Some questions.

[shredmasteruk]

If it was a controlled demolitions job, why crash a plane through the very area which failed first (thus demolishing the demolitions charges in the area)?

Why take the extreme risk of planting explosives in buildings which employed thousands of people, and therefore potentially risked any one of those thousands of people stumbling across a covert op, when structural damage and fire caused by the aircraft smashing into the twin towers was more than enough to destroy them ?

Why were there no sounds of demolitions charges going off in the live footage of the collapses, if it was a controlled demolition as some allege?

Why didn't the US Govt set out to appear proactive competent and capable, and just have 19 people paraded on tv as terrorists arrested for planning attacks and use that as a pretext for a war on terror ? There had already been previous attacks by AQ, including the attack on the USS Cole the year before, and the failed 1993 attack meant that AQ had the WTC down as a target. So why not 'foil' the terrorist plot, and use that as a pretext ?

[john white]

If it was a controlled demolitions job, why crash a plane through the very area which failed first (thus demolishing the demolitions charges in the area)?

Well lets speculate: charges above the impact areas could be set off first, exactly where the planes hit would not be relevant, then charges below in sequential order...

Why take the extreme risk of planting explosives in buildings which employed thousands of people, and therefore potentially risked any one of those thousands of people stumbling across a covert op, when structural damage and fire caused by the aircraft smashing into the twin towers was more than enough to destroy them ?

Why take the extreme risk of making a terrorist attack on the US? (If that is what you believe happened). Talk of risks is meaningless simplybecuase you find it hard to understand that other people with a psychology divergent to you own are capable of taking them

Why were there no sounds of demolitions charges going off in the live footage of the collapses, if it was a controlled demolition as some allege?

There are

Why didn't the US Govt set out to appear proactive competent and capable, and just have 19 people paraded on tv as terrorists arrested for planning attacks and use that as a pretext for a war on terror ? There had already been previous attacks by AQ, including the attack on the USS Cole the year before, and the failed 1993 attack meant that AQ had the WTC down as a target. So why not 'foil' the terrorist plot, and use that as a pretext ?

Becuase it would not be enough trauma to shock the people into the group think demand of "something must be done" and then going along with it as it rolled into full scale illegal invasion of two countries and the introduction of the patriot act: to acheive that, a grevious wound in the body politic must be inflicted, not just parading 19 mugs who "might have done something if we hadnt stopped them". Really, this is text book stuff in the use of power (euphemistically known as "statecraft")

Your going to have to do a LOT better "Shredmaster"

[cheeb]

John,
There are a lot of witnesses talkin about explosions,
But there is hardly any audio evidence of explosions,
Is there any videos where you can hear this...???

:(

[sensimillia]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4WtRXqwVQ

[cheeb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4WtRXqwVQ

Yeah!!
I have seen that before,
And Apart from the fire men at the start,
Who could have been filmed while the second plane hit the tower,
There is still no audio of explosions,
Just people talking about explosions!!!
;)

[adimon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4WtRXqwVQ

This clip, which presents itself as 'un-debunkable' PROOF, is actually one of the weakest efforts I've seen. The video is so low quality that none of the speech is synched with the video on the vox-pops section, the chronology jumps around confusingly, and overall it provides no proof of anything, IMO.

Sensimilia, what do you take from the video?

[B]John,
There are a lot of witnesses talkin about explosions,
But there is hardly any audio evidence of explosions,



And Apart from the fire men at the start,
Who could have been filmed while the second plane hit the tower,
There is still no audio of explosions,
Just people talking about explosions!!!

I agree. It's one of the most confusing things about 9/11 - the audio on the clips. Anyone shed any light?

[sensimillia]

Sensimilia, what do you take from the video?

i like the newsreports that you usualy only see the first day, and never again. there were a couple of those in this video. all in all, i think it´s a pretty good video to show people who are just realizing that something is very wrong with the official story. but absolute proof? no...:)

[cheeb]

Beleive me i have searched,
When confronting Albie on this one.
This is the best I could come up with

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPk-3R66SkY&feature=related

I watched this film in its original context,
And at the time and by the firemans reaction,
I assumed it to be jumpers,
Or falling masonary!!!
:eek:

[adimon]

i like the newsreports that you usualy only see the first day, and never again. there were a couple of those in this video. all in all, i think it´s a pretty good video to show people who are just realizing that something is very wrong with the official story. but absolute proof? no...:)

OK, looks like we're in agreement then. Hope it's not too cold in Sweden! :)

[sensimillia]

OK, looks like we're in agreement then. Hope it's not too cold in Sweden! :)

i´m glad we are;) cheers! :)

[masonfree party]

NO MOLTEN METAL..NO PLANES...TV IMAGES WERE FAKED IN ADVANCE SO WHAT YOU SAW ON 911 WAS JUST A FAKED VIDEO

GO TO HTTP://WWW.DRJUDYWOOD.COM FOR FACTUAL EVIDENCE

[shredmasteruk]

Where's your proof of tv footage being faked in advance ?

And btw, the sound of as little as 30kg RDX going off, can be heard for miles.
Had enough RDX shaped charges been put into the twin towers to demolish them, 1, the staff inside would have noticed the demolitions teams going in ripping out the walls, precutting columns, and mounting hefty charges on load bearing columns. 2, the sound of those charges going off would have been heard for MILES around. BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG and then the towers would have fallen.

This DID NOT HAPPEN, though conspiracy vids like 9/11 mysteries have doctored footage and faked the sounds of explosions.

See this:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/569

This debunker video by Mark 'Gravy' Roberts, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926
Also features a lot of footage of controlled demolitions, and shows comparisons between the collapses of the twin towers & real controlled demolitions.

The damage done to the twin towers by the aircraft & the subsequent fires destroyed them. The damage done to WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1 & the subsequent fires inside IT destroyed IT. As for incriminating evidence inside ? There's such things as shredders...

I believe the so called 'War on Terror', is an abomination, but I also do not believe that the people who couldn't even pull off a simple robbery in the watergate building, would be competent enough to rig skyscrapers for controlled demolition. For starters, the risk of getting caught, is way too high. The logistics, nigh on impossible.

Far easier to let 19 determined trained and capable men to hijack planes and crash them, than to fake it. And the US Government did let that happen, because their procedures were incompetent.

