A funny video about the conspiracy theory of September 11

there was that one conspiracy about the guys from half way around the who came to the US to learn how to fly and then completely rick rolled their instructors by flying jets into buildings, but i think that is completely off basis. no pilot could be that unprofessional.....

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]the president of the us can't even get a bj without the whole world knowing about it yet the government can pull off a cover up of this magnitude?comp_atkins

obama has a custom made iphone.. did you know that?

[QUOTE="Skull-Fire"]

I think the reason for using a missile, instead of the plane, might be because of the Pentagon's security and they didn't want to risk someone finding out the plane was flying way off course and toward the Pentagon. If someone found out it had been hijacked, they might have shot it down (though I have absolutely no idea of the procedure for situations like that but if they believe all the passengers are going to die anyway, they might do it to save more lives in the end). So yeah, I'm not one of those people that think everyone that could be involved, is.

MirkoS77

But this is supposedly an inside job we're talking about here. Obviously they would have the guy in charge of AA take the day off, pay him to keep quiet, or some other crazy nut theory. Doing that would be much better than using a missile and then having to go around, gather FBI tapes, hunt down and bribe all witnesses to keep their mouths shut, etc.,right?

Not having the Towers collapse wouldn't have made the story as good (from their point of view, as well as the Media's). They needed to make sure they could sell it to everyone, or at least enough people. So why not make it as devastating as possible if they have the ability? No point leaving it to chance, even if it's a small one. Skull-Fire

Even if the towers had not collapsed, it still would have easily been sold to everyone. I can guarantee you that mostly everyone on Sep 12th was filled with blood lust, and would have been just as much had the towers survived. And even if there were people left that somehow thought we had no call to take action, they'd be in the minority and certainly couldn't blame our government's reaction. We would have all we needed.

Also, the risk that would be necessary to rig the buildings to blow would be something extra to worry about. I get the impression most who believe the buildings were brought down by demolition have absolutely NO concept of how elaborate and complex a job like that is to do. I mean, think about it. This is not something that can be done in one night, especially with buildings that large. That is a MASSIVE job that probably would take many weeks to set-up, and would most certainly not go unnoticed. Explosives need to be placed on the underlying structure, which is why condemned buildings are gutted before being rigged up. Yea, someone would notice floors and roofs being stripped clean in order to do this.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="ionusX"]

obama has a custom made iphone.. did you know that?

surrealnumber5

That video was pretty funny......because is was full of BS.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="ionusX"]

obama has a custom made iphone.. did you know that?

ionusX

mo im asking if you knew if he had one.. dont twist my posts.

if you didnt then its obvious that obama can hdie things form people as can the rest of the government.

Uhh I dont thinkObama had to hide getting a new phone,thereason its not common knowledge is because....NOBODY CARES

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

[QUOTE="Skull-Fire"]

But this is supposedly an inside job we're talking about here. Obviously they would have the guy in charge of AA take the day off, pay him to keep quiet, or some other crazy nut theory. Doing that would be much better than using a missile and then having to go around, gather FBI tapes, hunt down and bribe all witnesses to keep their mouths shut, etc.,right?

[QUOTE="Skull-Fire"]

Not having the Towers collapse wouldn't have made the story as good (from their point of view, as well as the Media's). They needed to make sure they could sell it to everyone, or at least enough people. So why not make it as devastating as possible if they have the ability? No point leaving it to chance, even if it's a small one. Skull-Fire

Even if the towers had not collapsed, it still would have easily been sold to everyone. I can guarantee you that mostly everyone on Sep 12th was filled with blood lust, and would have been just as much had the towers survived. And even if there were people left that somehow thought we had no call to take action, they'd be in the minority and certainly couldn't blame our government's reaction. We would have all we needed.

Also, the risk that would be necessary to rig the buildings to blow would be something extra to worry about. I get the impression most who believe the buildings were brought down by demolition have absolutely NO concept of how elaborate and complex a job like that is to do. I mean, think about it. This is not something that can be done in one night, especially with buildings that large. That is a MASSIVE job that probably would take many weeks to set-up, and would most certainly not go unnoticed. Explosives need to be placed on the underlying structure, which is why condemned buildings are gutted before being rigged up. Yea, someone would notice floors and roofs being stripped clean in order to do this.

