9/11 (and other) mysteries

[MishaK]

Well I might get back to you conspiracists tomorrow with your media brainwashing, and it's nice you find the time, but if you don't mind me saying I can see you're rattled enough as it is.

It is a big thing this. It's one thing to casually bitch and rant about the world but quite another to take seriously the notion that it and our whole way of life might be corrupt and based on a pack of absolute lies.

Sean, take a dose of your own medicine, OK? You are talking out of the orifice on your rear to two 9-11 eye-witnesses on this board. I don't even own a TV. What media brainwashing? Get real. Based on your incoherent theories above, you have a lot of questions to answer. So get working before you accuse people of intellectual corruption or worse.

[Guido]

O Mench, BWV 1080,

It should be apparent by now that "Sean" is a deeply disturbed individual and that a proclivity for conspiracy theories is his most harmless manifestation of pathology.

This is quite offensive, and is it really your place to diagnose someone over the internet with mental illness? It is not becoming to accuse an oponent of being crazy - it doesn't reflect well on you, make your side of the story look any better, nor is it a convincing argument strategy. I

personally would tend to side with the non-conspiracists, but there are genuine questions to be asked that have not been given satisfactory answers as of yet. Why release only five stills of the plane crashing into the pentagon when the plane isn't in one of them? Why withhold information from the blackbox? undsoweiter. These questions could in theory be very easily answered, but it's the air of secrecy that bothers people. Even if there is no conscious effort to hold anything back from the public, it is percieved in that way by a large amount of people - dialogue is the only way this can be resolved. If you start ridiculing dissenting views and dismissing them off hand without evidence* of your own rumours will always circulate as that is the nature of people's reactions.

*(you are just as guilty as Sean in quoting supposed 'scientific facts' - there is no way of differentiating between them without some references or original research of your own.)

[MishaK]

personally would tend to side with the non-conspiracists, but there are genuine questions to be asked that have not been given satisfactory answers as of yet. Why release only five stills of the plane crashing into the pentagon when the plane isn't in one of them? Why withhold information from the blackbox? undsoweiter. These questions could in theory be very easily answered, but it's the air of secrecy that bothers people. Even if there is no conscious effort to hold anything back from the public, it is percieved in that way by a large amount of people - dialogue is the only way this can be resolved. If you start ridiculing dissenting views and dismissing them off hand without evidence* of your own rumours will always circulate as that is the nature of people's reactions.

You are right, the government is secretive and it doesn't help it's case. (Then again, perhaps nourishing conspiracy theorists helps them portray their opponents as total loonies.) But the principal reason they are being secretive is to mask their gross incompetence and negligence in preventing 9-11, not because they are part of the conspiracy. Isn't it funny that the conspiracy theorists look at every seemingly odd piece of information except all the evidence that we have now about just how grossly the government messed up in preventing this from happening? Intent, complicty and agency are much harder to prove than negligence. For the former there is no evidence, for the latter plenty.

[head-case]

*(you are just as guilty as Sean in quoting supposed 'scientific facts' - there is no way of differentiating between them without some references or original research of your own.)

There is a difference between citing a study published by internationally recognized experts at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and citing a guy who without any recognized credentials who has a web site splattered with objectively incorrect statements (such as steel must be heated to 1500C before it loses its strength).

[PSmith08]

You are right, the government is secretive and it doesn't help it's case. (Then again, perhaps nourishing conspirators helps them portray their opponents as total loonies.) But the principal reason they are being secretive is to mask their gross incompetence and negligence in preventing 9-11, not because they are part of the conspiracy. Isn't it funny that the conspirators look at every seemingly odd piece of information except all the evidence that we have now about just how grossly the government messed up in preventing this from happening? Intent, complicity and agency are much harder to prove than negligence. For the former there is no evidence, for the latter plenty.

Of all possible explanations, the "sheer negligence on the part of several government agencies" seems more likely than not. We have seen, as late as 2003, with the "war" on terror in full swing, that the intelligence side of things wasn't operating at 100%. The government got caught asleep at the switch, but instead of some bureaucratic foul-up, the biggest national tragedy in a good long time happened. Of course they'd try to obfuscate and dissemble. They like having jobs.

