE shows a clear picture of the building with a large chunk taken out of the lower section as well as first hand accounts of the damage from people who saw it first hand.

Funny that.

I'm not sure where you're getting the claims that the steel was destroyed. I understand it differently.

And really man, it's a comic. It's purpose isn't to present a well argued thesis on the socio-political aspects of third world micro-lending. It was supposed to be funny. It went with the assumption that is held by a majority of people, and 99% of the experts that 9/11 being an inside job is a conspiracy. You're looking to build stawman to easily take down to more easily confirm your own doubts and prejudices with. It's just a comic man, if you want the other side of the argument, seek it out. I'm not gonna tell you the NIST report is perfect and 100% right, it was made by humans, with non limited time and non limited resources, there's sure to be errors and omissions, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is the most plausible explanation by leaps and bounds over anything anyone's presented.

There could be many explanations, but holistically, the standard theories of the "truthers", namely controlled demolitions and directed energy beams, to say nothing of the wackier theories such as the holographic plane theory, or "It was magick!" simply are not based in fact, and have numerous holes. The fact is that the "official explanation" as it's called and the NIST report is the best explanation given all the known facts.

The lease holder gave the OK to "pull it".
I didn't know you could do that. Can just any building be "pulled", just like that?

Yet there was no significant damage visible to witnesses on the ground or in still or video images we have of the building, and fires were visibly minor.

This is completely untrue. There was significant damage to the south side.

And we know that the explosion and resulting damage to the Pentagon looks absolutely nothing whatsoever like what we've repeatedly seen when a 757 hits a building.

When have we ever seen a 757 hit a building except for WTC 1 and 2, which were built totally differently than the Pentagon?

And that any camera pointed in the right general direction will very clearly show a plane hitting a building.

Unless it didn't take a frame at the moment the plane hit. Hint: The plane was travelling something like 500 mph on impact. What was the frame rate of the camera and how far would the plane have traveled between frames?

And that those same defenses, designed to protect the building in the event of attack from the evil Russkies, completely and utterly failed to even sound the alarm--let alone fire off anti-aircraft, anti-missile, anti-whatever defenses--even when the people in the building were supposedly coordinating our response to an air attack

Who ever said the Pentagon had any kind of defense system anything like that?

That's all I'm saying. The facts are quite clear

Yes, they are. Two planes hit WTC 1 and 2, which later collapsed, damaging WTC 7 enough that it also collapsed. Another plane crashed into the Pentagon creating a large hole and leaving debris.

There are also thousands of pictures and videos from the WTC site that are classified. If planes really brought down the towers, why would such classification be necessary? Also, just like in Oklahoma City, all the evidence from the WTC site was destroyed as quickly as possible. They could've saved the steel for analysis, and we'd know whether or not thermite (or some other explosive) was used to cut the core columns.

You might want to take another view on the 9/11 theories. The arguments you put forward are specious at best, mind you they are not uncommon arguments, but that does not make them correct.

A good primer can be found here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220 921158523

Keep in mind that Penn and Teller use Ad Hominim attacks for 2 reasons. First, its funny, and the show has to be entertaining to some degree. Second, they can be sued for using words like: "Hoax" "Fraud" etc, but they cannot be sued for: "Bullshit" "Asshole" and "Motherfucker". So, keep that in mind.

Also, if you have had the misfortune to watch the movie "Loose Change" first or second edition, you might want to check out this link:

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

It is "Loose Change 2nd ed." With added commentary pointing out the errors made in the movie. Keep in mind Popular Mechanics and a host of other publications have already soundly debunked these theories, and for more on loose change, a blow by blow HTML debunking can be found here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/i ntroduction.html

Remember, if you ever wonder about an issue, check out both sides and then decide for yourself. If you would like my suggestion into a few good books on how to do that (if you care) they are:

The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark - Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan
Why People Believe Wierd Things - Michael Schermer
Voodoo Science - Robert L. Park

A collection of excellent debunking links follows:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/12 27842.html
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.911myths.com/

Umm, like to defend our country, stuff like that. So no jets were scrambled. They Stood down. You don't find the least problem with that?

Since then, Silverstein, the owner, has admitted he had the building "pulled".

. . .y'all will come up with another theory anyway, and disregard the plain facts as usual.

Fact of the matter is, analysts were able to get a *few* peices of steel, and yes, it took a while to clear the site, but the fact of the matter is the area was completely closed off, and the steel *was* sent to India and China to be recycled.

Do the research, or at least read the work of people have, rather than regurgitating the govt approved "story".

The debris being ejected by the explosive forces of, erm, explosives?lol. What?

http://911myths.com/assets/images/Collapse.jpg

If you want to kill the conspiracy theories, you have to explain WTC7. It was over-engineered because it was the bunker for emergencies for NYC.

Then you have the owner of the building, Larry Silverstein, saying that he was sorry they had to "pull" the building. (Link to video below.)

Why would they disavow pulling the building due to safety concerns? Because it takes weeks to plan the demolition of a building, and you can't really plant explosives to pull a building if the building is on fire. Especially the kind of fire that is melting steel, which occurs at 3000 degrees Fahrenheit.

Explain why a high rise in Spain can burn for over 24 hours, partially collapse, and still not fall.

Explain why the only three steel and concrete buildings in history to collapse from fire do it on a single day in the same square mile.

1. Not that I doubt the Pentagon was hit by an aircraft, but it is documented fact that several security camera tapes were confiscated after the crash. Release them in their entirety.

2. Explain to me why standard operating procedures for NORAD that would normally require specific orders to disregard, were disregarded that day.

3. Explain to me how WTC-7 came to be the only steel-framed structure in recorded history to suffer a complete collapse as a result of fire alone. (FEMA's own report offers an elaborate theory which they say has a "low probability of occurance")

4. In light of the signifigance (particularly to insurers, architechts, engineers) of WTC-7's collapse-due-to-fire, why were the building remains sold to China for scrap before they could be fully analyzed?

The building had been evacuated hours before the collapse, it was not necessary for rescue crews. This is a major event in the building industry: if steel structures can collapse from fire alone, insurance rates would have to be adjusted, architects would have to reconsider the design of thousands of structures.

5. If Flight 93 was destroyed by being crashed (intentionally or accidentally) into a field in Shanksville, PA, why did it leave a debris field over 8+ miles?