If our (federal) government were to be disrupted somehow and our elected officials killed (say, in a terrorist attack or nuclear war), isn't the American thing to do for the people themselves to elect new leaders?

are you planning something we should be concerned about?

@cheebdragon Did you read my question? I’m talking about an existing apparatus that has the power to “continue the government” from secret locations in the event of some catastrophe. Do you agree with that?

I give up, this question doesnt make sense

Wow. Comprehension skills = not good.

Why on earth do you think someone as utterly incompetent as Bush and his cabal of idiot advisers would be able to facilitate 9/11?

Not to mention the planes seen crashing into buildings.

Oh, right. A giant, gas-filled airplane is not enough to down a skyscraper. Therefore there must have been bombs, also. Therefore the government must have planted bombs because they ended up using 9/11 to justify a war they wanted to get into, and since opportunism is unheard of in human behavior, they must have planned the whole thing entirely.

Also, why in the hell do you think the Bush administration was a “shadow government”? Because they lost the popular vote? You have a pretty broad definition of “shadow government.”

Why on Earth do you think Bush was something more than a figurehead? His father was a powerful powerful individual who was deeply involved in the Kennedy assassination. But this isn’t about that. There’s no doubt in my mind that 9/11 was a false flag operation.

This documentary pretty much proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that the official story is the real conspiracy theory and its adherents should be greeted with ridicule.

Oh great, it’s all in the video, just watch the video. You sound like a door-to-door Scientology missionary. Or that Holocaust denier dude.

Can you tell me how Barack Obama fits into your conspiracy theory? Is he a secret Muslim or the Antichrist? (Or both?)

@Qingu I’m sorry, but an explanation of that magnitude can’t be condensed down into a FOX News sound bite for you. I voted for Barack Obama, because of what he was promising, but I have no illusions about who he is. You should stop assuming you know who I am and just address the things I’m actually saying. You haven’t even answered the original question.

@Qingu, it’s hard to tell if obvious you’re being sarcastic or serious(ly naive).

a. “Incompetence theory”- Bush was too dumb to make it happen is a great cover story
b. The buildings were built to withstand a crash from a similarly sized plane
c. They most likely did plant explosives
d. A shadow government operates outside of the limelight regardless of who is president

And, yeah, keep playing attack the truther. You will definitely win the argument with that strategy.

@Jiminez, you might like this article.

Top 40 reasons to doubt the official story

Hahahaha, another one of these nut bags that thinks 9–11 was an inside job.

I’m a chemistry/physics graduate level student, and I’ve actually written a paper on the towers.

They were NOT built to withstand a crash from a direct hit of a 747. They were PREDICTED to be able to withstand a crash of a jetliner about half to 2/3 the size of one. The buildings fell because the jet fuel rose the temperature of the steel in the buildings to a level that it became permeable and could no longer hold the weight above it.

There were NO explosives planted in the buildings. THOUSANDS of people worked in the towers on a daily basis. There is NO WAY they all wouldn’t have noticed or would have been complicit. Not to mention the explosives would have to have been placed in the upper 3rd of the towers (where the collapses originated). The reason the buildings fell INSIDE of themselves was a result of the structure. Where a normal building has load bearing and heavy floor holding materials in between every floor, the twin towers superstructure was actually the web of outside steel structures that gave it it’s look (The up and down lines if you will).

And frankly, Bush IS too dumb to have pulled this off. He turned Iraq, a war we should have won and been done with in 2 years tops into a giant quagmire.

The twin towers were brought down by extremist muslims. You’re an idiot for thinking otherwise when ALL PROOF spells it out clearly. (I only hope this message reaches you thru your tinfoil helmet).

Hey everybody! He wrote a paper!

(yeah, and you also start your argument with name calling.)

I calls em like I see’s em.

So, “thermal expansion” caused WTC 7 to collapse on itself, I suppose?

@westy81585 Thanks for that glorious little smattering of dogma. I hadn’t had my fair share today. Really.

There’s really no convincing you guys. If at this point you STILL believe it was an inside job, then there’s nothing I can do say or prove that will make you think otherwise. I wonder though, what’s it like living in that crazy dream world where the government is out to get you at every turn? That’s gotta be rough.

Don’t type too much more, they’ll see it and trace it back to your house :O

Hey, you’re the expert. Thermal expansion?