I hear ya. I just can't imagine our government could do such a thing and successfully keep it quiet to any degree. The farthest I'd say they would be involved would be that they had intelligence that they knew an attack was incoming, and they did nothing to stop it. But I don't believe they did it.

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Anything can be made very convincing when said in a very sarcastic voice, very quickly, with lots of little videos and pictures sliced together (and taken heavily out of context).

Yet somehow after 11 years, 50k+ bodies, and 3+ trillion debt, not a single person has ever come forth with any insider evidence that it was an inside job. You would think just one person would have a heart.

MickeyTheNinja

[QUOTE="MickeyTheNinja"][QUOTE="MushroomWig"] I know, it's like the moon landing conspiracies , you'd think that someone would of come forward by now.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MickeyTheNinja"] Yeah they'd come forward and be praised...? No, they will be killed. And they would rather not diminish the face of the USA by telling billions the truth. Skull-Fire

It would have taken years to plan and involved hundreds if not thousands of people. Not a single one grew a consciounce before the event? Not a single person so called "In The Know" thought to leak the plan in advance and you know...Stop it from happening. If they didn't know about it before what makes you think they did after?

mattisgod01

Exactly. With the number of people who hated seeing George W. Bush elected President (and there are many here on this forum), the number of people needing to be involved would mean someone would have contacted the news outlets (who also had some hatred for GW Bush) about someone coming to them and wanting them to be in such and such a place at such and such a time to be killed. To think people would keep quiet about such a thing is idiotic.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="ionusX"]

obama has a custom made iphone.. did you know that?

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="Skull-Fire"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Deep Throat wasn't killed....

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]It would have taken years to plan and involved hundreds if not thousands of people. Not a single one grew a consciounce before the event? Not a single person so called "In The Know" thought to leak the plan in advance and you know...Stop it from happening. If they didn't know about it before what makes you think they did after?

WhiteKnight77

Exactly. With the number of people who hated seeing George W. Bush elected President (and there are many here on this forum), the number of people needing to be involved would mean someone would have contacted the news outlets (who also had some hatred for GW Bush) about someone coming to them and wanting them to be in such and such a place at such and such a time to be killed. To think people would keep quiet about such a thing is idiotic.

I dont believe it was an inside job, however i dont understand wtc 7 and how it went down. The way i see it almost had to be a demolition.

I dont believe it was an inside job, however i dont understand wtc 7 and how it went down. The way i see it almost had to be a demolition.

FPSunionOWNS

WTC 7 was hit by falling parts of WTC 1 as was WTC 6. WTC 7 was damaged within the area of the emergency generator system. WTC 7 has the information you need to understand how it collapsed. NOAA LIDAR scans rendered in 3D shows the damaged areas from the collapse of the twin towers. You can see in the scans, the damaged caused to WTC 6 match this picture of WTC 6. Fire and danage to lower floors to WTC 7 caused its collapse.

My question is why wont they let us watch teh videos of the plane hitting the pentigon?

vid points out some really good points.

but at the end of the day, many people will believe whateverbest fits with their world view... regardless of evidence. plus, group think encourages people to go along with the status quo and not 'rock the boat' for fear of being labeled an outsider.

one thing i didn't see in the video thatwas really fishy about the whole thing was Bush saying he saw the first plane going into the first building as he was about to go inside the classroom, as if it were shown live... heh, I was 16 when it happened and rememeber that morning all too well... all the reporteres were cluelessand even callingresidentswho lived nearby to ask what happened to the wtc, and they told them a plane flew into it.I also just thought it was odd how they immediately knew exactly who it was who commited all these actions so soon afterwards.

if you don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, thats fine.people have the right to believe whatever they want... :)butyou have to admit that the whole thing was a bit fishy.. especially how all those fighter jets that supposedly could haveshot the planes downwere performing drills in order to stop planes flying into buildings... all the while planes were flown in to buildings.

Scoob64

Also, I do not have to respect those that believe 9/11 was an inside job. I also don't have to admit that it was fishy, because it's not.

My question is why wont they let us watch teh videos of the plane hitting the pentigon?