Conspiracy theories, to my mind, serve roughly the same purpose as ancient mystery cults (Demeter at Eleusis, Bacchus, Mithras, et seq.): the world can be scary, so people find "secret" knowledge that makes the world less scary, less random. They're mostly harmless, but no adherent ever stops to think: how am I smarter than all these sinister "new world order" types?

Sometimes buildings collapse, especially when hit with more-than-toleranced force, heated above tolerances, and shaken real good. Sometimes it really is that simple, and the real answer is worse.

[Sean]

The conspirators aren't incompetant at all: there may have been a few things they'd have done differently like planting WMD to be found in Iraq, but the main goals have been achieved- long-term military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan on either side of Iran.

Somalia is another country whose instability was deliberately engineered in the Cold War and well maintainted since, and that's just across the sea from Saudi Arabia; similarly there's presence in Uzbekistan for access to the oil of the Caspian & Aral seas north of Iran. In fact it's debatable whether a relationship between military intervention and human rights problems exists at all and it isn't wholly based on the occurence of oil in the country in question: what happened to Rwanda, Sudan, Myanmar, Timor etc?

[Sean]

Mensch

Evidence? How come it collapsed much later in the day than the twin towers if it was designed to go off at the same time? Was Rudy Giuliani in on this plot? Why did he have his emergency headquarters there?

It seems they failed to go off on time- see the site.

Oh, the missile again and the claim of total absence of wreckage again. Need I explain again what I have explained before in this forum about the difference between high speed aircraft crashes and low speed aircraft crashes (as would occur during approach and takeoff) and what that does to wreckage? Need I mention Turkish Airlines DC-10, Paris again?

The situation with the size of the hole in the Pentagon wall, before the facade suspiciously collapsed soon after, and the total lack of wreckage, the almost indestructable engines, bodies, or any damage at all to the lawn in front, does raise some questions...

[Sean]

Mensch

You seem to think steel is indestructible, especially "toughened" steel. Is that a scientific term? Pyroclastic flow refers to volcanic eruptions. What did you mean to say? Are you saying it wasn't the planes, it was a volcano below ground zero? Oh, wait. You just wanted to sound knoweldgeable by using "big" words, when in fact you haven't got a clue. I get it.

The pyroclastic nature of the clouds from the towers' collapse has been much discussed, suggesting particular advanced forms of explosives used.

They were designed to withstand the impact of a 707, a plane less than half the size and weight of a 767-200ER. But it's not the impact alone that destroyed the building. They were not designed to withstand the fire resulting from over a hundred thousand pounds of jet fuel burning. But go ahead and conveniently conflate the two.

The fact is that fires just don't bring down steel frame buildings: it's the official view that is far fetched, if anyone actually stops to think about it.

That's not enough for the critical thinker. As a critical thinker you are not allowed to simply refer me to the supposedly critical thinking of others, you must show through your own critical thinking why what you call the 'truss theory' is inadequate. Do your homework. I ain't doin' it for you.

See the site- among much else there's an extensive linked article on wind loading that shows the trusses must have had the strength to withstand fire.

They were owned by banks and different financing vehicles and subject to a number of securitization structures, i.e. a lot of different people had a lot of money tied up in these planes and AA and UA were merely making loan or rent payments...

Disinformation.

Secondly, if you are remote-controlling them, then why such erratic flightpaths (that look like the plane is being flown by a total amateur), which could endanger the success of the operation? Some of these guys were at the verge of loss of control at several points during the flightpath. The UA 767 that went into the south tower was going so fast it was close to disintegrating in midair. Why fly like that if you know what you're doing?

Doesn't prove anything: remote flying may be extremely difficult- it looks like they nearly missed the second tower, most of the fuel exploding outside through the corner.

[MishaK]

The conspirators aren't incompetant at all: there may have been a few things they'd have done differently like planting WMD to be found in Iraq, but the main goals have been achieved- long-term military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan on either side of Iran.

Just because somebody gained something from a particular result, doesn't prove that that somebody was complicit in producing it. You have failed to show agency or intent and that is what you allege. You keep piling allegations without evidence. NB: Iran has been vastly strengthened strategically by Bush's blunders, so your analyisis above is deeply flawed on a number of levels.

Somalia is another country whose instability was deliberately engineered in the Cold War and well maintainted since, and that's just across the sea from Saudi Arabia; similarly there's presence in Uzbekistan for access to the oil of the Caspian & Aral seas north of Iran. In fact it's debatable whether a relationship between military intervention and human rights problems exists at all and it isn't wholly based on the occurence of oil in the country in question: what happened to Rwanda, Sudan, Myanmar, Timor etc?