No I imagine that WTC-7 came down because of the extreme damage it suffered when the North Tower collapsed, leaving gigantic gashes in it’s superstructure (Supposedly it WASN’T built to withstand the falling parts of a neighboring skyscraper).

Call me crazy… or no wait, call you crazy.

So you’re saying that the government’s “thermal expansion” explanation is incorrect?

…........ The North Tower fell and large chunks of it slashed WTC-7. It fell because of a combining result of those damages and fires that ensued due to those damages. It’s not really rocket science here. Thermal expansion is a fancy phrase to explain that the building burned to the point where it fell down.

If it had been blown up, don’t you think the thousands of people in the vicinity (Including veterans of every major war since WW2, policemen, firemen, and even a few explosives experts who just happened to be there) would have HEARD an explosion?

Uh… people did hear explosions. (Not that I would expect you to look at any links I provided, but I will if you say you’ll look at them.)

From what I understand, thermal expansion doesn’t have to do with burning. It’s the expansion and contraction of materials with the application of heat. If the towers were brought down by the jet fueled fireball, what flammable substance caused 7 to burn to such an extent that thermal expansion caused it to collapse, entirely and within its own footprint?

Yes it has to do with the application of heat. Heat that in this case was applied by BURNING MATERIALS FROM WITHIN WTC-7. The building was very clearly so damaged from the collapse of the tower that the burning was able to eventually bring down the building (which isn’t unheard of even when one of the biggest buildings in the world didn’t just collapse ontop of a building).

And the crimping in the middle of the roof (such as can be seen in just about any controlled demolition) just prior to it falling is merely a coincidence?

Ahem. Back to the question… I don’t know how we’d hold an election post-catastrophe, but the constitution provides for a succession plan, so I can’t see much good reason to pre-empt that with a COG plan (unless these shadow machinations are, in fact, alive and well and wish to use a crisis to justify a more forthright coup).

@Jiminez, the best information/thought I have is that there are factions within our and other governments (shadow and otherwise) that are tussling for control. So there are substantial “white hats” who are angling to do the right thing. Takes the edge off a little (at least for me).

In an emergency, I understand why there are alternates in place for immediate reaction and/or stability but I personally feel they should be temporary and then new elections held.

@kevbo, like most conspiracy theories, your argument rests on nitpicking tiny details, which have been disputed and debunked by numerous experts, while failing to present any evidence for your alternative explanation. You think, like the Holocuast denier and Intelligent Design advocates, that if you can dislodge a bit of evidence in the “mainstream” theory, that counts as proof positive of your alternate and completely unevidenced theory.

Your alternate theory also makes absolutely no overall sense. Let’s say you’re correct and the government planted bombs to blow up the buildings. Why the hell bother to smash planes into them? I am assuming you believe the government orchestrating the hijacking of the planes as well—why on earth bother to do that when you’re already planning to blow them up with bombs, that could just as easily be falsely blamed on terrorists?

Even if there are holes in the “mainstream” explanation (and there aren’t, just debunked nitpicks), your alternate explanation requires huge leaps in logic and has zero evidence to support if. If you are going to dispute a historical explanation for an event, it’s not enough to just dispute it, you have to also provide evidence for your alternate explanation.

@Jiminez, I honestly don’t understand what you are asking in the original question. I don’t think it’s possible to destroy the entire apparatus of government in America and kill every single major figure in line of the succession. If something like that did happen, I would certainly support whoever ended up with the presidency for the remainder of their constitutionally-allotted term, after which we would elect a new president.

Are you worried that the vast conspiracy that orchestrated 9/11 is going to take out Obama and other Democrats in line of succession and take power for themselves or something?

And here I thought the conservatives were the ones who lived in constant, irrational fear.

If you’re referring to “crimping” as in the roof tightening in on itself or concaving inward…. Easily explained by the fires inside the building draining the inside of oxygen, hence creating a vacuum which would force the weaker partitions of the outside of the building to pull inward. This could also explain the “sound” of an explosion as upon collapse of the building oxygen would rush into the vacuum, making a backdraft effect (which sounds like an explosion).

