Who supports a new 9/11 investigation and why or why not? (injection, accuse)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"My measurements indicate that with sudden onset the building underwent approximately 2.5 seconds of literal freefall."
That was only about a third of the visible collapse. Gosh... it wasn't a free fall after all.
NIST conveniently started the clock BEFORE the the sudden "collapse"/demolition actually began. You might want to read the article more carefully and keep a more objective mind-set.
Sorry... but most people are clueless regarding either.
Your opinion- which is fine.
My opinion is that if, outside the context of 9/11, you showed 100 people a video of a controlled demolition and a video of a natural collapse- a conservative 97 of them would see a difference. They would call the demolition an explosion and the collapse- a collapse.
My opinion is that if, outside the context of 9/11, you showed 100 people a video of a controlled demolition and a video of a natural collapse- a conservative 97 of them would see a difference. They would call the demolition an explosion and the collapse- a collapse.
And they would also HEAR the difference because a demoltion would require MANY small explosions to blow out the supports in each floor. The explosions would make their way down the building WELL before it started to collapse hearing every single one of them. Why didn't this happen?
WOW!!!! GuyNTexas, when I first saw your name on the forum I thought, here we go, another lame post calling for stock in Reynolds wrap. But you have blown their ridiculous assertions out of the water!!! I could not be more impressed if I tried. I wish I could give you 100 reps but, alas, I am just a peon here and don't have the wherewithall to articule the TRUTHS as you did.
Now let's see what the skeptics come back with. My bet is nuthin! This thread is now bookmarked in my faves. Thanks so much for all those factoids which I have known of, but no way could I remember all at once!
Thank you for your kind words ... but you can trust that this will be met with another round of nonsense and outright lies .... you know why? Because there are published FAQ type answers for all of the issues that have slowly been brought to light over the years ... every time a new issue ... a new inconsistency ... a new red flag emerges, we have sideline officials rushing to answer .... whether it be that ultra phony Jim Meigs at his RAG, Popular Mechanics, or one of any number of talking heads.
And it is extremely interesting that at this stage, they are still rushing to debunk any issue that is raised. You'd think that since these issues are just the mental manifestations of wacky conspiracy theorists (so they claim), that this would just be ignored ... and those hand full of nuts would be allowed to eventually become supper for some giant squirrel. But that's not the case at all ... no .... this isn't going away like they anticipated it would ... and the thousands who are challenging this fraud are actually growing in numbers, and these people are mainstream, credentialed individuals that the system cannot simply marginalize or easily discredit any longer. Victims families ... Architects, Engineers, Pilots, Physicists, ex-Military types, ex Intelligence officials, ex-high level government officials ... all questioning and pointing to blatant inconsistencies in the official account. And these people cannot be simply dismissed with the routine insults of "Tinfoil Hat" and "Little Green Men from Mars" conspiracy jargon. This presents a real danger to the perpetrators, so, the efforts to "debunk" each question (rather than legitimately provide answers) is still the standard operational tactic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mistygrl092
And I will just add a couple more points if I may and if these have been mentioned I apologize. At some points I just couldn't read some of the posts. The troofer comments got to be too much as did the attempts to divert the purpose of this thread. I walk away from some threads when this sort of stuff happens. So here are a few additional points...
1. Tests have been shown that cell-phone calls, at the time, could not be made at altitudes of over 4000 to 8000 feet, as cell towers are on the ground. Commercial airliners fly at 30,000 feet and above. No passenger could have successfully placed a call for help by cell phone from an airborne plane on 911, as reported. Plus, who calls their mother and says "Mom, this is Mark Bingham?" Who uses their last name?
2. 911 was immediately declared an act of war by Bush. The rubble from the collapse was carted away and the steel sold and shipped overseas without examination.
3. Accepting victims' compensation banned 911 families from further discussion through litigation.
These issues will be addressed like all of the other issues ... with distortions and lies from shill groups like Popular Mechanics, NIST, etc.
And I only touched on SOME of the issues, and certainly, there are plenty more.