Total non sequitur.

It seems they failed to go off on time- see the site.

How conveinent. What's the evidence for any bombs? Note that there were no detonations. What's a bomb without a detonation? I'm not going to look at any sites. I want to see your analysis.

The situation with the size of the hole in the Pentagon wall, before the facade suspiciously collapsed soon after, and the total lack of wreckage, the almost indestructable engines, bodies, or any damage at all to the lawn in front, does raise some questions...

Sean, a high speed impact leaves almost no wreckage. All those armchair detectives who think that the absence of (to a layman) identifiable pieces of tail or wings indicate that the impact was caused by a missile are clueless. They are comparing the Pentagon damage to low speed airliner crashes. Most airliner crashes occur during takeoff or landing when the aircraft is travelling between 120 and 180 mph (often less than that since a stall is usually part of the cause of the crash). The 757 which hit the Pentagon was travelling well over 400 mph. You're not going to have pieces of wreckage larger than a sardine can at that speed. Compare to the 1974 Turkish Airlines crash outside Paris. There a DC-10-30 (a much larger aircraft than the 757) crashed from 23,000ft to the ground at high speed (430 knots). Not a single piece of wreckage was larger than a soda can. The images I have seen from the Pentagon site show unmistakeable compressor cores of the RR engines of the 757 as well as pieces of the fuselage skin. There is no question in my mind that a 757 crashed there. Again,  I have some expertise with airliners so I do recognize the correct parts in question here. As to the wall of the pentagon: this was solid masonry. It is no surprise that the destruction around the impact point is only as wide as the fuselage and the engines, not the rest of the wings. The wings are very lightweight and can't penetrate the masonry at such speed. Compare with the impact of a B-25 bomber shortly after WWII at the Empire State building - another masonry structure. Only the fuselage entered, not the wings. Everything about the Pentagon site is completely in line with an airliner crash. A missile impact would have left evidence of outward explosion, smudges on the remaining pieces of wall and a crater. None of that is visible.

The pyroclastic nature of the clouds from the towers' collapse has been much discussed, suggesting particular advanced forms of explosives used.

You use this word a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means. That it has been much discussed is irrelevant as long as you don't explain what the heck you mean by repeating that word as if it should, in and of itself, be evidence of something.

The fact is that fires just don't bring down steel frame buildings: it's the official view that is far fetched, if anyone actually stops to think about it.

Oh, that's a fact now? Well, how many steel buildings did we have that had uncontrolled fires with approx. 100,000 gallons of jet fuel and a good 40% of the supporting structure on the floors in question gone, and with the weight of several dozen floors pressing down from above? What's your precedent for this ludicrus assertion?

See the site- among much else there's an extensive linked article on wind loading that shows the trusses must have had the strength to withstand fire.

No, you're the critical thinker here. I want to see your alleged critical thinking, not that of the authors of those silly sites. How do you reach the conclusion that explosions brought down the WTC. Again, I'm not going by any official version. I was there in person. There were no explosions. Period.

Disinformation.

Dude, you are silly. This is my line of work. I don't need your amateur self to correct my alleged misinformation. I can pull up the original files with little effort. These planes were financed, not owned by the airlines. Where did they go? Why did anyone do this nonsense to GOP campaign supporters? Your theory is bunk.

Doesn't prove anything: remote flying may be extremely difficult- it looks like they nearly missed the second tower, most of the fuel exploding outside through the corner.

The USAF has decades of experience flying remote controlled aircraft. Nobody who ever earned a set of wings in the USAF would fly a plane like that, not even by accident. The flightpaths of these aircraft are unambiguous evidence of a complete novice at the controls of an airliner for the first time. Once again, you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. You are just merely speculating out of your rear because it gives you emotional comfort to consider yourself wiser by rejecting the "official" veision. It makes you feel like a righteous rebel standing up against powerful Uncle Sam. Meanwhile, Occam's razor has reduced your theories to a pile of shards. But it doesn't seem to bother you. You are the one who needs to get emotionally mature enough to question your predispositions, assumptions and prejudices such that you can even begin to think critically and assess information intelligently.