@Qingu But there’s no constitutionally-allotted term. In the current continuity of government plan an unelected, unconstitutional, and unaccountable shadow government would take over. An emergency, as defined in the legislation, is described as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” Don’t you think that’s a little, um, vague? There are numerous incidents that could fit that term. Hurricane Katrina is one. The economic crisis is another. Do these really justify disabling the government and the constitution? Can you not see why people are freaked out about this?

@Qingu, that’s quite a mouthful of assumptions about my the evolution of my thinking on the matter.

Such as is possible on the internet, I’ve provided more than enough evidence (which can be seen primarily in other discussions). However, you’ve already categorically refused to view such evidence, so I guess your ignorance will have to keep you company.

My explanation doesn’t require a huge leap in logic, but it does require a leap in perspective. I can hardly fault you or anyone else for holding fast to your perspective, because the change isn’t pleasant.

@Jiminez, no, I don’t see why people are freaked out about this. I think you’re being paranoid and foolish. The country has survived much worse than 9/11 without unraveling democracy, not least a civil war.

And frankly, if a multi-pronged nuclear attack that wiped out the government did happen, the legalistic minutia of government succession would be at the bottom of my concerns.

@westy81585, that’s a good one which I hadn’t heard before. I would have doubts about it happening hours after the towers fell. So, I suppose when the building’s owner and the fire department made the decision to ‘pull’ the building, that must have meant that they created a backdraft such as you describe.

@kevbo, you provided zero evidence, you linked to a bullshit video and are making nonsensical nitpicks about physics. Just like the Holocaust denier did. Just like my intelligent design/creationist Muslim and Christian friends always do, because they cannot actually defend their own arguments and pointing to an external source of truth (like a Bible, a Quran, or a series of poorly executed Youtube videos) allows them to have faith in their alternate explanation. It is extremely fascinating how similar the thought processes involved are, and I would love to see a neuroscience study done on conspiracy theorists and religious fanatics.

As of now, I’m still waiting to hear you answer my question. If terrorists didn’t fly the planes into the buildings, who did, and why?

@Qingu You don’t understand that it’s not paranoia. Wise men throughout history have told us over and over again that scrutiny is the highest form of patriotism. This event happened in the middle of New York City—arguably the biggest, most televised and photographed place in the entire world. There are thousands of inconsistencies you just fail to acknowledge. From my perspective, it’s painfully obvious that you are intentionally ignoring these things. Secondary explosions are clearly heard on audio. Full-blown admissions exist. Larry Silverstein specifically said (on camera) he authorized the demolition of WTC7. BBC and CNN reported live on the air that WTC7 had collapsed already when it was clearly visible still standing in the background. How you’re able to compartmentalize all these inconsistencies in your mind is beyond baffling. Makes me truly wonder how anyone’s mind can possibly do that. Kevbo already provided a list of the top 40 reasons you should question the official story. How much more do you need?

“a multi-pronged nuclear attack that wiped out the government” is not needed. All that’s needed for disabling the government and rule of law is “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”

A plan like this should be enacted ONLY if there is a “multi-pronged nuclear attack that wiped out the government”, but that’s not the case.

If you spent half as much time reading a chemistry book as you’ve obviously spent looking up/coming up with these ridiculous theories, you’d understand how retarded the theories really are.

At no point in any of your paranoid ramblings have you made anything close to a scientificly sound statement. Everyone who has read this is literally stupider for having done so. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul. (edited for perfection :) )

@Qingu, Okay. What in your mind constitutes evidence, because I’m too dumb to understand.

Anyone else think I’m being “nonsensical”? You keep repeating these assumptions about linking me with holocaust deniers and creationists without providing evidence. That’s kind of nonsensical.

Terrorists might have flown them or might not. It doesn’t matter, really. If they were flown by terrorists, they could have been bought and paid for. If they didn’t, then the planes could have been flown remotely. (And, terrorist could have boarded the planes and the planes flown by someone else remotely). The purpose of the event was to start a war to gain control of strategic areas in the Middle East and drain the US Treasury for the benefit of defense contractors and other corporations.

@westy81585, AT LEAST WE AREN’T “GRAD STUDENTS” WHO RESORT TO ALL CAPS TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT. Because according to the MLA Handbook that always indicates a statement is irrefutably true.

Understand that there were reasons COOPs were developed in the first place:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decapitation_strike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine-launched_ballistic_missiles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System

When did I use all caps? I highlight specific parts of my text in caps because I can’t bold or italics them on fluther.