[masonfree party]

there's no point in wasting time pondering what explosions went off where and when,the fact is no planes hit the buildings and what brought them down can not be explained by normal type explosives...what we witnessed was a 'new hiroshima' the evidence of which is carefully analysed by scientist Dr. Judy Wood

This presentation was given by Dr Judy Wood at the Madison 9/11 Conference (What's Controversial and What's Not) organised by Jim Fetzer on the weekend of Aug 3rd-5th, 2007.

This is most of the 1st hour of Dr Wood's important presentation, which looks at the destruction of the WTC - and how it was most likely caused by a Directed Energy Weapon of some kind.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3932150728705348373

[helloperator]

Haha....we need a full confession from the masterminds to get to the bottom of this one!

[john white]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1KG-H0baPk

[weston white]

The New York Times filed an FOIA and after a court battle received over 100 quotes of persons interviewed whom gave statements that cooborate that the heard thunder sounds, felt vibrations, saw flashes, etc. There are also employees that made it out of the WTC at the last minute, whom received severe burns to their bodies, there are vehicles that show evidence of extreme heat being in the area. Not to mention several different videos of both WTC1 WTC2 and WTC7 with persons stating the buildings were coming down in advance, to clear the area, in the videos you can faintly hear popping noises in the background. Not to mention CNN and BBS broadcasted foreknowledge of the buildings collapse for WTC7. Not to mention the seismic data. Not to mention the live conference meeting from a nearby building that captured a loud secondary explosion. Who cares about the quality of the video, look at the circumstances, I would expect the video to be of poor quality when charges are being set off in the area and the video operator is running their rear ends off and/or moving around anxiously (and lets face it not all of us can afford 2,000+ dollar video cameras). Also, not to mention all of Steven Jones research into the evidence and his findings.

[shredmasteruk]

We're not talking thunder sounds, we're talking BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG, and then collapse, like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

This is something which didn't happen to the twin towers.

Had anyone even tried rigging the twin towers with explosives, the sheer scale of work involved, means someone would have noticed and there would have been a LEAK. Had their been a LEAK, there would have been a firing squad, with Bush's name on the bullets. And the Republicans would have been finished. They couldn't even pull off Watergate for Gods sake.

Yes they are scumbags, but that doesn't mean that every time a crime is committed its the same person doing it.

[weston white]

Thermate would not really make a banging noise though and much of the sound would have been covered up by the sound of the building falling, this was the largest structure ever demolished before. Also many of the videos released are from far away so such sounds would have been obscured, though in some of the videos you can hear, albeit faintly popping noises. Also there have been people with knowledge that have been killed for example John O’Neill and Senator Paul Wellstone.


Look at how they kept the Manhattan Project secret, look at what Blackwater USA has kept, secret, what about the moon landings, those were faked and are still a secret to this day, don't get me started on the Vietnam War, look at Project Escalon, yet another well kept secret. The promise of keeping your mouth shut and the threat of being painfully killed is a very good motivator, especially when your handlers hold all of the influence (cards).

[cheeb]

Thermate would not really make a banging noise though and much of the sound would have been covered up by the sound of the building falling, this was the largest structure ever demolished before. Also many of the videos released are from far away so such sounds would have been obscured, though in some of the videos you can hear, albeit faintly popping noises. Also there have been people with knowledge that have been killed for example John O’Neill and Senator Paul Wellstone.


Look at how they kept the Manhattan Project secret, look at what Blackwater USA has kept, secret, what about the moon landings, those were faked and are still a secret to this day, don't get me started on the Vietnam War, look at Project Escalon, yet another well kept secret. The promise of keeping your mouth shut and the threat of being painfully killed is a very good motivator, especially when your handlers hold all of the influence (cards).

I would disagree about a thermite explosion!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQG3e75XiNg

But apart from that Magnesium Thermate is very Phosphorous,
When it burns,
It gives off a hell of a lot of light!!!
You must remember those chemistry lessons at school,
where they used to burn magnesium strips???

Is there no audio evidence,
Out of all the thousands of videos.
And not people talking about explosions!!!

[helloperator]

What were the gigantic squibs 30 or 40 stories below the collapsing line?

What makes anyone think they would have rigged the buildings to come down with the exact same modus operandi of a garden variety demolition? Who says they can't tweak the operations manual, change it up, do something different?

What exploded the lobby? What were the explosions that have been heavily documented? What was blowing up, throwing people down stairways and into walls? How was complete collapse possible all the way to the ground? Why believe anything the government says? These people are murderers and villains and criminals, and you swallow the official 911 fairy tale hook line and sinker?

[weston white]

This video is not the correct application of Thermate as it would be used to cut a beam and it is an extreme use of Thermate at any rate.

[christophera]

Is there no audio evidence,
Out of all the thousands of videos.
And not people talking about explosions!!!

The only evidence of thermite is the molten steel in the basement or perhaps some pouring off of one floor of WTC 2. There is however at least 2 videos that have sound track of the explosions descending.

listen to the explosions (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5860825099435530591&q=5860825099435530591&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

Note they are very well contained explosions, if you know what that is compared to uncontained. Contained explosions are actually not possible under conditions for planted explosives, which is why I assert the towers were built to demolish.

I viewed a 1990 video called "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". It was 2 hours in length and had about 1 hour describing the building of the largest cast concrete core ever built. It focused on the slowdown, the difficult aspect of the construction.

That, it turned out was the butt welding of the high tensile steel rebar used in the concrete core walls. The reason it was a problem was because the PA would only allow welders with a security clearance make the weld. Late in the documentary a welding contractor who had bid on the exterior steel welding thinking that he could keep his welders busy when the steel framework was waiting for the concrete to catch up, (only 7 floors of steel were allowed over the top of the concrete, WTC1) was upset and threatening to sue unless the PA came up with a good reason for not allowing his welders to make the butt weld. They told him, "The special plastic coating on the rebar is flamable".

Is it any wonder PBS has no record of this 2 hour documentary and have no produced a new one.

Small town libraries were called in 2003 by PBS to ask if they still had the 1990 documentary and were told that if they sent it in they could get the revised one free. One small town library said "no" and just ordered the new one. Some months back when asked about the old one, they looked to find it was gone.