ManKelly

There has been a video released, from a parking lot on the Pentagon, but it only took a frame every few seconds. People expect to see an airliner in it, but only part of the tail is seen in any one frame. If the settings for the recorder is 3 seconds, a plane can fly through an area in that time frame and not be recorded. Many security cameras only take video frame by frame at a timed interval to save on tape used for surveillance. As for other cameras around the area, they might not have been aimed at the right place or did not record anything at all.

[QUOTE="Scoob64"]

vid points out some really good points.

but at the end of the day, many people will believe whateverbest fits with their world view... regardless of evidence. plus, group think encourages people to go along with the status quo and not 'rock the boat' for fear of being labeled an outsider.

one thing i didn't see in the video thatwas really fishy about the whole thing was Bush saying he saw the first plane going into the first building as he was about to go inside the classroom, as if it were shown live... heh, I was 16 when it happened and rememeber that morning all too well... all the reporteres were cluelessand even callingresidentswho lived nearby to ask what happened to the wtc, and they told them a plane flew into it.I also just thought it was odd how they immediately knew exactly who it was who commited all these actions so soon afterwards.

if you don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, thats fine.people have the right to believe whatever they want... :)butyou have to admit that the whole thing was a bit fishy.. especially how all those fighter jets that supposedly could haveshot the planes downwere performing drills in order to stop planes flying into buildings... all the while planes were flown in to buildings.

limpbizkit818

Also, I do not have to respect those that believe 9/11 was an inside job. I also don't have to admit that it was fishy, because it's not.

Don't forget that Bin Laden also attacked the WTC previously and it was high on his priority list of targets to bring down, especially after he and Al-Qeada failed the first time.

[QUOTE="FPSunionOWNS"]

I dont believe it was an inside job, however i dont understand wtc 7 and how it went down. The way i see it almost had to be a demolition.

WhiteKnight77

WTC 7 was hit by falling parts of WTC 1 as was WTC 6. WTC 7 was damaged within the area of the emergency generator system. WTC 7 has the information you need to understand how it collapsed. NOAA LIDAR scans rendered in 3D shows the damaged areas from the collapse of the twin towers. You can see in the scans, the damaged caused to WTC 6 match this picture of WTC 6. Fire and danage to lower floors to WTC 7 caused its collapse.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

WTC 7 was hit by falling parts of WTC 1 as was WTC 6. WTC 7 was damaged within the area of the emergency generator system. WTC 7 has the information you need to understand how it collapsed. NOAA LIDAR scans rendered in 3D shows the damaged areas from the collapse of the twin towers. You can see in the scans, the damaged caused to WTC 6 match this picture of WTC 6. Fire and damage to lower floors to WTC 7 caused its collapse.

FPSunionOWNS

Fire brought down WTC 1 & 2. WTC 7 was built differently than WTC 1 & 2. There were even floors of a cantilever design that supported some floors. Several of those were damaged. Diesel fuel fed fires did weaken the metal trusses and beams just like they did in the other two buildings. Steel does not have to melt to loose it's strength.

This damage zone drawing of Ground Zero matches what is seen in the NOAA LIDAR renders.

Another page about WTC 7 talks about the the mysterious "pull" command that many interpreted wrongly. If you have ever been around any demolitions work, you will never hear that word, at least in the explosives demolition work world. There was even a video on the previously linked page that showed the damage to WTC 7. 25% of WTC 7 was damaged not counting the uncontrolled fires that were never fought.

The above linked page even relates how much damage to WTC 7 there was and one even relates as to how much damage was done to the southwest corner of the building seen in this picture from the page I previously linked to.

[QUOTE="FPSunionOWNS"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

WTC 7 was hit by falling parts of WTC 1 as was WTC 6. WTC 7 was damaged within the area of the emergency generator system. WTC 7 has the information you need to understand how it collapsed. NOAA LIDAR scans rendered in 3D shows the damaged areas from the collapse of the twin towers. You can see in the scans, the damaged caused to WTC 6 match this picture of WTC 6. Fire and damage to lower floors to WTC 7 caused its collapse.