But whatever, enjoy living in your moms basement.

Hey, why don’t you post your paper so all us ignoramuses who don’t understand science can learn something?

@hiphiphopflipflapflop Oh I understand the reasoning behind it/excuses for its existence. But I also think that if something like that happens, then that’s it, they’ve won, our country is no more. We, The People will have to start over at that point. There’s no salvaging it. Also, nothing short of a serious attack that severely disrupt the functions of government justifies this. “Any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions” is too broad an outline for justifying the disablement of the U.S. government. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I think VzzBzz put it best: someone should be there to assume some sort of responsibility until such time as elections can be held.

It would have to be spontaneous and have its origin in the citizenry. You can’t instill unelected despots to the seats of our government; ever.

@Jiminez, every single “inconsistency” you brought up has a mundane explanation.

• Other explosions on audio? There may well have been other explosions in the building, what with the giant fireball and all. Is it more believable that these explosions were actually hypothetical bombs?

• Authorizing the demolition? So what? This is weirdly similar to the Holocaust denier’s seizure on the historian at Auschwitz “admitting” that they did some reconstruction on the gas chambers. What is more believable, that this quote is simply out of context, or that this man was simultaneously in on the conspiracy and then stupidly admitted that he was behind it on national television?

• Preliminary reports of collapse? If BBC and CNN were in on this vast, competent conspiracy why the hell would they be stupid enough to report the towers collapsed before they did? Again, is this really more believable than a simple reporting error (i.e. mistaking “it’s collapsing” for “it’s collapsed”)

It is downright bizarre to be accused of “compartementalizing” when the alternative explanations are so absurd and self-contradictory.

@kevbo, you know, evidence. Like actual witnesses for the bombs. Like documentation proving the existence of the vast conspiracy required to make this happen (which, apparently, also includes CNN and BBC). Like any evidence whatsoever that the planes were being flown “remote controlled” or terrorists were “hired.”

You seem to be making up alternate explanations out of thin air. Nevermind that your alternate theory requires much more cognitive dissonance and rapes Occam’s Razor You have so much difficulty believing that a fully-fueled 747 could bring down a skyscraper, but you have no skepticism whatsoever about remote-controlled planes and a vast government and media conspiracy. Maybe a better word than “nonsensical” is “delusional.” Or simply “dishonest.”

Just to be clear, here is what you conspiracy theorists are doing.

Some bacteria have a flagellum motor. It is an extraordinarily complex piece of cellular machinery. For a long time, scientists were not sure how it could have evolved, and it was considered to be a “gap” in evolutionary theory.

Now, scientists have plugged the gap by proposing a series of perfectly mundane, plausible explanations for the steps in which a flagellum motor would evolve.

Creationists, on the other hand, concentrate on the gap. They say that the gap constitutes a fundamental flaw in the entire mainstream theory of evolution. And therefore, since evolution is false, God must have created the flagellum motor. And if you can believe that, you might as well believe that God created all life altogether.

That is exactly your logic. You seize on these tiny gaps — what about the secondary explosions on the audio? And, instead of accepting perfectly mundane hypothetical explanations for the gaps, you propose an alternate explanation, with no evidence, that brings up far more questions than it actually answers. It is, quite simply, intellectual dishonesty.

Just to chime in (and I’m sure I’m going to get some lovely responses to this):

WTC7 fell due to accellerants in the building, primarily fuel oil to power backup generators, that was being pumped into the fire. This lead to structural failure of the building, and a rather exciting zipper-failure that looked a lot like a controlled demolition (I saw it live on TV, and that’s what it looked like to me, but the explanation makes sense)

The towers suffered a really amazing structural failure due to the high temperatures & long burning, as well as several specific failures in the external skin of the building. It was designed to take the impact of a large plane lost in fog/clouds en route to to an airport, it was not designed to take a 767 at full speed.

The equation for kinetic energy is E_k = 0.5 m v^2 —this means that something travelling twice as fast has 4 times the energy. Top speed of a 767? about 568mph. V1? around 180mph. So a 568mph airplane has around 10 times the energy of a 200mph plane. That’s why there were a plane-shaped-holes in the buildings.