One of the glaring issues is the revelations about the change in procedures, and the removal of authority from military brass to shoot down a commercial jet prior to 911, isolating that authority to the Secretary of Defense and VP. (don't want our crack military team to overcome the war games diversion and actually find a way to prevent those hijacked planes from reaching their targets). And the War Game Exercises that were being conveniently conducted on the morning of 911, which had air defenses chasing phantom bogeys on radar screens at NORAD and FAA, with a good number of fighter aircraft engaged in these war games, which diverted them away from the areas which the actual hijackings were taking place, all of this under the direction and command authority of VP Dick Cheney.
What a stoke of luck for Osama Bin Laden, right? I mean how lucky can a terrorist mastermind get? Having his enemy chasing their tails at the precise moment he orders an unprecedented attack? This guy must have rabbits feet in every pocket ...
An analogy to this would be if you were to hypothetically decide to rob a bank in a major city ... let's say Bank of America located on main street. And the very moment you decided to walk in there with your mask on, toting your gun and duffel bag, the entire law enforcement community in that jurisdiction was engaged in a simulated bank robbery exercise on the other side of town at precisely the same moment. Every cop in the city was participating in the simulation .... you walk in, declare a hold up, and the bank people press the silent alarm button ... this alarm goes to the police, who immediately dismiss it as part of the simulated bank robbery and ignore it. You fill your duffel bag with all of the loot ... and stroll on out, unmolested, and Scott free! What luck!!
Now the one thing that is missing from this scenario versus 911 is that based on what transpired on 911 ... those law enforcement people actually went to the robbed bank after the fact ... and confiscated the surveillance camera video of the real bank robbery, and refused to release it for some mysterious national security reason?
This is what we have with 911 ... setting aside the melting and imploding buildings and all of the other ludicrous details which are argued incessantly ... we have the US Defense Department running war game exercises simulating several hijacked aircraft, under the command of one of the most evil men in government (Cheney), which conveniently (and quite coincidentally or so they say) provided the PERFECT DIVERSION of US air defense personnel and procedure, which enhanced greatly the terrorist's ability to execute their attack successfully.
And that's only a portion of the good luck they experienced that day ... they also racked up what could be described as a 4-10 split, knocking down 3 buildings with only two planes .. using a chunk of one building to damage another, causing it to collapse in it's own footprint at free fall acceleration without ever being struck by a plane.
Now this would be enough, all by itself, to raise some red flags for most rational investigators and laymen too. But, all of that coupled with the other 100+ inconsistencies and coincidences that have since come to light, makes the official story such a complete FRAUD of laughable absurdity, that it's beyond any measure of reason or logic.
And the proponents of the "Official Conspiracy Theory" claim to see not an iota of impropriety in the official story, and instead, choose to name call anyone who does, a nut, a tinfoil hatter, etc.?
But there is a very rational explanation for all of this. It's called "Psychological manipulation" on a massive scale. And here is a brief overview of the key operational parameters:
The first plane strikes the first WTC Tower ... which allows every news group and every reporter to gather at the scene of this tragedy ... with cameras trained on the towers. The speculation begins ... and the buz phrases begin to circulate, and the possibilities of terrorist attack just start to be implanted. And then BANG, a second plane hits the second tower on live, worldwide TV, and any doubts that may have existed about the first hit being an accident, disappears. Now, we know that this is an intentional act ... and every channel on the TV dial is locked in on NYC WTC Terror attack ... that's when, as if already lined up, the pundits and experts are then rolled out in mass, assigning blame to Osama Bin Laden ... and amidst the chaos of NYC, we get the camera switch to George Bush sitting in a classroom of grade schoolers reading a book about a goat ... minority children, no less. Now, this is already shaping up to be a low end B Movie script, and we haven't even gotten to really ridiculous stuff yet, but already ... we have a worldwide spectacle unfolding on live TV, and our fearless leader entertaining little black children, like he so often does .. doesn't he? Or does he? How many times before or after 911 has the President sat in a classroom of grade school children for 30 minutes? Hmm?
Then the Pentagon is hit ... and there are other planes allegedly hijacked ... and then heroes on one plane take it down (Let's Roll), and the speculation about that plane's target ....
