http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Irregardless
Again, going off topic over trivial things. 
2 entries found for Irregardless.
ir·re·gard·less Audio pronunciation of âIrregardlessâ ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-gĂ€rdls)
adv. Nonstandard
Regardless.
[Probably blend of irrespective, and regardless.]
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.From your source-
(Nonstandard)Regardless
Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
It says its argued, not proven as wrong. Itâs just like the word yaâll, it may be not seen proper by some, but, because it is in the dictionary, it is a word.
So when do you want to end the off topic posting?
ExactlyâŠgive me a break already. A perfectly good discussion going to the birdsâŠ
Canât you see? Iâm being IRONICAL!
Iâll delet my stupid posts okay?
Hey, how about those airplanes running into those buildings? That movie sure made some good points. 
For those who want to see more documentaries and such: there is another, in my opinion, even more convincing eyewitness (video) report from the Frank Sinatra Peer, filmed by Rick Siegel. Also found on video.google.com - less speculation on WHY, and more atention on HOW: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness
I just love the way the cameraman is being interviewed and his utterances!
More⊠there are also a few strictly academic presentations on the subject. Presenter, Prof. Jones: http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/weblog/index.php?&cat_id=3
I recommend the UVSC-lecture from February 1 2006 (256Mb video or 61MB audio); strictly from a scientific point of view. You can also download the whole presentation in PowerPoint format (29MB).
One thing appears to be a fact for sure: the official investigation would have failed any academic-scientific grade or evaluation had it been presented as work intended for examination. 
This is perhaps one reason the Scholars for 9/11 Truth has been formed: http://www.st911.org/ ?
irregardless is irredundant as well as irredating.
I think I should stop posting links now :rolleyes: !
IRREGARDLESS, there is a sceptic thread as well; they are debunking the conspiracy theoristâs claims about 911. Itâs an exhausting thread, but they too make some very good points (debunking).
Hereâs the link: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102
all of this was talked about on the discovery channel a few weeks ago and they used vaild sources and credible people in their documentary and there was nothing in there about missles being launched or planes landing and passengers getting off. basically that movie at the begining of this thread is complete bullshit.
Just watched 911 Eyewitness (as posted above). It is compelling, rational and shocking in that it is indicative of conspiracy on an unprecedented scale.
911 Eyewitness
Blue Star Media Group
1 hr 44 min 40 sec - Jan 9, 2006
www.911eyewitness.com
I also have a slight problem with the Loose Change video, despite doing a good job rising questions, they jump to their own drastic concussions with much more vagueness than Iâm comfortable with. âKnowingâ does not simply mean âDoingâ and âNeglectingâ does not simply mean âCovering-upâ. Itâs safe to assume the U.S. Government is doing all of these however, albeit to what extent and regarding what specific issues? Now thatâs a far more complex issue than the video is acknowledging.
However, the questions are still valid, and I donât think debunking the âcontrolled-demolition-theoryâ is sufficient in wrapping up the case â far from it. I donât think there is a single causality; a grand narrative that nicely makes all the pieces fit one single story.
I canât personally judge the science part of the matter (out of my grasp); however, the political side of the whole 911 tragedy is what Iâm most concerned about. Basically: creating a potential reason for tuning the whole world upside down through questionable agendas such as War or Terror and dichotomization of political ideals â a prelude for militarization of civilian institutions and a huge step back towards the era of Cold War. Here, there will be no winners except the military-industrial complex and its power-hungry marionettes â the majority will be the losers.
Indeed, I think itâs about an extremely small minority using dishonest means and abusing their âborrowedâ power in pursuing their own agendas. Hiding information is one evil, creating disinformation is another? I.e.: Controlling information on a national and global scale is just plain wrong, and that should not be ignored⊠ever.
Just a few simple questions about âknowingâ, âdoingâ, âneglectingâ and âcovering-upâ:
âKnowingâ: There was a sufficient amount of data to imply a possible terrorist attack could be possible (stemming from 1993) â whistle blowersâ reports, CIA and FBI agentsâ testimonies etc. Why was the numerous forewarnings so categorically ignored? Why were some many officials advised not to fly that particular day?
âDoingâ: Why was senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss (the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees) having breakfast with Pakistanâs Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad (the alleged âmoney-manâ behind the 9-11 hijackers) on September 11 2001?
âNeglectingâ: Why did Bush say he saw the first plane crash into the WTC from television (there was no official video for it) without immediately reacting in some proper way? A)⊠âAnd I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower â the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, âThereâs one terrible pilot.â And I said, âIt must have been a horrible accident.â B)⊠âBut I was whisked off there â I didnât have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, âA second plane has hit the tower. Americaâs under attack.â
âCovering-upâ: Why did Bush personally ask Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11? And why were The Justice Department and CIA are not being fully cooperative with Congressâ investigation?
When questions such as these are being asked, the political agenda will eventually come into the light, and hopefully, when people start connecting the dots, they might realize some kind of discrepancy between governmental rhetoric and its actions. The actions seem to be irrational in lights of evidence, although quite rational in lights of a coup dâĂ©tat.
Not sure if these have been posted before here, but anywayâŠ
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003