Shadow government? Maybe, but I doubt it. Sept 11 was a big showy thing, but it wasn’t handled well, I think a nuke in a major city would have gone a lot further to making people more cow-like. Actually, about a month after 9/11 a friend and I were talking about how the event could have been far more effective. I’m not going to share our tips.

The idea with the contingent government was originally to maintain order through a massive nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. It makes sense that they’d throw whoever they could together (elected or no) in that state of emergency. Order eventually could get restored under the constitution, but the idea was not to wait until we had an election to continue fighting the war.

@Qingu Dude, anti-science, anti-common sense extremists like you I’m not really concerned with. Some people vehemently defend a very narrow world view. They like seeing the world a certain way, and they’ll fight like rabid animals any effort to show them something different. What if 9/11 was an inside job? What changes about your view of the world? What makes you so against that version of reality? It renders all the shit you’re doing right now with your life meaningless, and you’re hanging on to that meaning with all of your being. I have no incentive for believing 9/11 was an inside job. It makes life a thousand times more frightening. You do have an incentive. That alone should be enough to wake you up.

No, weird personal attacks (I’m anti-science?) and fearmongering do not generally wake me up.

Adequately defending your position and providing evidence for your alternate theory might do the trick. Though I’ve already looked at the same websites you’re probably getting this stuff from.

@Qingu. I don’t know anyone personally who heard these things whom I could invite to comment here. I don’t have a letter signed and notarized by anyone admitting a vast conspiracy. And, I don’t know for sure who or what flew the planes.

I agree that my explanation requires cognitive dissonance, because we overwhelmingly believe that our government is there for our protection, service, etc. My own experience in understanding this event as I do now precipitated significant cognitive dissonance. And, while it may seem that I am pulling arguments out of thin air, the truth is that I’ve done a lot of reading on this, so I have a lot of material to draw from.

Can a 747 bring down a skyscraper? I’m sure one could. Could all of the events that transpired on 9/11 have mundane explanations? After the research I’ve done, I’m practically sure they could not.

So, here’s my best evidence, which I’m sure you won’t bother to consider.

9/11 Press for Truth, a video that relies solely on mainstream media sources, government reports and testimony from four wives of 9/11 victims.

Improbable Collapse, which among other things centers on the testimonial of Stephen Jones, Ph.D. who contends that high-grade thermite was found at Ground Zero (indicating a demolition) as well as Kevin Ryan, site manager for a subsidiary of Underwriter’s Laboratories (which performed the steel tests for the NIST report), who doubts the plausibility of the official report with respect to the collapse of the steel beams being caused by the impacts, explosions and fire.

I would encourage you to view those two videos before replying further.

Oh what horseshit. I cannot tell you how sick and tired I am of conspiracy theorists and religious fanatics promising me that all the evidence is in hyperlinked videos. (Which I cannot currently watch anyway. And as if I couldn’t also breathlessly link to videos supporting my position. And I’m pretty sure I watched a quarter of the first one before getting too pissed off at the fallacies to continue)

If the creators of those videos wish to come on Fluther and debate their positions, I’d be glad to take part. Until that time, make your own damn arguments.

Perhaps you should find some other place to have these discussions other than the internet.

You accuse me of making arguments without evidence, and then you refuse my evidence and say make your own argument.

What evidence do you have that Bush and his cabal of idiot advisors are incompetent?
That planes crashed into buildings?
That Bush & co were opportunists?
That there are experts who have disputed and debunked nitpick details?
That people deny the holocaust?
That you have intelligent design/creationist Muslim and Christian friends?
That my explanation rapes Occam’s Razor?
That other explosions were caused by the plane crashes?
That the media was incompetent in announcing WTC 7?
That bacteria have a flagellum motor?
That for such a long time, scientists were not sure how it evolved?
That they recently filled the gap with perfectly mundane, plausible explanations?
That creationists focus on the gap to advocate their position?
That you are an irrefutable authority to make such statements and debate these things on Fluther or anywhere else?

Where is your evidence? You say these things, but you don’t back them up with evidence.

And do you think attempting to link “conspiracy theorists” and “religious fanatics” by using the two monikers over and over in the same sentence will really persuade anyone to regard them as similar?

And we close with a reversal of burden of proof. Thanks for playing.

