In article <e7glrq02u5p@news3.newsguy.com>, cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com says...

Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:

It should be so noted, that there was an obvious fireball that occurred
outside the Tower with the second impact, so the two impacts/strikes
were decidedly different, making the first one, more on target? than the
second? Yet the second tower that was hit, fell first.

Obviously you with the luxury of hindsight would have trained cameras 
all over the place for the first impact to demonstrate that there was no 
exit point. Even so, what scant footage there is of the first impact 
shows an exit point.

That both collapsed in the same manner - you can conclude that both were
of the same cause.

Yes, a plane hit them.

But you seem perplexed that planes hitting different floors at different 
speeds and angles might cause the towers to collapse at different rates.

To me (with no expert knowledge) the idea of a clean impact of a Boeing
757 entering a skyscaper, and to disappear entirely inside, is very hard
to believe... And for it to happen twice! is even more unbelievable?
The plane should break apart on impact with the skyscraper - because it is
a hard target. A much smaller object, would be able to be contained within
the Tower impact.

First off it was a 767 that hit both towers. Secondly, neither 
"disappear[ed] entirely inside" - large bits of debris came straight out 
of the other side for the second impact, large bits are even visible 

>from the shakey footage of the first impact. Virtually every video clip 

shows the fireball and some distinctly show debris, for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c

Since an aircraft is made from mostly insubstantial aluminium it should 
be no surprise at all to anyone that it virtually disintegrated when 
hitting a building. But bits did come out of the other side.

If the Boeing had the ability to penetrate the building, wouldn't it also
carry on, and possible force an exit point? also? That the building could
not absorb all of the energy potential, that it has to go somewhere, and
fast...

It did force an exit point. Unless you think that a massive fireball and 
flaming debris doesn't count as an exit point.

I think you have to look at it, as a special effects project SFX - because
I don't think it was done real, and live...

Don't be absurd. It was done real and live. Every single occupant of the 
WTC could have told you that. Every single occupant in lower Manhattan 
at the time could have told you that. Every single person watching 
events out of their window from New York or New Jersey could have told 
you that. Every single fireman, paramedic or cop could have told you 
that. Every single person watching it on TV from a dozen different 
angles from a dozen different news networks could have told you that. 
Every NTSB, FBI investigator could have told you that.

In fact it's actually hard to fathom how far gone you have to be to 
"rationalize" all that away and pull some otherworldly and ludicrous 
explanation out of your ass. Especially when you and fellow mental 
munchkin Amanda Angelika can't even relate the most basic facts without 
screwing them up or misunderstanding them.

Get a clue. Really.

Terrorists could not have done it.

Harvey

Your incredulity is not a valid argument.

Anyone with a few hours practice could have managed it. Flying an 
airborne aircraft is not difficult. These guys even took some flight 
lessons and had instruction manuals. It would have been relatively 
straightforward to steer the aircraft and control its speed in the way 
they did.

Of course I'm over generalising, because some people appear to believe 
that simple hand / eye coordination is beyond anyone's capacity.

Now who is the one pulling the wool over peoples' eyes?

The understanding involved to go straight from a Cessna cockpit to a
Boeing 757 is completely different, as too the controls - and if there is
a conspiracy involved, then simply dumping flight manuals into an abandoned
car, is only meant to clue you in on a false trail. It would make more
sense for them to take the manual(s) with them - but oh, terrorists have
photographic memory, don't they?
Never mind the course changes involved - no problem, my Cessna flight
training prepares me for that too.

Something to consider in all of this - is that if you do have someone
very intelligent, who are able to pilot the plane to such precision,
they'll probably have the sharpness of mind, to not want to waste their
life on such a stupid mission.
It is like the case of the bomb makers, who make up the suicide bombpack
contraptions - they'd rather get some stupid person, who would want to give
up their own life, at the press of a button. They wouldn't want to blow
themselves up - they're too smart to want to do that...

Harvey

What I want to know is why you conspiracy nitwits don't apply your same 
incredulity to other events.

Well, I wouldn't have considered any of these examples as being of
other causes than what they appear to be.

Perhaps Columbine massacre was a conspiracy too? After all, how can we 
believe that teenagers were capable of killing their fellow students in 
cold blood when they weren't government trained marksmen who suffered a 
psychotic breakdown after a botched brainwashing session?

Perhaps the eruption of Mount St Helens was a conspiracy. How can we 
believe the threat of eruption was not an elaborate pretext for the US 
government to perform an underground nuclear test beneath the volcano?

Perhaps Natalie Holloway was murdered by government operatives. How can 
we believe she didn't accidentally stumble onto secret meeting of the 
Bilderberg group?

Perhaps Hurricane Katrina was a conspiracy. How can we believe this 
thing was a natural event when it could have been from a top secret ion 
cannon being test fired by the US Navy that overloaded and cut a hole in 
the atmosphere?

etc.

-- 
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is 
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining 
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."