[MishaK]

BTW, regarding destruction by fire vs. explosives, one of your sites actually has this wonderful picture:



Note how the upper structure is completely intact and is literally crushing what is below. That's no controlled demolition, that's structural failure. Now look closely again at that picture. If someone had planted explosives there for a controlled demolition, those explosives - and the wiring to set them off! - must have survived a fire for an hour(!), before someone set them off, because quite evidently from that picture, the demolition began right around the floors where the aircraft entered. Not only that, the aircraft must have been aimed extremely precisely at the right spot where the bombs had been planted in order to ensure this result. Just a floor or two above or below and this picture would have looked different. Now what's the likelihood of that, especially given the haphazard flying that has been in evidence concerning those two aircraft? Again, if you want to bomb the WTC and blame the terrorists, why go to the trouble of flying planes into it if you've planted bombs already? Your theory has more loose ends and open questions than the most harebrained nonsense that has ever come out of the Bush administration.

[knight66]

Mench, I really do feel your excellent points are falling on, not merely deaf ears, but blocked ears. I have been reading all this with interest and note the signs of the zealot who collects dispirate factoids that are somehow supposed to form a picture of conspiracy. What a load of bunk. It is not about freedom of thought, rather common sense and critical faculties in free-fall.

Mike

[Sean]

Hello Mensch, are you even more crazy than me? I just wonder why you bother... Anyway I do like the points you make here as I hadn't thought of them. I don't think they're clinching points, but rather good ones...

If someone had planted explosives there for a controlled demolition, those explosives - and the wiring to set them off! - must have survived a fire for an hour(!), before someone set them off, because quite evidently from that picture, the demolition began right around the floors where the aircraft entered. Not only that, the aircraft must have been aimed extremely precisely at the right spot where the bombs had been planted in order to ensure this result. Just a floor or two above or below and this picture would have looked different. Now what's the likelihood of that, especially given the haphazard flying that has been in evidence concerning those two aircraft?

[Sean]

Mench, I really do feel your excellent points are falling on, not merely deaf ears, but blocked ears. I have been reading all this with interest and note the signs of the zealot who collects dispirate factoids that are somehow supposed to form a picture of conspiracy. What a load of bunk. It is not about freedom of thought, rather common sense and critical faculties in free-fall.

Hello Mike. The interesting thing about the 9/11 conspiracies is that they're not that far-fetched and there are some very interesting points made and questions to be asked: it really isn't as simple as you suggest.

And the interesting thing about stupid internet forums is that you don't need your ears...

[knight66]

Would you have preferred I refer to your mind as closed and blocked? In any complex event such as 9/11 there can be space created to start conspiracy theories. The same can be said of Diana and the car crash....supposedly engineered by the Royal Family. yet had she simply worn her seat belt, she would have survived. That does not stop the spinning of those who prefer to see evil intent by those who rule directing whatever happens...to simply happen.

I have little faith in western government and there is plenty of opportunity to point out genuine abuse of power, but to suggest that 9/11 was engineered as a sort of Pearl Harbour trigger is absurd.

Mike

[Sean]

Mensch

Just because somebody gained something from a particular result, doesn't prove that that somebody was complicit in producing it.

The Reichstag fire and Crystal night were believed at the time to be entirely blamed on the Jews, yet no historian today believes it...

Total non sequitur

And don't forget Algeria, DR Congo, N.Korea or Colombia, among others...

What's the evidence for any bombs? Note that there were no detonations. What's a bomb without a detonation?

See the Loose Change video for many witnesses to bombs going off in the towers.

I'm not going to look at any sites.

Hey!

Sean, a high speed impact leaves almost no wreckage. All those armchair detectives who think that the absence of (to a layman) identifiable pieces of tail or wings indicate that the impact was caused by a missile are clueless. They are comparing the Pentagon damage to low speed airliner crashes. Most airliner crashes occur during takeoff or landing when the aircraft is travelling between 120 and 180 mph (often less than that since a stall is usually part of the cause of the crash). The 757 which hit the Pentagon was travelling well over 400 mph. You're not going to have pieces of wreckage larger than a sardine can at that speed. Compare to the 1974 Turkish Airlines crash outside Paris. There a DC-10-30 (a much larger aircraft than the 757) crashed from 23,000ft to the ground at high speed (430 knots). Not a single piece of wreckage was larger than a soda can. The images I have seen from the Pentagon site show unmistakeable compressor cores of the RR engines of the 757 as well as pieces of the fuselage skin. There is no question in my mind that a 757 crashed there.