So, by noon, September 11, 2001 ... all you hear on the news is Terror Attack ... Osama Bin Laden ... terror attack .... Osama Bin Laden ... terror attack ... Osama Bin Laden, as horrific scenes are replayed over and over again of the second plane hitting ... followed by the two imploding buildings ... pounding the collective psyche with the "IMPRINT" of the foundation of the official story ... Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen that have attacked us. All of the other details are at that point, speculations and theories about HOW Osama did it ... not IF ... but HOW. And for a great majority, they were at that point "psychologically imprinted" with the official story ... to which any other follow on details are secondary to the fundamental conclusion that was already cemented in their minds, literally "implanted" within the first couple of hours of the event. Not everyone was so affected, but certainly the majority.
Once imprinted, the human psyche tends to reject out-of-hand any information that challenges the accepted belief. This is well known to those expert in the sciences of mind control and psychological manipulation, which is a science unto itself and has been for many decades. Of course in many (like the 911 believers) even the mention of the term "mind control" ushers in an immediate response of more "conspiracy theory" nonsense, because that's how such topics are handled in the mainstream.
The principles are roughly the same as the techniques used in religious fanaticism ... hey .. there is no evidence that a gaggle of hot virgins are waiting in heaven to bestow upon the Jihadist their favors, satisfying his every carnal desire, upon blowing himself up for Allah, and killing infidels. Yet many Muslims believe this nonsense.
Same with the Catholics ... who think dabbing holy water on their foreheads anoints them in the spirit ... who then proceed to drink wine and eat small wafers, as a symbolic gesture of consuming the blood and body of Jesus. Now, how charming, in an overtly cannibalistic mentality is that? I could go on, but you get the picture, don't you?
The bottom line is that under the proper conditions, the human mind can be convinced to believe ANYTHING ...and in fact ... the more outlandish the belief, the more difficult it is to convince them to stop believing it, once accepted.
And that is precisely why facts and evidence and rational thoughts have no particular impact ... because the "belief" is not based on such things, so the belief cannot be affected by such things.
The experts in the field of psychiatric science recognize that a percentage of human beings are totally impervious to mind control techniques ... they don't know why, they just know this is true.
And I will just add a couple more points if I may and if these have been mentioned I apologize. At some points I just couldn't read some of the posts. The troofer comments got to be too much as did the attempts to divert the purpose of this thread. I walk away from some threads when this sort of stuff happens. So here are a few additional points...
1. Tests have been shown that cell-phone calls, at the time, could not be made at altitudes of over 4000 to 8000 feet, as cell towers are on the ground. Commercial airliners fly at 30,000 feet and above. No passenger could have successfully placed a call for help by cell phone from an airborne plane on 911, as reported. Plus, who calls their mother and says "Mom, this is Mark Bingham?" Who uses their last name?
2. 911 was immediately declared an act of war by Bush. The rubble from the collapse was carted away and the steel sold and shipped overseas without examination.
3. Accepting victims' compensation banned 911 families from further discussion through litigation.
The trouble with making false statements like this is that, while you will certainly get a number of people who will fall for them, there are way too many real live people walking around who know for a fact that it isn't true.
NIST conveniently started the clock BEFORE the the sudden "collapse"/demolition actually began. You might want to read the article more carefully and keep a more objective mind-set.
No. They didn't. Nist had nothing to do with the seismic reading, or the video that shows the collapse commencing 8.2 seconds prior to the roof starting to move.
The trouble with making false statements like this is that, while you will certainly get a number of people who will fall for them, there are way too many real live people walking around who know for a fact that it isn't true.
What examination was done?
Are you saying the rubble wasn't cleaned up and shipped out as quickly as it could possibly be done? Can you link to some official studies that were done on the actual rubble and remains?
We have eyewitness and other credible scientific evidence of molten metal, thermite/ate, steel that has been "cut", and hearing timed explosions- boom-boom-boom-boom-boom, to paraphrase one witness.