[shredmasteruk]

Thermate would not really make a banging noise though and much of the sound would have been covered up by the sound of the building falling, this was the largest structure ever demolished before. Also many of the videos released are from far away so such sounds would have been obscured, though in some of the videos you can hear, albeit faintly popping noises. Also there have been people with knowledge that have been killed for example John O’Neill and Senator Paul Wellstone.


Look at how they kept the Manhattan Project secret, look at what Blackwater USA has kept, secret, what about the moon landings, those were faked and are still a secret to this day, don't get me started on the Vietnam War, look at Project Escalon, yet another well kept secret. The promise of keeping your mouth shut and the threat of being painfully killed is a very good motivator, especially when your handlers hold all of the influence (cards).

Therm*tes burn downwards.
They cannot burn horizontally through large steel I beams.
There is a complete lack of barium nitrite, and zero evidence for therm*tes having been used.

The Manhattan project was a project to develop what the Japanese had been trying to develop: a war winning weapon. It was not a project to drop that weapon on a US City. Blackwater have been TRYING to keep secrets, but have failed to cover up the fact that their employees have been involved in serious crimes.

And as for the threat of being painfully killed, it does not stop determined whistleblowers from defecting.

Alexander Litvenenko. He took the risk, exposed a conspiracy, paid with his life.

Amateur video of a collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV0BVZG1j7E

And Christopher, that video in your link HAS been edited. The sounds of the firefighters talking to each other have been scrubbed off and replaced with those 'explosion' sounds. You don't hear them shout run or anything.

Here's another video of a collapse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bavn4T26jcw

[cruise4]

And Building 7 was brought down how?

[cyince]

And Building 7 was brought down how?

7 hours of uncontrolled fire. Massive damage to the south face. Emergency Diesel fuel tanks, burring/exploding. Two 110 story buildings fell ejecting massive pieces of debris. etc

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

[cyince]

Where's your proof of tv footage being faked in advance ?

And btw, the sound of as little as 30kg RDX going off, can be heard for miles.
Had enough RDX shaped charges been put into the twin towers to demolish them, 1, the staff inside would have noticed the demolitions teams going in ripping out the walls, precutting columns, and mounting hefty charges on load bearing columns. 2, the sound of those charges going off would have been heard for MILES around. BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG and then the towers would have fallen.

This DID NOT HAPPEN, though conspiracy vids like 9/11 mysteries have doctored footage and faked the sounds of explosions.

See this:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/569

This debunker video by Mark 'Gravy' Roberts, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926
Also features a lot of footage of controlled demolitions, and shows comparisons between the collapses of the twin towers & real controlled demolitions.

The damage done to the twin towers by the aircraft & the subsequent fires destroyed them. The damage done to WTC 7 by the collapse of WTC 1 & the subsequent fires inside IT destroyed IT. As for incriminating evidence inside ? There's such things as shredders...

I believe the so called 'War on Terror', is an abomination, but I also do not believe that the people who couldn't even pull off a simple robbery in the watergate building, would be competent enough to rig skyscrapers for controlled demolition. For starters, the risk of getting caught, is way too high. The logistics, nigh on impossible.

Far easier to let 19 determined trained and capable men to hijack planes and crash them, than to fake it. And the US Government did let that happen, because their procedures were incompetent.

Excellent post.

[john white]

Happy New Year!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqKBnKlDYdw

[weston white]

7 hours of uncontrolled fire. Massive damage to the south face. Emergency Diesel fuel tanks, burring/exploding. Two 110 story buildings fell ejecting massive pieces of debris. etc

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


Where is your proof of fuel exploding in WT7? Either way those tanks were protected and exterior to the building. I saw no explosions coming from WT7, where do you see this at? Anyways how would a fuel explosions blow apart the massive steel skeleton? I mean I could see it blowing out walls windows, heck even for benefit of doubt I could see it causing massive and extensive floor damage to the first 2-3 floors, but seriously to cause the perfect freefall collapse of the entire structure, might as well say it was explosives that did it, I mean why stop at the fuel caused it argument? Completely silly I say old lad, chap, or lass.

[weston white]

Thermate/Thermite can burn across beams, there is a special device they clamp onto each side of the beam. Seriously, does it really make ay sense to create this amazing compound called Thermate (or Thermite) and then have no way to apply its use in practical situations? Of course not.

Stop with that silly argument, please, I am so sick of hearing about this already (“They could have not used Thermate because there is no way to make it burn through a vertical beam.”). Enough already, lets move on to real arguments and leave these straw men to lay in peace.

[cyince]

Where is your proof of fuel exploding in WT7? Either way those tanks were protected and exterior to the building. I saw no explosions coming from WT7, where do you see this at?

exploding was admittedly a bad word to use http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDD103EF933A15751C1A9679C8B 63
Anyways how would a fuel explosions blow apart the massive steel skeleton? I mean I could see it blowing out walls windows, heck even for benefit of doubt I could see it causing massive and extensive floor damage to the first 2-3 floors, but seriously to cause the perfect freefall collapse of the entire structure, might as well say it was explosives that did it, I mean why stop at the fuel caused it argument? Completely silly I say old lad, chap, or lass.

I didn't say it was just the diesel fires that caused the collapse. I said (more or less implied) that it contributed to it.

Perfect free fall?? Even the loose change crew gave up on that one.

What about the fires burning for 7 hours? (with additional fuel from the diesel tanks)

What about the structural damage caused by falling debris?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction

I'd say the majority of your questions are answered at that link.

[weston white]

What about WTC3 that building was smashed to crap and was left standing.

What about the Winter Garden building, hundreds of tons of steel was ejected onto its roof and the roof did not even collapse.

What about that other building (I do not know the name of it, it was tall and tan in color lots of windows and had a stepped construction) that had its edge ripped apart by massive beams, that remained standing perfectly and did not even catch on fire, what about the Millennium Building that took on massive damage was refurbished and is still standing today.

If the fuel tanks were on fire they would have exploded, they would not have acted as a flaming torch for that length of time; otherwise the theory would have to be that the fuel tanks were able to supply the fuel for the entire day, withstand the heat of the fire, though the massive steel skeleton was not able to.

