wrong....in this case, if there was a whiff of evidence beyond the bloviating of loons, the Bush hating press would have swarmed all over it.
I've only been looking into the claims of the "troofers" for a few weeks now (previously placed it all in the category of Big Foot, UFOs, and Nessy), but what I've gathered is not that any of them believe it was a conspiracy limited to one political party, but rather much more vast, presuming that both parties (and the popular press) are mere tools of the same conspirators.
troofers should read that popular science issue that utterly debunked the various troofer theories on scientific grounds. Like Rosies "fire can't cut steel" comment....that's about the general level of troofer paranoia and illogic.
That claim, that fire cannot cut through steel, was what made me dismiss the whole "troofer" phenomenon from the beginning. I, like you, believed they were claiming that super heated fire from a crashing jetliner into a skyscraper could not cut steel. My reaction, like yours, was, "Friggen jetliners, filled with jet fuel, crashed into friggen skyscrapers, you nutcase!" What I didn't realize until very recently, however, was that this claim had nothing at all to do with the two towers that were struck by jetliners. It refers to building 7.
Until very recently, I was unaware that there
were more than the two buildings that came down on 9/11, and I lived in New York at the time. Building 7 was on fire from burning ash, but had not been struck by anything substantial. It came down directly into it's own foundation, all sides collapsing simultaneously. Fires don't usually cause this in modern steel framed structures. This, at the very least, is suspicious, and should, at the very least, provoke questions.