You mean like the absurdity of the Manhattan Project that set out to uncover the secrets of the ATOM, and produce a heretofore THEORETICAL BOMB that was only the dream of physicists? And the proceeding work of 130,000 participants, spread out over 30 research and development sites in the US, UK, and Canada, and kept totally secret until that theoretical bomb was a reality, and remained a secret until the day it was used by the US to vaporize the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima? You mean that kind of impossible conspiracy from a totally incompetent government and participants who could have never kept their mouths shut for 5 minutes? And this happened in the 1940's !!! Before all of the sophisticated computer technology that they have today that would make such complex tasks a little easier to pull off.
Actually, yes. Just like that.
You have a rather bizarre understanding regarding the secrecy of the project. Our efforts to achieve the bomb very widely known (by both our friends and enemies). And those civilians that were touched by the program in terms of its many facilities knew very well that they were connected to a secret weapons program.
The actual secrecy had to do with protecting the technology from exposure, not the fact that a project was underway. And even that was not so great as shown by the Soviet Union's success in obtaining the technology via espionage.
You cannot have used a much worse example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
I really believe this just about crushes your baseless contentions about what constitutes possibility and absurdity. What's really absurd is that I have to give this little lesson of history to someone calling themselves HistoryDude! Are you you feeling the irony with me here?
Considering that your understanding is fantasy, not history, no. I sense no irony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Sounds an awful lot like those who classify anyone that even dares question an "official story" as nutcases, conspiracy theorists, and tinfoil hatters.
That's only because you are a conspiracy theorist, and thus incapable of the subtlety of thought necessary to actually make such distinctions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Very smugly claiming that dozens of separate but necessary contributing factors essential to the success of the overall event were not related or preplanned in any way, and just a long list of unfortunate coincidences ..the perfect storm if you will .. in spite of the astronomical mathematical impossibility of that being the case.
Since you have actually demonstrated no such scenario, I'm not worried about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
With regard to 911 ... the smug inferiority group set aside the other labels, and use the real dirty word ... "Thruther" and sometimes even baby talk like "troofer" to show how intellectually superior they are!!!!!
As I recall... the "9/11 Truth Movement" is self labeled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
You mean, like continuing to embrace the theory of a lone gunman and magic bullet, after confession from a known and long term CIA operative who named the code name of the covert assassination operation ... "The Big Event", named the participants of that operation, who gave the orders, and who fired the shots, with corroboration from others closely connected?
Some cousin of that.
That you are impressed with E. Howard Hunt's 'confession" is noted. It is quite imaginative. Unfortunately, it conforms with none of the actual evidence of the crime.
But let's try to keep the thread to one conspiracy theory at a time. I know you love them all, but try to focus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Is that the kind of closed minded denial you are referring to? You know ... once I believe something, I believe it. I don't care about any new evidence ... my mind is made up .... Oswald shot Kennedy all by himself, and that's all there is to it. And Ruby shot Oswald, sparing America from the trauma of a big trial, and Ruby was a lone gunman too. This is just a simple case of two lone gunman, with different ideas.
No. It's not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
That Ruby fella ... he was a real nutcase .. he told his lawyer that they injected him with cancer cells in prison ... ha! What looney tune. That he ended up dying of brain, liver and lung cancer not too long after that, well, that's just another one of those "TINY INCONSISTENCIES". Nothin to see here folks, just move along, pay no attention to the crazy stories.
Too bad you can't develop cancer from such injections. In fact, injections of cancer cells have been used experimentally in humans to boost the immune system. Don;t forget that Ruby also claimed that his prison cell was being poisoned with mustard gas, and that genocide against the Jews was being conducted in the very building in which he was incarcerated. He said that he could hear their screams.
Yes...he was a real nutcase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
You mean like automatically assuming that every intelligence, Military, and law enforcement failure was an act of incompetence to which not a single individual was punished for allowing 19 Arabs to plan and execute the hijacking of planes, allude the most sophisticated air defense system in the world for an hour and a half, making it to their targets without detection or intercept?
Once again, some distant cousin of that. Because your description of events is largely false, and so can be dismissed out of the gate. A system that did not exist cannot be accused of having failed. And most of what you describe did not exist.