The WTC7 was a perfect freefall collapse all the way across its base, starting with the roof that had a set off offices fall from it even though there were not even any fires present at height.

If the structure had in fact failed to do structural damage it would have displayed a partial floor collapse at minimum and at worst a total corner collapse; though in no case would it have experienced a global building collapse, as turned out to be the reality.

[cruise4]

"7 hours of uncontrolled fire. Massive damage to the south face. Emergency Diesel fuel tanks, burring/exploding. Two 110 story buildings fell ejecting massive pieces of debris. etc"

Haven't really looked into all this have you?

[john white]

What about WTC3 that building was smashed to crap and was left standing.

What about the Winter Garden building, hundreds of tons of steel was ejected onto its roof and the roof did not even collapse.

What about that other building (I do not know the name of it, it was tall and tan in color lots of windows and had a stepped construction) that had its edge ripped apart by massive beams, that remained standing perfectly and did not even catch on fire, what about the Millennium Building that took on massive damage was refurbished and is still standing today.

If the fuel tanks were on fire they would have exploded, they would not have acted as a flaming torch for that length of time; otherwise the theory would have to be that the fuel tanks were able to supply the fuel for the entire day, withstand the heat of the fire, though the massive steel skeleton was not able to.

The WTC7 was a perfect freefall collapse all the way across its base, starting with the roof that had a set off offices fall from it even though there were not even any fires present at height.

If the structure had in fact failed to do structural damage it would have displayed a partial floor collapse at minimum and at worst a total corner collapse; though in no case would it have experienced a global building collapse, as turned out to be the reality.

And dont forget the classic "crump" in the middle of the building, seen as a kink in the roof-line at the start of the collpase, that is seen in 100% of controlled demolitions and no-where else!

[cyince]

What about WTC3 that building was smashed to crap and was left standing.
What about it. What about WTC 4 and 5?

What about the Winter Garden building, hundreds of tons of steel was ejected onto its roof and the roof did not even collapse.

What about that other building (I do not know the name of it, it was tall and tan in color lots of windows and had a stepped construction) that had its edge ripped apart by massive beams, that remained standing perfectly and did not even catch on fire, what about the Millennium Building that took on massive damage was refurbished and is still standing today.

What about the other buildings that had to be taken down because of structural damage? If your went to either of the links all the surrounding buildings are named with the ones that were demolished due to structural damage after wards.

If the fuel tanks were on fire they would have exploded, they would not have acted as a flaming torch for that length of time; otherwise the theory would have to be that the fuel tanks were able to supply the fuel for the entire day, withstand the heat of the fire, though the massive steel skeleton was not able to.

The WTC7 was a perfect freefall collapse all the way across its base, starting with the roof that had a set off offices fall from it even though there were not even any fires present at height.

If the structure had in fact failed to do structural damage it would have displayed a partial floor collapse at minimum and at worst a total corner collapse; though in no case would it have experienced a global building collapse, as turned out to be the reality.

You obviously didn't read either of the links of posted. The majority of these issues if not all of them are discussed. If there are specific points you feel aren't addressed then maybe I can do your reading for you, and post the exact answers.

"7 hours of uncontrolled fire. Massive damage to the south face. Emergency Diesel fuel tanks, burring/exploding. Two 110 story buildings fell ejecting massive pieces of debris. etc"

Haven't really looked into all this have you?

Not really sure what i haven't looked at. Are you saying those claims are all false?

And dont forget the classic "crump" in the middle of the building, seen as a kink in the roof-line at the start of the collpase, that is seen in 100% of controlled demolitions and no-where else!

Where else would you expect it to be seen? If you can give me some examples of collapsing buildings from uncontrolled fire and collateral damage from 2 of the worlds biggest buildings collapsing that look different I'd love to see them.

[weston white]

"7 hours of uncontrolled fire. Massive damage to the south face. Emergency Diesel fuel tanks, burring/exploding. Two 110 story buildings fell ejecting massive pieces of debris. etc"

Haven't really looked into all this have you?


1. Where is your proof of "massive damage" all I have seen is cosmetic damage to the exterior of the building (at most a few corner beams were dinked up, possibly even sliced through and through, so we have a weakened corner side of the building, at the very most this would cause a corner collapse), in fact several other buildings received much more damage and remain standing to this day, several other building that received much more damage did not even catch on fire, hence how was it that WTC7 was one of the few buildings to catch on fire that day and some of the areas that caught on fire were far off from the damaged areas, and such fires were patch fires, meaning there is no trial of fire from point A to point B, so it appears of if the fire jumped to the middle of the building, skipping over a distance of 100 or so feet. Why were the fires not solid from point A to point B as you would expect them to be? The fires in WTC7 appear to be more of an arson attempt. The logic is that a few to several steal beams ripping into WTC7 sprang up several fires not in just one remote area but in several simultaneous areas and on multiple floors. This to me fails the D.U.H. test. Again look at WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, and WTC6; all of these buildings remained standing even though they received extensive damage and a few even had severe fires and all were much smaller in size then WTC7.

2. Where is your proof that the fuel tank caught on fire, let alone exploded? I saw and heard no explosion that would indicate 5,000+ gallons of fuel caught on fire or exploded.

3. Again take a look at WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, and WTC6, if fire and damage from WTC1 and WTC2 truly caused WTC7 to collapse these are how WTC7 should have looked at in the end. Otherwise these arguments of yours are void of all logic and reason. See: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc5.html. The question is what was so different about WTC7 then any of these other buildings? WTC7 was so much larger in overall size, hence it would be much harder to bring down. It is reported that WTC7 was overbuilt, thus adding to its overall strength. WTC7 housed government agencies that contained records to Enron (and several other major corporations), whom at the time was being investigated for massive fraud and other truckload of other business related felony crimes that linked back to the White House and people like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

4. If exploding fuel was adding to the fires, why did the fires remain contained to their originating locations, locations which were opposite to the fuel tanks. If the fires were caused by the fuel tanks how did the fires jump from ground level up to the 9th floor and if it did why did it not leave a fire trail from the ground up to the ninth floor?

5. If the fuel tanks exploded they would have done so outside the building, so how would this cause massive interior damage? Do you not think that city codes would require that such large fuel tanks be protected from receiving damage, be sheltered in case they explode, be equipped with say a HALON system in cause they catch on fire, be equipped with an alert connected to the city switchboard incase they form a fuel leak.