WhiteKnight77

Fire brought down WTC 1 & 2. WTC 7 was built differently than WTC 1 & 2. There were even floors of a cantilever design that supported some floors. Several of those were damaged. Diesel fuel fed fires did weaken the metal trusses and beams just like they did in the other two buildings. Steel does not have to melt to loose it's strength.

This damage zone drawing of Ground Zero matches what is seen in the NOAA LIDAR renders.

Another page about WTC 7 talks about the the mysterious "pull" command that many interpreted wrongly. If you have ever been around any demolitions work, you will never hear that word, at least in the explosives demolition work world. There was even a video on the previously linked page that showed the damage to WTC 7. 25% of WTC 7 was damaged not counting the uncontrolled fires that were never fought.

The above linked page even relates how much damage to WTC 7 there was and one even relates as to how much damage was done to the southwest corner of the building seen in this picture from the page I previously linked to.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="FPSunionOWNS"] I went through everything you just showed me and nothing is even close to convincing. Fire and debris doesnt take down a 47 story steel framed building.

FPSunionOWNS

Fire brought down WTC 1 & 2. WTC 7 was built differently than WTC 1 & 2. There were even floors of a cantilever design that supported some floors. Several of those were damaged. Diesel fuel fed fires did weaken the metal trusses and beams just like they did in the other two buildings. Steel does not have to melt to loose it's strength.

This damage zone drawing of Ground Zero matches what is seen in the NOAA LIDAR renders.

Another page about WTC 7 talks about the the mysterious "pull" command that many interpreted wrongly. If you have ever been around any demolitions work, you will never hear that word, at least in the explosives demolition work world. There was even a video on the previously linked page that showed the damage to WTC 7. 25% of WTC 7 was damaged not counting the uncontrolled fires that were never fought.

The above linked page even relates how much damage to WTC 7 there was and one even relates as to how much damage was done to the southwest corner of the building seen in this picture from the page I previously linked to.

As far as i know buildings of that size never topple over, As soon as they start falling to one side it placing massive amounts of strain on the lower foundations causing it to fall straight down.

Why is it odd that they knew who was responsible right after the attacks? It was painfully obvious. Go on youtube and listen to the Howard stern show from the morning of 9/11. As the events unfold they have some guests call in and one of them goes off yelling about how he is going to kill the "towel heads" who did this. Stern says he thinks it's the palestiniens. People had an idea of who was behind these attacks. The government officially confirmed it was al-Qaeda a few WEEKS after the attacks, not that day. In the youtube clip they show Bush saying we will hunt down the terrorists. That was his speech the night of 9/11: he had no idea who the terrorists were. Yet the clip claims that he did. Go watch that speech. Bush never says who was behind the attacks only that we will find out who is. So right there is example #1 of total BS in that video.

Also, I do not have to respect those that believe 9/11 was an inside job. I also don't have to admit that it was fishy, because it's not.

limpbizkit818

[QUOTE="ManKelly"]

My question is why wont they let us watch teh videos of the plane hitting the pentigon?

WhiteKnight77

There has been a video released, from a parking lot on the Pentagon, but it only took a frame every few seconds. People expect to see an airliner in it, but only part of the tail is seen in any one frame. If the settings for the recorder is 3 seconds, a plane can fly through an area in that time frame and not be recorded. Many security cameras only take video frame by frame at a timed interval to save on tape used for surveillance. As for other cameras around the area, they might not have been aimed at the right place or did not record anything at all.

This doesn't change my mind that September 11 was an inside job but it does seem to debunk several things.

This doesn't change my mind that September 11 was an inside job but it does seem to debunk several things.

Skull-Fire

That video does debunk everything as have Popular Mechanics and many others including the website I linked to earlier. This video mentions the damage and fires to WTC 7 and that damage is seen on a previously linked page. The conspiracy theorists cannot answer simple questions on even how a parachutists lands and they expect people to believe that a pyroclastic flow, something that emanates from a volcanic eruption spread across lower Manhattan, was the cause of all the dust. There would have been more damage and more deaths if that were the case.

I took these pictures back in the mid 80s when I worked on the Downtown Tunnel project connecting VA 44, Interstate 264 and Interstate 464 all together at one location between Norfolk VA and Portsmouth VA. Notice that the building behind the wall being blasted is covered. Are any buildings around the WTC covered to protect it?