So, what, you’re either unable or unwilling to answer my questions? Is calling “horseshit” your idea of an intelligent end to an argument?

1. Many of Bush’s statements are inane, his decisions in office reflect a poor, naive understanding of the world, as do his advisors’ (i.e. we would be greeted as liberators). Note that you are alleging simultaneous competence and incompetence in the conspiracy, a self-contradiction.

2. Videos of planes crashing into buildings. What a moronic question.

3. All human beings are opportunists.

4. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

5. I just talked to a Holocaust denier last week.

6. I was using “friends” a little cheekily, but Fluther is not the only internet community I’ve belonged to.

7. Because every single allegation you raise brings up more questions than it answers, as I’ve demonstrated and as you have yet to defend.

8. It is impossible to say what the “other explosions” were caused by (the ones you heard on the audio tape, not seen, right?) It is unreasonable to expect us to reconstruct with perfect evidence every single detail of the towers collapsing. “They were secondary explosions from the giant fireball” seems significantly more likely than “they were bombs,” for which there is zero evidence except your delusions. As I said before, this is comparable to evolutionists constructing hypothetical but plausible “evolutionary pathways.”

9. I didn’t say they were. I believe Jminnez claimed that the media was in on the conspiracy. His evidence for this was that the media (incompetently) revealed it was in on the conspiracy by reporting a tower collapsed before it happened, as if they were reading prematurely from a script. An absurd, self-contradictory allegation.

At this point, I’m not sure if your questions are supposed to be rhetorical or if you’re just being a jackass. Let me know when you’re actually willing to support or defend your claims.

I don’t see how any of that meets your standard for evidence. That’s just shit you are saying.

And if you think that Popular Mechanics hit piece is the beginning and end of the argument, then it certainly fits that you are of a mind to let the mass media spoon feed, shape, and define the limits of your opinion.

My allegations, in fact, lead to more definitive answers for people with open minds and who aren’t afraid of new information. It’s fine for you to say that you won’t consider new material because it makes you angry or produces whatever unpleasant reaction, but lashing out from a position of ignorance is plainly childish and unevolved.

I’ll “support and defend” (whatever magical definition of yours that is) my claims when you start meeting your own standard. Until then, you haven’t offered anything that is any more definitive or verifiable a statement as I have.

But just to take your example, incompetence makes a nice cover story for a crooked agenda carried out successfully. The appearance of incompetence masking a diabolical competence. Show me the contradiction.

I don’t really know how to argue with someone who doesn’t think numerous videos and thousands of eyewitnesses testifying to planes flying into buildings is “shit I am saying.”

I cited the PM piece because you asked for “evidence” that experts disputed your nitpicking, nothing more.

As for “the appearance of incompetence masking a diabolical competence,” I think you’ve just jumped the shark. Or maybe you’re in on it. After all, you could be a conspirator pretending to be an irrational conspiracy theorist to make the truth seem foolish to believe. You can’t prove you’re not!

According to your standard, it is shit you are saying. Where is your evidence?

As you say, anyone can link to a magazine article or anything else. If the authors of the Popular Mechanics article want to come here and debate their position, fine, but until then make your own damn argument. According to your standard, that’s not evidence.

What have you brought to the table that is any more truthful or accurate according to your standard than what I have?

Again, show me the contradiction.

I’m not going to talk to you anymore until you prove that you’re not Dick Cheney.

Good. STFU.

Funny. That’s exactly what Dick Cheney would say.

Also, just for the sake of clarity: you asked me for evidence “That there are experts who have disputed and debunked nitpick details” So I linked to the experts who did this. If I asked you for evidence that there were people who disputed that al-Qaeda was behind 9/11 and you linked to your Youtube videos, that would obviously constitute evidence of the existence of such people. Similarly, videos constitute evidence of the existence of planes that crashed into the towers, so when I ask you for “evidence” that bombs were planted, I expect something a little bit more tangible than “I believe the audio explosions are planted bombs.” Of course, since you’re actually Dick Cheney, this is a moot point.

Once again you demonstrate that you cannot follow your own standards.

Which of your questions did I not answer befitting the standards I am asking you to abide by? (Well, I stopped answering at #9, since your questions were stupid. But I would be glad to answer them as well.)

Either Bush is a genius evil mastermind, or he’s a complete idiot, make up your mind.