ElectricRebel

he seemed relieved

I can imagine. Compare pics of him in 2001 to 2009. He aged 20 years in office.

flight 93 was intact when it hit the ground.

Aren't most planes that are shot down mostly intact when they hit the ground? A missile just damages the plane badly enough to cause a crash (this is why most fighter pilots can survive a shootdown by simply ejecting). A heat seeker missile would just hit a jet engine and not blow up an entire 757.

Having said that, since there will be a lot of crazy in this thread: I think 9/11 truthers are full of shit. I think the Flight 93 shootdown thing is very improbable (like less than 5% chance) mainly because I think some more evidence or whistleblowers would pop up if it did happen.

Good point about the flight recorder data. Like I said, I think the Flight 93 scenario is very improbable, but I was just pointing out that the plane being intact is likely no matter what.

Overall, on 9/11, I agree with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzGd0t8v-d4

Given your history with NASA, can you talk briefly about LFTR and space applications in the long term? Obviously, the Mars Science Lab and other important projects are using RTGs, but these have limited output. Is LFTR better suited than other reactor designs for space applications? Would LFTR make sense for a nuclear-thermal or nuclear-electric rocket (I have read your blog posts in the past speaking negatively of nuclear thermal, but would LFTR help fix some of the problems such as thrust/weight ratio)? Or what about just as a very energy dense power supply for electricity for a space station/colony or other applications?

Feel free to answer this with as much or as little detail as you want. I'm just interested in hearing a brain dump since you have a background in both nuclear technology and space exploration.