Demolition work to bring down buildings take lots of work. The demolition crew took weeks to drill holes in the top of the walls to load dynamite/explosives in them and they only have to load so many to bring down the wall. On the left, you can see the wall ready to be loaded. The roadbed in the middle still hadn't been prepped yet, but as seen in the clip you linked to, they drill a matrix of holes in it and blast it the same way. That took another couple of weeks. To use explosives to bring down all three WTC buildings would have taken months to prep and surely someone would have notices acetylene and oxygen bottles and torches all over the place. Columns would have had to be exposed to place the shape charges, yet no one saw such work being done. The fact that no one saw such work being done should set off alarm bells when conspiracy theorists spew such stuff. If you saw such work, would you not say something to someone or ask about it?

As I said previously, people hated GW Bush and if someone asked people to be at a certain place at a certain time on a certain day so they could die, you can bet people would have gone to the news if they even had a inkling that the government was behind it. Human nature dictates that we cannot keep a secret and to have the necessary number of people involved to try and keep it a secret, one would have to be crazy to think no one would run to the news.

It also shows the media saying it was Osama Bin Laden. Yes, that could have been a guess but seriously? Come one, that's one hell of a guess! Skull-Fire

Yah that's one hell of a guess. I mean it is not like Osama Bin Laden and company were the number 1 terrorist threat prior to 9/11. I mean it isn't like they tried to blow up the WTC before. Or that they killed 200+ people and injured 5,000 others blowing up 2 US embassies in 1998. Or that they blew a hole in the side of the USS Cole in 1999. I mean it is shocking that someone would guess Al Quaeda for 9/11. Shocking I say.

We're supposed to believe that one of America's most important building which would have some of the best security in the world, only had a single, really bad quality camera aimed at that location? HA!

Skull-Fire

Actually they have and had dozens of cameras. All designed to do the job expected: defend/record a ground incident. There was never supposed to be an air threat since the entire Norad system was based on the premise of intercepting threats at the borders coming at you from outside the continent.

Moreover, commonsense is an amazing thing. Security is one of the dullest jobs around. Now imagine your job is to look at video cameras filming the sky. Think about that for a moment. Everyday you walk by dozens of security cameras. None of them are pointed up. The one camera they do have some images from is a parking lot camera with a wide field of view.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="ionusX"]

obama has a custom made iphone.. did you know that?

ionusX

mo im asking if you knew if he had one.. dont twist my posts.

if you didnt then its obvious that obama can hdie things form people as can the rest of the government.

If he hid it, then how do you know about it?:lol:

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="FPSunionOWNS"] I went through everything you just showed me and nothing is even close to convincing. Fire and debris doesnt take down a 47 story steel framed building.

FPSunionOWNS

Fire brought down WTC 1 & 2. WTC 7 was built differently than WTC 1 & 2. There were even floors of a cantilever design that supported some floors. Several of those were damaged. Diesel fuel fed fires did weaken the metal trusses and beams just like they did in the other two buildings. Steel does not have to melt to loose it's strength.

This damage zone drawing of Ground Zero matches what is seen in the NOAA LIDAR renders.

Another page about WTC 7 talks about the the mysterious "pull" command that many interpreted wrongly. If you have ever been around any demolitions work, you will never hear that word, at least in the explosives demolition work world. There was even a video on the previously linked page that showed the damage to WTC 7. 25% of WTC 7 was damaged not counting the uncontrolled fires that were never fought.

The above linked page even relates how much damage to WTC 7 there was and one even relates as to how much damage was done to the southwest corner of the building seen in this picture from the page I previously linked to.

Here's a thought. Why on earth would the conspirators bring down WTC7 on purpose? What would be the point?

All 9/11 conspiracy theories can be debunked by basic logic and reasoning as well as common sense. For instance, why wouldn't the government just plant WMDs in Iraq if that was their goal? Why wouldn't they just blame te hijackings on Saddam in the first place? Why waste time and resources in Afghanistan?

