Oops, what turtle said.

I asked anyone to provide a link to clinton gore as i am unaware of it and havent found it after doing a couple differant searches, anyhow a linkwould be great but again why wouldnt the key players in this, the ones who if anyone has the answers refuse to testify under oath? its realy is mindboggling to me considering that many have sacraficed there lives in this that we cant get an honest answer from our government.

How would you know if it was honest? Would you believe it to be?

I would think i would believe someone who was willing to speak under oath more than i would believe someone who said they would speak but only if I am not under oath....this of course after a refusal to speak at all months of stone walling for a 911 comission etc etc go google it the information is all out there from reliable sources

You want the most likely, direct reason Bush would not speak under oath? That is if he's really trying to protect his career, is that Bush made important cuts to the task force Clinton had put together to hunt Osama. So if this bit of info is correct, combined with the documents and memoes entilted "Osama determined to attack", does it not make more sense to say that Bush was trying desperatly to protect his credibility for not taking Osama seriously? This is ain't no movie & it sure ain't Russia, no possible way it could have been done on the inside;^]

I dispute their reliability. Have those sources testified under oath? See where I am going with this? I don't purport to be wiser than the thousands who have investigated 9/11. I don't believe that a rational person could believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. I understand that some people walk around unmedicated thinking that the world is out to get them, or that D.B. Cooper is living the high life on a tropical island and that Elvis is a cook in a diner in Alabama. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

That seems reasonable to me, but probably not the wise decision and if that was the only quistion mark about the events of 911 I would accept that. But then you have to factor in these amature pilots who somehow managed to navigate a jumbo jet all over the country makeing incredible banking and turning manouvers hitting three out of four targests and haveing two of them come crashing down like a house of cards and building 7 not even hit, even though according to the engineers who deisgned them claimed they were built to withstand it......why the list is endless and i realy have my work cut out for me......again there seem to be so many weird things it realy is worthy of discussion and I am greatful for an opertunity to discuss them here

The aircraft in use at the time of construction were much smaller than those of today and carried a smaller fuel load. Why are we all educating you on what has been all over the net and the news for years? You need to do your own research and come to your own distorted conclusion as that seems to be your motive here to begin with. Good luck to you pal, I'm out.

above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1 Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.

property Boeing 707-340 Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

here are the incredibly small diifferences in the planes you mention for all intents and puposes the differences are meaningless that in mind I dont blame you for dropping the topic

Exactly, and I still can't find records of it being built to do any such thing.

Again, mass x acceleration = force, force something that steel absorbs. That force from both sites not only damaged the infrastructure, but damaged the infrastructure enough that building 7 came down as well. Steel is a conductor & is greatly influenced by strong force such as what happened on 9/11. The laws of physics are on the side of the official story, as is history;^]

above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1 Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.

property Boeing 707-340 Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

here are the incredibly small diifferences in the planes you mention for all intents and puposes the differences are meaningless that in mind I dont blame you for dropping the topic

Trade Center's strength

The structure held up for an hour before collapsing, despite an occurrence that it wasn't designed to withstand.

By STEPHEN HEGARTY

© St. Petersburg Times,
published September 14, 2001

From what he has seen in television accounts, engineer Eugene Corley believes the World Trade Center more than did its job on Tuesday.

Corley, who led the Federal Emergency Management Agency investigation into the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City, now has been named to the "forensic team" investigating the World Trade Center's destruction.

"In my opinion, the building did pretty well," said Corley, a structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories in Skokie, Ill., near Chicago. "It remained standing for about an hour, allowing people to get out. You have to remember, this (building) was not designed with terrorism in mind."

The World Trade Center was designed to withstand quite a bit of stress -- perhaps even a direct hit from a smaller jet. That design strategy was based on an incident 56 years ago at the Empire State Building when an Army Air Force B-25 crashed between the 79th and 80th floors. Fourteen people died. Damage to the building was $1-million, but the structural integrity of the building was not affected.

The World Trade Center was designed to withstand a hit from a 707 -- a big jet, but much smaller than the plane that hit the building Tuesday.

"At the time this was designed, the design was a stretch; a 707 crashing into it was highly unlikely," Corley said. "Having a 767 crash into a building was completely unimaginable, until someone did it intentionally."

The World Trade Center building's strength came from a central steel core and from steel columns around the perimeter of each building. The impact, the gasoline explosion and heat from the resulting fire softened the steel girders so they could no longer support the weight above. So one floor collapsed on another, and the structure caved in almost straight downward.

Corley has been asked by the American Society of Civil Engineers to accompany a team to investigate "how the building itself performed in terms of the design."

It's unclear how soon their work will begin.

So what did Corley think as he watched the terrorist attack unfold Tuesday?

"My first reaction was, "At least it didn't collapse immediately,"' Corley said. "What happened was bad enough, but it stayed up for a while and people got out."

As an engineer who has examined countless bridges and buildings for structural flaws, Corley knew once the jets hit the building that the World Trade Center would collapse as it did.

"I just didn't know when it was going to happen," he said. "Visually, it was still shocking."

Yeah, I know, you don't believe it........

Again, the speed is relative to the MASS, a smaller air plane can not generate the same impact a larger plane can make because of it's mass, in 1966 they weren't very close to knowing what would happen in the scenerio. Was that bit copied & posted from another 9/11 conspiracy site? Maybe you wanna find a new news source and get back to us witt that info;^]

again the differences between them are small and meaningless for our purposes, the planes that hit the towers were not filled to capacity and only had around a third of its fuel capacity, 10,00 gallons, i would think that an engineer would design a building to withstand the impact of a 707 fully loaded being that these 767 were not even close to fully loaded the slight differences in weight and sizes are meaningless, scroll up or google for the weights and sizes if you doubt the post above giveing them i am off enjoy

There's a pretty big mass differance from a 707 to a 757, you might not be able to tell with the naked eye, and it might not be much comparitavly, but it makes a big differance. Even so, a 707 might be able to do something close, but it doesn't matter because building something that is "resistant" to such a massive force doesn't mean the structure won't still collapse under pressure, ever taken a water "resistant" watch under water very far? I still see no evidance pointing to our government, only wild speculation based on wild speculation;^]

above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1 Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.

property Boeing 707-340 Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

Arguing over the piece of corn sticking out of the pile of poop does not negate the importance of the poop. Again, I don't claim to be smarter than the thousands of structural engineers you refuse to listen to. Have a happy conspiracy! p.s. Your cell phone is a tracking device for the Russian mind probe robots that will be invading America on the fifth Tuesday of next month. Just trying to help because I care.

I take it then that since you resorted to comedy and ridicule you can no longer argue the facts.....I have posted many you chose to ignore. who is the clown here?

I believe that has been established.

I find comedy in nearly everything. It keeps me from going down the nut path. Knowhatimean?