As long as your "job description" doesn't include propagada....
Ok, you can produce references from people who have gone on record supporting the "official" explanation of what happened 9/11/2001
The following is a list of people who do NOT believe the "official" explanation:
Maj Gen Albert Stubblebine (two star General)
has gone on record - "Flt 77 did NOT hit the PENTAGON."
General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret)
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret)
Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (ret)
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret)
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)
Lt. Col. Stephen L. Butler, EdD, U.S. Air Force (ret)
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, U.S. Army Reserve
Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, U.S. Navy
Major Erik Kleinsmith, U.S. Army
Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army (ret)
Major Scott Ritter, U.S. Marine Corps
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. Army
Dr. Robert Bowman Lt. Colonel (Ret)
Dr. James Fetzer Capt. (Ret)
Dr. Steven Jones
Dr. Virginia Deane Abernethy Ph.D.
Dr. Morgan Reynolds, PhD
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, PhD
Dr. Daniel Ellsberg, PhD
Dr. David L. Griscom, PhD
Dr. Melvin A. Goodman, PhD
Dr. William G. Weaver, JD, PhD
Senator Max Cleland
Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Senator Bob Graham
Senator Mark Dayton
Rep. Curt Weldon
Rep. Cynthia McKinney
So? What makes someone like the racist/rabid anti-Semite Cynthia McKinney's opinion more valuable than mine? And don't even get me going w/ Maj. Ritter. It's somewhere that I just don't want to go.
Now back to me, I'm an applied physics geek.
and the whole 9/11/2001 scene stinks big-time!
WHY is it that Buildings 5 & 6 where damaged but did NOT collapse like the towers and WTC7?
WHY is it that at NO time in the past has fire caused the collapse of a steel framed building? and ya, planes hit the towers but WTC7 was NOT hit by an airplane.
Well I'm much more of a history guy than a physics one, so my info. is from Popular Mechanics:
Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
Do you have PERFECT trust in the Bush administration?
If the various videos that where confiscated on 9/11 only show an aircraft crashing into the PENTAGON whats the big deal? we saw videos of a plane crashing into the WTC ... so whats up with hiding the video of the PENTAGON crash (unless maybe it was NOT a Boening 757)
No, I don't have perfect trust in any form of government.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6
Also to revisit a point, Cheney has NO respect for the LAW and I give as an example the "hunting accedent" he made local law enforcement wait untill he was ready to see them, NOT right after the "accedent" and given the same time_delay but done by "Joe Nobody" the police would have a warrent out for this guys arrest on at the very least obstruction of justice charges if not attempted murder.
Really, who cares? Clinton has potential to dozens of murders, Ted Kennedy killed someone, Robert Byrd was in the KKK, I mean come on. He shot his friend by accident. Give the guy a break.
You are a Marine, right, you have had small arms training (no?)
In small arms training the instructor stresses the fact that you (the guy with the firearm) have CONTROL, to shoot or not shoot, use your eyes and use your head and don't shoot unless you know what your target is!
Not exactly like that, but fair enough.
If an officer where to tell you to go into a village an kill all the women & children, would you do it? ... at what point will you draw the line and stand down?
Well first, I am an officer. But to answer your question "yes". One, for discipline. When troops start disobeying orders not only does the mission fail and the war become a lost cause, but further, the entire military dissolves and the sense of national security goes with it.
Second, when you join the military you have to trust that you are being sent on missions for a higher, more noble cause. If killing a village of civilians in Africa means saving an entire region in America from being slaughtered, then I will carry out the mission. Yes, it's tough but the one thing I want to say to you is that you don't know very much about how the military operates; there are things that happen in the military (both ways) that we are not allowed to disclose. You can't fight a war like the way were fighting in Iraq and expect to win. Now I'm done talking about this with you before I say too much.