In other words, this "air defense system" you speak of is essentially imaginary. We had an air traffic control system on US soil... not an air defense system.
The reason the operation was so (but not completely) successful was it's tiny size. Only 19 hijackers. And yes, the system that existed then was very easy to elude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
And even after crashing two of those planes into Skyscrapers in NYC, another clever terrorist was able to smash another plane into the central command structure for the most sophisticated military the world has ever known, in the Capital of the most power nation in the world, a half an hour later, unmolested by this Trillion Dollar infrastructure, without one plane ever being launched from the Air force Base (Andrews AFB) located virtually in the Pentagon's back yard, about 10 miles (or about 60 second flight time) away ... home of two wings of the Air National Guard who's purpose in life is to defend the airspace of the US East Coast, and Capitol City of Washington DC, who are required to have fighter support at the ready 24/7/365 in support of Air Force One, the President's freaking plane?
Again, you are portraying more fantasy than reality here. When all the emotional puffery is removed from your account, it boils down to little more than this.
Less than an hour after the attacks began, a third plane crashed into the Pentagon.
Your continued delusion regarding the capabilities of the US military is fascinating, but still fantastic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Are those the tiny inconsistencies you are referring to?
Oh no, not at all. The tiny inconsistencies I was referring to actually are inconsistencies. Most of what you have noted here are falsehoods and fabrications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
And I suppose the other "tiny" inconsistencies can be dismissed also ... like the planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville vaporizing at impact ... and the virtual impossibility, due to the phenomenon of "ground effect" of actually flying a passenger jet at 500 miles an hour a dozen feet off the ground striking the building at virtual ground level directly without touching the ground?
Since neither of those planes vaporized, and it is not at all impossible to fly a plane that way, these are more examples of the falsehoods and fabrications than of the tiny inconsistencies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Or that the incompetent government would have the wherewithal to send out the FBI and collect surveillance camera tapes from adjacent businesses in and around the Pentagon just moments after the impact of the plane ... to which the contents of those tapes continue to be a mystery 9 years later.
The contents are not a mystery at all. They did not show anything.
But what could they show you to prove that? What could they show you that you would not dismiss as a fake?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Or that this heavily surveilled building would not have a single recognizable image showing the plane in detail at any point on it's path to collision, or that it was just another of the myriad of coincidences that the plane struck the one segment of the building that had undergone structural reinforcement, or that it was conveniently located on the exact opposite side to where the Defense Secretary was drinkin his morning coffee, reading Jane's ?
Here we're just getting to a list of what are not even inconsistencies. For starters, you are again fantasizing regarding the surveillance at the Pentagon. I know we've previously established that you've never actually been there, while I have.
But the plane had to crash somewhere. The Defense Secretary has to drink his coffee somewhere. That was where the plane hit, and that was where he drank his coffee. Had these not been the case, you would certainly have come up with alternative specious details to focus on.
As an aside, I am sometimes amused at the Truther insistence that the Pentagon crash demonstrated some sort of great piloting skill. In point of fact, the pilot of that flight very nearly missed hitting the largest office building on the face of planet! The attackers came in at the worst possible angle and direction... demonstrating their limited skill.
Crashing an airplane is a very easy thing to do. Hitting a target the size of the Pentagon is only slightly harder. The poor piloting skills of Hani Hanjour saved a lot of lives in the Pentagon that day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
And the list of these tiny inconsistencies never seem to stop ... like the majority of the plane vaporizing at impact... yet bodies remained available for DNA testing identification ... including the hijackers ... though no one seems to worry about asking where did the coroner get the DNA samples for the Hijackers to compare and match? Did they leave little DNA samples with their suitcases that they left in those rental cars ... right there with their Arab language version of "Flying Boeing Jets for Dummies" ?
Again... more falsehood and fabrication here than inconsistencies.
The plane did not vaporize. You need only tiny pieces of bodies to do DNA testing. And there's hardly any excuse for you to be so ignirant regarding the process:
Four of the DNA profiles from the Pennsylvania crash site didn't match material provided by the families of passengers and crew. By simple process of elimination, Smith knew these were the hijackers. He sent the samples back to Miller along with the genetic codes.