Okay. Maybe you're right and my intuitions are wrong.

Do you feel you're happy with what the media says though, generally speaking? (I attempted another thread on this). I'd say by any conservative estimate that we're thrown great quantities of lies and half-lies at us: there are a billion ways to present information.

As to the wall of the pentagon: this was solid masonry. It is no surprise that the destruction around the impact point is only as wide as the fuselage and the engines, not the rest of the wings.

The entry hole entirely lacks the effects of impacts of engines as attached to the wings. There is no damage at all to the walls where the engines should be- see the airliner's silouette superimpositions, etc.

The wings are very lightweight and can't penetrate the masonry at such speed.

Don't they also have greater momentum at speed?

You use this word a lot. I don't think it means what you think it means. That it has been much discussed is irrelevant as long as you don't explain what the heck you mean by repeating that word as if it should, in and of itself, be evidence of something.

Hey I did two years of geology!

Oh, that's a fact now? Well, how many steel buildings did we have that had uncontrolled fires with approx. 100,000 gallons of jet fuel and a good 40% of the supporting structure on the floors in question gone, and with the weight of several dozen floors pressing down from above? What's your precedent for this ludicrus assertion?

Chill, I know it's a big thing if it were even half true. Have a beer (like me) and think it over (either way, can we trash this thread?).

No, you're the critical thinker here. I want to see your alleged critical thinking, not that of the authors of those silly sites. How do you reach the conclusion that explosions brought down the WTC. Again, I'm not going by any official version. I was there in person. There were no explosions. Period.

Is it worth talking with you? I don't just want to wind you up but either you have that ability to separate yourself from your media guidance and identity with your superficial surroundings, or you don't...

The USAF has decades of experience flying remote controlled aircraft. Nobody who ever earned a set of wings in the USAF would fly a plane like that, not even by accident. The flightpaths of these aircraft are unambiguous evidence of a complete novice at the controls of an airliner for the first time.

If you say so. It would also be what a conspiracist would be aiming for though, needless to say.

Once again, you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. You are just merely speculating out of your rear because it gives you emotional comfort to consider yourself wiser by rejecting the "official" veision.

Emotional comfort eh? Well as I say, either you feel you can take a more objective view than the shocking drivel passing for news on the commercial media and mass bubblegum culture pervading our lives, or you can't.

It makes you feel like a righteous rebel standing up against powerful Uncle Sam.

Actually I like America a lot, I've been several times and I much prefer it to the UK, which is far too dull and stupid a place even for a conspiracy. I'd be an American any day.

Meanwhile, Occam's razor has reduced your theories to a pile of shards. But it doesn't seem to bother you. You are the one who needs to get emotionally mature enough...

Mensch, pal, I can sense uncertainty when I come across it (but I don't claim to know everything either). It's up to you.

[Sean]

Mike

I have little faith in western government and there is plenty of opportunity to point out genuine abuse of power, but to suggest that 9/11 was engineered as a sort of Pearl Harbour trigger is absurd.

Mmm.

[PSmith08]

The problem with all the 9/11 conspiracy "theories" is that they confuse sufficiency for necessity. All conspiracy "theories" do. All such "theorists" would benefit from a course in logic or upper-division mathematics, as they'd see the fatal fallacy immediately. A conspiracy on the part of the United States Government, designed to launch a war of conquest in the oil-rich Mideast, would be sufficient for the 9/11 attacks. However, that conspiracy is not necessary. Since three planes were involved, a conspiracy is necessary and sufficient ab initio; however, that makes no statement about which conspiracy. It could have been al-Qaeda. The external evidence points in that direction. Like their taking responsibility for it. These "theories" are predicated on so many leaps of faith that they might as well be a religion.

The Reichstag fire and Crystal night were believed at the time to be entirely blamed on the Jews, yet no historian today believes it...

For the record, the Reichstag fire was blamed on a Dutch Communist, Marinus van der Lubbe, who was found in the Reichstag by the police during the incident. The fire was used to shore up NSDAP claims that Communists were seeking to destroy the Hitler government. Not the Jews. There is some controversy about the exact role of Van der Lubbe, and the infamous comments made by Göring. It is still, for the most part, a bit of a mystery. One could do a quick cui bono and arrive at a solid hypothesis, but could probably not - at the same time - arrive at a fact-perfect account of the events. Kristallnacht was pretty openly a NSDAP pogrom against Jews, on the flimsy pretext of avenging the murder of Ernst von Rath. The Jews got blamed, but no one believed it then. Or now.