Now Dr. Wood stated in her presentation that the claim of no water to put out the fires in WTC7 was false because in the photos she showed there was water flooding the entire area of the WTC Complex, which means that the water was either turned off during the fires in WTC7, the water mains were somehow repaired after the attacks finished (which would not be possible do to the massive debris laying over the top of the mains and given timeframe for repairs), the firefighters found another undamaged water main that more distance and ran hose from it to the WTC Complex, or the firefighters were ordered to allow the fires in WTC7 remain burning, possibly given some reasonable excuse by their superiors such as the water mains were broken. This would lend to reason that the fires were permitted to burn to justify cause for their collapse. Additionally, there are reports that the internal fire extinguishing system was placed on just test prior to 9/11, if this is true (and to date it seems to be so) how convenient, no?


WTC3 (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc3.html)
WTC4 (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc4.html)
WTC5 (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc5.html)
WTC6 (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc6.html)

[weston white]

Cyince you are missing the big picture, the point is that all of the building remained standing, via their core steel infrastructure, it was only WTC7 that experience a complete and globally uniform collapse. Signature of a controlled demolition, as John as pointed out (besides WTC1 and WTC2).

BTW, that one of your links did not work.

[shredmasteruk]

What was the effect of load in the other buildings ?

That is something you don't understand.

Effect of load, on a damaged structure, can be fatal.

Just a few years ago, the loading effect snow had on the roof of an austrian sports hall, caused collapse.

WTC 7 burned for 7 hours, the water mains had been knocked out, and the fire fighters couldn't fight the blaze, the structure was damaged and leaning. Its no suprise it fell, firefighters had put a transit on the building and predicted its collapse hours before.

It was known that WTC 7 would collapse, the operation to save it was pulled.

Fools who don't understand everything about it think there's something suss about it, but there isn't.

Hot steel is softer than steel at room temp.
http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/design_and_innovation/structural_design/fire/steelwork_fire_resistance/

Effect of load can deform it, and cause a bending moment.
http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Beams/Shear_Bending.html

A bending moment is what caused the penthouse collapse in WTC 7, that collapse applied shear force, and destroyed the last vestiges of structural integrity in the building, causing total structural failiure.

[john white]

(re: building 7 signature crump)


Where else would you expect it to be seen? If you can give me some examples of collapsing buildings from uncontrolled fire and collateral damage from 2 of the worlds biggest buildings collapsing that look different I'd love to see them.

Theres loads

Oh hang on no there isnt, NONE OF THEM COLLAPSED THROUGH FIRE!

:)

Your hoisted on your own petard there

Mind you, I can show you hundreds of pictures of steel frame buildings totally gutted by fire that did not collapse

But can you show me a single (conventional) controlled demolition of a steel framed building that did not include a "crump" from anywhere in the world at any time in history?

You know you can't!

So, guess whose got the balance of the evidence on their side here?

(Clue: its not you)

[weston white]

See that is the thing the fire could burn all the material up within the building, walls, furniture, floors, doors, plastics, fabrics, wood; but once the fire reached the steel core skeleton it would extinguish itself, as there are no more composite type materials to burn. Thus, the entire building should have engulfed leaving a massive steel structure exposed… just as we had seen with WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, and WTC6. WTC7 for some reason was an exception to this rule (as well as WTC1 and WTC2). What happened to WTC7 only makes sense if you take into account that a controlled demolition had taken place.


Now a fire unless it is fully engulfed could not simultaneously superheat the entire core structure of the building (for the purpose of causing a global collapse), it would only be capable of heating the area that the fire is confined to. So at the most you have a floor collapse potential located in small confined area of overall building.

A failure of the core structure would result in a partial building collapse in the area that the core failed at, the remaining structure would remain standing, though would of course experience warping, bending, and twisting in the area that failed.

What happened to WTC7 (and WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11 is ludicrous.

[john white]

What was the effect of load in the other buildings ?

That is something you don't understand.

Effect of load, on a damaged structure, can be fatal.

Just a few years ago, the loading effect snow had on the roof of an austrian sports hall, caused collapse.

WTC 7 burned for 7 hours, the water mains had been knocked out, and the fire fighters couldn't fight the blaze, the structure was damaged and leaning. Its no suprise it fell, firefighters had put a transit on the building and predicted its collapse hours before.

It was known that WTC 7 would collapse, the operation to save it was pulled.

Fools who don't understand everything about it think there's something suss about it, but there isn't.

Hot steel is softer than steel at room temp.
http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/design_and_innovation/structural_design/fire/steelwork_fire_resistance/

Effect of load can deform it, and cause a bending moment.
http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Beams/Shear_Bending.html

A bending moment is what caused the penthouse collapse in WTC 7, that collapse applied shear force, and destroyed the last vestiges of structural integrity in the building, causing total structural failiure.

Thats the cover story, and you think your clever for buying it. well thats your opinion

But the evidence speaks against it. The only reason you deny that is your investment in fantasy

To prove me wrong, address my points in the post above as well as cyince

I'm confident in the quality of my homework

[cyince]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI&eurl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw&feature=related

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5604260445787335188

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

(re: building 7 signature crump)

Theres loads

Oh hang on no there isnt, NONE OF THEM COLLAPSED THROUGH FIRE!

:)

Your hoisted on your own petard there

Mind you, I can show you hundreds of pictures of steel frame buildings totally gutted by fire that did not collapse

But can you show me a single (conventional) controlled demolition of a steel framed building that did not include a "crump" from anywhere in the world at any time in history?

You know you can't!

So, guess whose got the balance of the evidence on their side here?

(Clue: its not you)

I didn't ask for examples of fire collapsed buildings. I said buildings that had 2 110 story buildings fall on the, in addition to the fires. Hundreds of pictures, or hundreds of buildings? Crump....Honestly I've never even heard of that before.

crump /krʌmp, krʊmp/ P Pronunciation[kruhmp, kroomp]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to crunch or make a crunching sound, as with the teeth.
–verb (used without object)
2. (of an artillery shell) to land and explode with a heavy, muffled sound.
3. to make a crunching sound, as in walking over snow, or as snow when trodden on.
–noun
4. a crunching sound.
5. a large explosive shell or bomb.
6. Also called bump. Mining. a sudden ground movement in underground working

[weston white]

A crimp the mid-building was crimped just prior to the collapse.