I ashamedly wasted two hours of my life on Zeitgeist. That film didn't even get half of its "facts" correct. Planning the 9/11 attack would have taken genius calibre planning and carrying out numerous impossible operations. The war on Iraq is an example of the exact opposite of genius calibre planning. This disparity escapes a lot of people. And don't get me started on all of that Illuminati tripe. It doesn't matter if the 9/11 reports have a few holes, it's still more plausible than the idea of the government... arg, I'm not even going to give it anymore thought and will settle with this: I hate conspiracy theorists.

This was a controlled demolition people just look at the bloody evidence and facts, no plane in the world hitting the towers has the capability to level a building of that type, you need explosives to bring it down like that, cmon there was melted steel the planes didnt have the capability to make heat strong enough to mely steel but explosives do.

And how the **** did WT7 fall down when it hadnt even been hit by barely a bit of debris, in the 911 report by the US government they said they didnt know cmon thats utter BS,

People like to think that their government is good to them that their government has a heart and cant see its people as expendable, look at Vietnam with Chemical orange or whatever it was called see how long it took the US government to even acknoledge the fact that they had already killed thousands of US vets with cancer because of that and still didnt pay a burger kings salary in compensation.

You have to face the fact that humans are evil and easily curruptable by money and greed and especially those in power,

This was a controlled demolition people just look at the bloody evidence and facts, no plane in the world hitting the towers has the capability to level a building of that type, you need explosives to bring it down like that, cmon there was melted steel the planes didnt have the capability to make heat strong enough to mely steel but explosives do.

And how the **** did WT7 fall down when it hadnt even been hit by barely a bit of debris, in the 911 report by the US government they said they didnt know cmon thats utter BS,

People like to think that their government is good to them that their government has a heart and cant see its people as expendable, look at Vietnam with Chemical orange or whatever it was called see how long it took the US government to even acknoledge the fact that they had already killed thousands of US vets with cancer because of that and still didnt pay a burger kings salary in compensation.

You have to face the fact that humans are evil and easily curruptable by money and greed and especially those in power,

sonofsmeagle

If I could get away with just this: :roll: I would, but maybe the smokables need to be left alone. The facts and evidence all prove that explosives were not used and WTC 7 got hit with more debris that you think.

[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"]

This was a controlled demolition people just look at the bloody evidence and facts, no plane in the world hitting the towers has the capability to level a building of that type, you need explosives to bring it down like that, cmon there was melted steel the planes didnt have the capability to make heat strong enough to mely steel but explosives do.

And how the **** did WT7 fall down when it hadnt even been hit by barely a bit of debris, in the 911 report by the US government they said they didnt know cmon thats utter BS,

People like to think that their government is good to them that their government has a heart and cant see its people as expendable, look at Vietnam with Chemical orange or whatever it was called see how long it took the US government to even acknoledge the fact that they had already killed thousands of US vets with cancer because of that and still didnt pay a burger kings salary in compensation.

You have to face the fact that humans are evil and easily curruptable by money and greed and especially those in power,

WhiteKnight77

If I could get away with just this: :roll: I would, but maybe the smokables need to be left alone. The facts and evidence all prove that explosives were not used and WTC 7 got hit with more debris that you think.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

If I could get away with just this: :roll: I would, but maybe the smokables need to be left alone. The facts and evidence all prove that explosives were not used and WTC 7 got hit with more debris that you think.

FPSunionOWNS

Show us evidence of any explosive sounds. The previously linked to 45 minute video using ABC, CBS and NBC news footage shows otherwise. Provide proof that it was used. Remember now, as seen by pictures I previously posted, I have heard explosives go off, from around 200 feet at that.

No conspiracy theorists want to answer my questions? What a surprise...I have yet to have one nut answer those questions. But maybe today's my lucky day.

I ashamedly wasted two hours of my life on Zeitgeist. That film didn't even get half of its "facts" correct. Planning the 9/11 attack would have taken genius calibre planning and carrying out numerous impossible operations. The war on Iraq is an example of the exact opposite of genius calibre planning. This disparity escapes a lot of people. And don't get me started on all of that Illuminati tripe. It doesn't matter if the 9/11 reports have a few holes, it's still more plausible than the idea of the government... arg, I'm not even going to give it anymore thought and will settle with this: I hate conspiracy theorists.

Spitfirer