And in New York:
Quote:
Working with a team of specialists on the third floor of the J. Edgar Hoover building in Washington, D.C., Giusti was in fact already creating DNA profiles of the New York terrorists from scraps of evidence left behind in hotel rooms and rental cars in the days before the attacks. A large basement room in the FBI building was filled with boxes of evidence, each piece stored in a brown paper bag. "It looks low tech," says Giusti, but the bags keep out humidity or dryness—"the two demons of DNA analysis." For DNA sleuths used to working with tiny scraps of genetic material, it was the mother lode: "fingernail clippings, chewing gum, hairbrushes, anything we could get dead skin off of," he says. When they swabbed the "friction areas" along the inside collars of shirts, the DNA came back mixed, an indication that the hijackers may have shared clothes. A few pieces of used tissue, tossed into a hotel room wastebasket, yielded clues, as did saliva from cigarette butts. Giusti mixed them with enzymes to release DNA—"like cracking the nut of a shell to get the meat out," he says. The "amplified" product—a few drops of clear, viscous liquid—was then put into a large machine that spits out lists of numbers, a genetic map unique to each individual.
How is it that you missed all that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Or that of the list of 19 Hijackers ... including pictures. broadcast on national TV within 48 hours of the attack ... yet several have since come forward to claim they are alive overseas and have never visited the United States and were not obviously the hijackers because they were still alive.
This was debunked so long ago, it is breathtaking that you persist with it. You are verifying every single point my original post made regarding the characteristics of conspiracy theorists.
None of the actually identified hijackers have been seen alive since 9/11. people with the same names have been found, but none of the identified 19.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
To you, the perfect explanation for this is Occam's Razor? Where in that philosophical theory does it say to dismiss and ignore questions, and where does it say the best answer to those questions is that those questions are not important enough to worry over?
Those have nothing to do with Occam's razor. It doesn't require Occam's razor to determine that some questions deserve dismissal because they have long before been answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
You mean like accepting at face value any cockamamie story a federal agency or representative says, no matter how outlandish?
No. Just the non-cockamamie ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Furthermore, tossing out outlandish claims and BS answers doesn't "debunk" anything. Especially with such blatant nonsense like claiming no bombs in spite of those videos for which you can hear loud explosions ... dozens of eye witness testimony of bomb explosions, etc. You parrot the same, lame stories, and utilize your only tactic ... denial .... deny, deny, deny. No matter what ... it goes like this ... 1) BS answer ... 2) claim it's already been answered 3) deny. That's what you do, and it's a fraud, and you know it!
Perfect example there. Lots of things explode that are not bombs. Yet you insist without the tiniest critical thought that explosions = bombs.
Such an assertion is simply stupid. Yet it is the collection of such stupid assertions, most based on falsehoods, that you depend upon to fuel your conspiracist rage.
Bombs leave evidence of their bombhood. None was found anywhere in the debris of 9/11/
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Yes, indeed ... tiny inconsistencies like the ones already listed here ... and many many more ... like the insider trading on American and United Airlines just before 911, showing an exponential and highly abnormal amount of put options increase, as if someone expected a major decline in only those two specific Air Carriers, and no one else.
In the interest of time, I'm just going to snip the rest of your examples and point out that you are verifying everything I said in my post about conspiracy theorists.
It is an example of "swamping" rather than actually arguing.
It focuses on tiny inconsistencies, when not depending on long debunked falsehoods.
And it breathlessly appeals to ignorance, even when ignorance is unjustified.
With every sentence you proved my post to be absolutely correct.
And they would also HEAR the difference because a demoltion would require MANY small explosions to blow out the supports in each floor. The explosions would make their way down the building WELL before it started to collapse hearing every single one of them. Why didn't this happen?
Yes, of course, 9/11 witnesses report hearing explosions.
Two of many, many sites you could look at as well as many videos of witness reports:
"Ed Cachia Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. "
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This thread is now bookmarked in my faves. Thanks so much for all those factoids which I have known of, but no way could I remember all at once!