[john white]

(re: building 7 signature crump)

Theres loads

Oh hang on no there isnt, NONE OF THEM COLLAPSED THROUGH FIRE!

:)

Your hoisted on your own petard there

Mind you, I can show you hundreds of pictures of steel frame buildings totally gutted by fire that did not collapse

But can you show me a single (conventional) controlled demolition of a steel framed building that did not include a "crump" from anywhere in the world at any time in history?

You know you can't!

So, guess whose got the balance of the evidence on their side here?

(Clue: its not you)

I didn't ask for examples of fire collapsed buildings. I said buildings that had 2 110 story buildings fall on the, in addition to the fires. Hundreds of pictures, or hundreds of buildings? Crump....Honestly I've never even heard of that before.

crump /krʌmp, krʊmp/ P Pronunciation[kruhmp, kroomp]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to crunch or make a crunching sound, as with the teeth.
–verb (used without object)
2. (of an artillery shell) to land and explode with a heavy, muffled sound.
3. to make a crunching sound, as in walking over snow, or as snow when trodden on.
–noun
4. a crunching sound.
5. a large explosive shell or bomb.
6. Also called bump. Mining. a sudden ground movement in underground working

Thats weak, very weak. And of course, you can't make a better answer

And whats with the sophistry over the word "crump"? Oh yes: its a defense mechanism born of desperation...

[helloperator]

Remember that old Warner Bros cartoon where the fella would go 'I don't know which one of yas done it...but I know one of yas done it'....I think it was some gangster guy...well maybe that should be a bit of a uniting anthem...but change it to...

'I don't how yas done it...but I know yas done it'

[weston white]

Haha, Yosemite Sam all, blow me down! Shiver me timbers! Why they did use detonated explosives, well all be!

[cyince]

Thats weak, very weak. And of course, you can't make a better answer

And whats with the sophistry over the word "crump"? Oh yes: its a defense mechanism born of desperation...

If you beleive that to be a weak argument then that is your choice. I showed links describing the damage, videos which showed the damage, and gave what i beleive to be reasons for collapse.

I honestly was asking about crump, not trying to be a dick, I was just wondering about the word and its meaning. Is it a demolition term, a trade term, a typo. If you infact meant crimp I apologize.

If so and your argument is that it had a crimp, all demolitions have a crimp therefore it was a contorlled demolition, we are simply going to have the same argument over and over again. Simply put no other building in the history of the world was built the same as WTC 7, no other building suffered the same stresses as wtc7, and there will never be another instance of an identical event. So to argue since its never happed before as your argument seems a little illogical.

We can address things in reality like no explosives found or heard. No detcord, no evidence at all of CD. No one coming forward in 6 years. Why would you ever demolish a building. Specific logistical problems with rigging the building for demo/collapse....7 hours after large scale fires and other structual damage (which would destroy explosives and their detonation devices). The utter absuridity of the whole claim.

[john white]

If so and your argument is that it had a crimp, all demolitions have a crimp therefore it was a contorlled demolition, we are simply going to have the same argument over and over again. Simply put no other building in the history of the world was built the same as WTC 7, no other building suffered the same stresses as wtc7, and there will never be another instance of an identical event. So to argue since its never happed before as your argument seems a little illogical.

Yeah yeah, explain it all away to yourself

Your opinions are a farce that denies the evidence because you have a belief system to defend

Sure its the same old argument all over again, but thats only becuase you cant let yourself understand, so thats your responsibility

[cruise4]

"'I don't how yas done it...but I know yas done it'"

Sums it up brilliantly!

And the detective work carried out so far has been so hampered by withheld evidence, destroyed evidence and coverup. Imagine what we'll find when access to currently restricted information gets lifted.

[cyince]

Yeah yeah, explain it all away to yourself

Your opinions are a farce that denies the evidence because you have a belief system to defend

Sure its the same old argument all over again, but thats only becuase you cant let yourself understand, so thats your responsibility

What evidence am i denying?

The building does look similar to a controlled demolotion. I simply beleive that it was not. Nor do i beleive something being similar to something is proof.

It did not fall at free fall speeds. (unless you ignore the mechanical penthouse collapse, as well as first responder reports of the building swaying etc)

There were uncontrolled fires in the building.

There was structural damage to the building.

These things aren't agruments they are facts.

So what things am i explaining away? What evidence am i denying?

As for my beleif system not allowing me to beleive....well i beleived that 9/11 was an inside job for a long time, (the first site I went to the day it happened was rense, just to give you perspective of where my head was at). So my beleifs aren't set in stone.

So I'll leave you with a quote "Your opinions are a farce that denies the evidence because you have a belief system to defend"

[weston white]

Buildings WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, and WTC6 (and the other ~2-3 other buildings there sustained damage though are still in operation to date)... look into those then we can have a legitimate discussion about
WTC7 and WTC1 and WTC2.

[shredmasteruk]

Weston WTC 3 was destroyed because WTC 2 tore through it, like a knife, cutting it in two.

As for the other buildings, they too were damaged, some even on fire. But the effect of load was different because they weren't as high, the damage to the bases wasn't the same.

WTC 7 had a massive gash torn right down the back of it on the south face, on the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13 there was a very noticable bulge, and the building was leaning.
Firefighters put a transit on the bulge, predicted a collapse and pulled out for their own safety. They hadn't enough water to fight the blaze because the water mains in the area had been damaged when the twin towers fell.

Would you leave firefighters in a burning building where there was no chance of putting out the blaze (and nobody inside it to save) ? or would you pull them out ?

[weston white]

That is such a bold face lie and fails to make sense, your avoiding the facts about WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, and WTC6, while skewing the facts about WTC7 and ignoring the facts about WTC1 and WTC2. OR avoiding the obvious while mingling with hypocrisy. Stop it please, enough is enough.

[helloperator]

Why was the random and chaotic damage inflicted on wtc7 followed by such a precise and uniform collapse?

[cyince]

That is such a bold face lie and fails to make sense, your avoiding the facts about WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, and WTC6, while skewing the facts about WTC7 and ignoring the facts about WTC1 and WTC2. OR avoiding the obvious while mingling with hypocrisy. Stop it please, enough is enough.