[MishaK]

The Reichstag fire and Crystal night were believed at the time to be entirely blamed on the Jews, yet no historian today believes it...

Non sequitur.

And don't forget Algeria, DR Congo, N.Korea or Colombia, among others...

More non sequiturs. I can name random countries, too, you know?

See the Loose Change video for many witnesses to bombs going off in the towers.

I have seen it before. All these witnesses are experts of course who have heard explosions before and know exactly what that sounds like. And meanwhile, I am talking nonsense, though I was there and though I know exactly what steel breaking sounds like.

Hey!

You have to do your own homework. Sorry. No shortcuts.

Okay. Maybe you're right and my intuitions are wrong.

"Intuitions" are at best the beginning of critical thinking. Ciritcal thinking, though, requires that you do your homework and check whether your intutions are correct rather than stopping when you think you've found an emotionally satisfying explanation.

Do you feel you're happy with what the media says though, generally speaking? (I attempted another thread on this). I'd say by any conservative estimate that we're thrown great quantities of lies and half-lies at us: there are a billion ways to present information.

Once again: I don't give a rat's behind about the media. I don't watch TV. I was there.

The entry hole entirely lacks the effects of impacts of engines as attached to the wings. There is no damage at all to the walls where the engines should be- see the airliner's silouette superimpositions, etc.

That is incorrect. I have seen images of the secondary compressor stage from one of the RR RB211 engines from the 757 taken at the site. Silhouette is spelled with an "h". The engines would have shorn off easily (they are designed to do that on impact, you know?) and don't have nearly as much weight as the fuse.

Don't they also have greater momentum at speed?

Sure, but a couple of feet of very lightweight composites and aluminum alloys are not going to hurt solid masonry, no matter what the speed.

Hey I did two years of geology!

Lovely. Unfortunately we're not talking about volcanoes.

Chill, I know it's a big thing if it were even half true. Have a beer (like me) and think it over (either way, can we trash this thread?).

You're the one who hasn't thought things through here. You are comparing apples and oranges. You don't have a precedent that you can simply say that it is fact that a steel structure of the kind just like the WTC would have withstood the fire in question with all the jet fuel and with all the structural damage and with all the weight pressing down from above.

Is it worth talking with you? I don't just want to wind you up but either you have that ability to separate yourself from your media guidance and identity with your superficial surroundings, or you don't...

For the last time: I WAS THERE. YOU WERE NOT. I DID NOT WATCH THE TV. I DON'T OWN A TV. I DID NOT GET MY VERSION OF THE TRUTH FROM THE MEDIA. I GOT IT FROM MY OWN EYES. Did you get that now? Take your anti-media crusade elsewhere. (PS: technically, your adored conspiracy websites are "media" too - something to think about.)

If you say so. It would also be what a conspiracist would be aiming for though, needless to say.

Sean, if completely opposite types of evidence both supposedly prove your theory (i.e. a deliberate flightpath is just as much evidence of a conspiracy as an erratic flightpath) then you are really not being very scientific about anything. I think it's time you hand back your Critical Thinker Certificate.

Emotional comfort eh? Well as I say, either you feel you can take a more objective view than the shocking drivel passing for news on the commercial media and mass bubblegum culture pervading our lives, or you can't.

See above.

Actually I like America a lot, I've been several times and I much prefer it to the UK, which is far too dull and stupid a place even for a conspiracy. I'd be an American any day.

So the conspiracy then amplifies your romantic idea of America as an exciting place, I see.

Mensch, pal, I can sense uncertainty when I come across it (but I don't claim to know everything either). It's up to you.

Yes, but you evidently lack the basic intellectual capacity to weigh the number and absurdity of necessary assumptions for one theory vs. the same for the other in order to then realize that the version you are peddling is so improbable that you might as well argue the WTC was attacked by Martians.

[knight66]

I see that yet again Sean has done his retiring Judy Garland act and buzzed off. I don't know why folk bother to engage him.

Mike

[PSmith08]

I see that yet again Sean has done his retiring Judy Garland act and buzzed off. I don't know why folk bother to engage him.

Mike

Sport?