What is a lie?
What facts are being avoided?
What facts are being skewed

Buildings around ground zero had to be taken down as a result of damage, that is a fact.

[cyince]

Why was the random and chaotic damage inflicted on wtc7 followed by such a precise and uniform collapse?

By calling the collapses precise does not make is such, (precise relative to what). THere is clearly debris being ejected from the WTC collapses, i don't think there is an argument there.

[weston white]

What is a lie?
What facts are being avoided?
What facts are being skewed

Buildings around ground zero had to be taken down as a result of damage, that is a fact.

Exactly, but when it comes to WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 you switch your logic around to account for why the all came down at free fall speeds while exploding into a massive ball of dust. You misrepresent the known facts about WTC7, most of which there is no known evidence of to begin with.

[weston white]

By calling the collapses precise does not make is such, (precise relative to what). THere is clearly debris being ejected from the WTC collapses, i don't think there is an argument there.

Precise to the Law of Increasing Entropy for starters.

[shredmasteruk]

That is such a bold face lie and fails to make sense, your avoiding the facts about WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, and WTC6, while skewing the facts about WTC7 and ignoring the facts about WTC1 and WTC2. OR avoiding the obvious while mingling with hypocrisy. Stop it please, enough is enough.

What lies ?

WTC's 1&2 did not fall freefall, they were not in a vaccum, there were no rocket boosters attached to any of the debris, there was resistance, and that resistance deflected stuff outwards.

WTC 3 was hit at high velocity, by wtc 2, and was cut in half, the structure in the immediate path of the debris, collapsed, cutting a V shape into WTC 3.

WTC's 4 5 & 6 were much shorter buildings than the twin towers, and the weight distribution was good enough to resist collapse despite the damage done, because the structure didn't get overloaded.

WTC 7 was much taller, WTC 1 tore into it , there was a gouge all the way down the south side of it because large pieces of debris falling northwards, had hit it.

Known facts about WTC 7 are 1) it was made of steel, 2) built over an existing electrical substation, and its structure was unlike that of any other skyscraper including the twin towers. 3) it had been hit by debris from the collapse of another skyscraper, 4) it was on fire for seven hours 5) firefighters had predicted its collapse and pulled out.

http://msnbc.com/modules/interactive.aspx?fmt=frame&id=n_banfield_sevenwtc_010911&type=v

WTC 7 collapse caught on camera:
"What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has finally happened."

WTC 7 had a bulge between floors 10 & 13 on the south west corner, was damaged, on fire and was leaning, the fire fighters, couldn't fight the blaze, because there wasn't any water for them to do so.

I'm not saying this to attack anyone, I'm saying this because there is a wild goose chase that is 9/11 twoof, which leads anywhere but the truth, and which is undermining, the efforts of anti war movements.

I am not skewing any facts, I leave that to the likes of Dylan Avery.

9/11 twoof is a wild goose chase which has accomplished NOTHING.
[hr]
There are far far more serious issues to hand.

The use of British made wall cuffs & leg irons by torturing regimes. Theres an organisation called DESO, a British government department which markets weapons on behalf of private companies. The Al Yamamah arms scandal. The western arms industry as a whole (all 5 permanent members of the UN security council, are the biggest players in the global arms trade), the unnecessary curtailments of civil liberties occuring. The illegal war in Iraq. The extroadinary rendition flights. Torture by allies of the USA. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. All of which are more important. Yet some people think it more important to discuss thermite / explosive demolition charges / mini nukes / pods / space beams (none of which can be proven).
[hr]
There is a hoax put out by the 9/11 truthers, and that hoax is corrosive, it undermines important issues, and sidetracks people with a sideshow.

If it upsets you that I hold a view different to that of most on here, and support the debunkers, rather than Steven Jones / Judy Wood / Dylan Avery et al, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I've seen no evidence to support any wtc controlled demolition theories.

[weston white]

In order for an object under force to eject itself its bearing load must be relieved and at a high rate of speed. Thus if in fact the above load was relieved from the bottom sections, permitting them the opportunity to spring out and eject 360 degrees up to ~800 feet in distance, that would mean the above pile driver would have to as well have had its load removed from the top of the building, thus the collapse should have stopped then, midstream, right?

Think about it, the load gets removed the collapse has to stop, the damaged areas and the fire and the heat have been stop out in all directions, the pressure has been relieved, the load has been lightened, right?

But that is not what happened on 9/11 now was it?

...and yes the buildings fell at free fall speeds. Firefighters did not predict anything they clearly stated the building was going to be blown, clear the area, get out of here, you have to leave, your life is in danger, the building is going to be blown. (not exact quotes but that is what the message boils down to.)

9/11 Truth has accomplished a lot, in the last CNN pole 80+% believed the government had something to do in 9/11 or believed our government was complacent, that in itself is HUGE!

It is not 9/11 twoof, WTF does that even mean? It is 9/11 Truth.

If you seriously see no evidence supporting a demolition then you must either not be looking to hard and/or you are involved in an interest against the movement.

Personally, I always thought the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 was very strange, only heard a two sentence blurb about WTC7 and then never heard about it again, until about 7 months ago. Now after looking into things extensively for the last 7 months, in my mind I feel I have a solid understanding of what transpired, though I also realize that I still have much more to learn.

[shredmasteruk]

Think about it, the load gets removed the collapse has to stop, the damaged areas and the fire and the heat have been stop out in all directions, the pressure has been relieved, the load has been lightened, right?
WRONG.

The load bearing structure fails, the load FALLS, the load hits with considerable force, the structure below; applying shearing force. The pressure, pushes outwards some of what it has sheared, so the broken spandrels are catapaulted outwards, but the stuff further inside what was a building, cannot take the same path and goes downwards, applying more shear force to the stuff inside, and the structure below which lacks the strength to resist this assault, also gives way...

[weston white]

Why would the below structure fail? It has been solid for the last 30 years and was built to sustain damage to begin with. It makes no sense. BTW, what is all this force talk? how high was the ceiling on each floor 8-10 feet? You cant pick much force up from that, remember every action creates an opposite reaction thus once initial force has been exerted, it is canceled out by the stationary impact, it now has to start all over again, or it gets greatly reduced by each floor failure, given to circumstances. This great force could not have been from the plane crash being that the plane had been in the buildings for approximately one hour.

[shredmasteruk]

Why would the below structure fail? It has been solid for the last 30 years and was built to sustain damage to begin with. It makes no sense. BTW, what is all this force talk? how high was the ceiling on each floor 8-10 feet? You cant pick much force up from that, remember every action creates an opposite reaction thus once initial force has been exerted, it is canceled out by the stationary impact, it now has to start all over again, or it gets greatly reduced by each floor failure, given to circumstances. This great force could not have been from the plane crash being that the plane had been in the buildings for approximately one hour.

It had been built to withstand the crash of a landing 707 in the following scenario: 707 low on fuel, needs to land, but there's fog, pilot makes navigation error and crashes.

Landing planes fly below 180mph.

The energy transfer is much lower with a landing 707, compared to that of the hijacked 767's.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/leslie_robertson/
Watch the impact of a plane clip of the interview with Leslie E Robertson.
The energy transfer is the square of the velocity.

The lack of fuel, makes this scenario very different.

The 767's which hit, were larger aircraft, not much larger, but a bit, they hit at a much greater speed, transferring a great deal more energy, but the fuel load they were carrying, sprayed fuel throughout the buildings interior, setting fire to the contents of the building over a wide area.

The fire protection was also blown off.

Outer columns on the towers were photographed bowing inwardly, people inside the buildings had reported that the trusses were sagging.

Its obvious why the buildings couldn't perform as they had done before the crashes, because the structure was heavily damaged, and exposed to fire, this weakened the damage structure beyond its design limits.

[weston white]

The fire had visibility exploded, the majority of which was exterior to the building, not all over within and throughout the interior. There were massive fireballs that exploded through and through. Thus fuel could not have contributed too much of the presumed heat related damage, perhaps oil aided in sustaining the fires, although firefighters on scene reported they had the fires contained and were just starting to beat them down when the building collapsed (just another coincidence?).

What do office employees know about trusses and structural failure, how would they have been able to see the internal structure of the building to begin with, especially during a massive fire!

The outer framing of the buildings would have absorbed most of the inertia leaving little to cause damage to the inner steel columns, the concrete flooring would have aided as well in absorbing inertia. 47 steel columns, sure a few of the outer columns were damaged possibly even cut through, but you still have dozens and dozens more that are not damaged to hold up the support.

The damage caused by the plane would have resulted in the partial collapse of 1-3 floors; that is it, thus at the most the top of the building would have tilted over and torn off then falling to the ground below. A horizontal impact would not cause a full vertical collapse. It is utterly illogical.

Saying the fire system was taken out is a presumption. The fire systems could have very well been working and/or they were intentionally turned off prior to the impacts occurring.

The only portions of the plane that would have caused major damage or the two jet engines, the fuel, the oil, and the horizontal mainframe plate.


Trying to think of an example to use to show you how a steel building could not just collapse like it was a hollow shaft of air and the only thing coming to my mind is to say imagine taking two aluminum soda cans one that is full an unopened and on that is opened and empty then step down on each of them, guess what happens? Then take another aluminum soda full and unopened and slice a one inch horizontal gash about 1 inches down from the start of the taper along the top on two sides of the can and try to step on it again, guess what happens?

[shredmasteruk]

What do office employees know about trusses and structural failure, how would they have been able to see the internal structure of the building to begin with, especially during a massive fire!

Rather a lot when one of them happened to be called Frank De Martini, happened to be the construction manager for the WTC, and happened to have reached the impact area in their attempts to rescue people, and happen to have noticed that the trusses were sagging.

The damage caused by the plane would have resulted in the partial collapse of 1-3 floors; that is it, thus at the most the top of the building would have tilted over and torn off then falling to the ground below. A horizontal impact would not cause a full vertical collapse. It is utterly illogical.
WRONG.

The collapse of 1 - 3 floors, would cause the load above to fall, and because it was falling, it would hit something, and it did.
The structure below, was not strong enough to withstand the impact from the floors above hitting it, therefore the collapse could NOT be arrested, and so the floors below ALSO collapsed, and therefore my friend you are mistaken.

And instead of asking, how 19 men (who were already on FBI wanted lists), were able to take knives onto planes and hijack them?, you are following a wild goose chase instead.

[weston white]

Rather a lot when one of them happened to be called Frank De Martini, happened to be the construction manager for the WTC, and happened to have reached the impact area in their attempts to rescue people, and happen to have noticed that the trusses were sagging.

Wow look at that another coincidence.


WRONG.

The collapse of 1 - 3 floors, would cause the load above to fall, and because it was falling, it would hit something, and it did.
The structure below, was not strong enough to withstand the impact from the floors above hitting it, therefore the collapse could NOT be arrested, and so the floors below ALSO collapsed, and therefore my friend you are mistaken.

And instead of asking, how 19 men (who were already on FBI wanted lists), were able to take knives onto planes and hijack them?, you are following a wild goose chase instead.


Just because a portion of floor B fails and lands onto floor A, does not mean the above floors C, D, and E all have to fail as well. Remember floor B failed to do the weakening of its own framing, it does not have the force to pull the rest of the building down along with it (unless it was the greater load bearing per floor bearing weight that fails, then of course it would cause a global floor collapse).

However the weight is still the same, whether it fails or remains capable of supporting its own weight as well as the weight above, it has not changed and is still within the scope of what the frame was designed to support. The below structure would still sustain the above weight as it has not changed.

[cheeb]

And the added weight of a jumbo jet,
effectively parked on a damaged structure!!!
Maximum 385 tonnes on take off!!!

:rolleyes:

[weston white]

And the added weight of a jumbo jet,
effectively parked on a damaged structure!!!
Maximum 385 tonnes on take off!!!

:rolleyes:

No it is about 180 metric tons and that is what hit WTC1 and WTC2 no planes impacted into WTC7 or WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, or WTC6 for that matter. WTC1 and WTC2 were built to handle an aircraft (707) that was about 27 tons lighter then the 767. 27 tons is not much of an added load for a massive structure that was grossly overbuilt to begin with.

[cheeb]

Sorry about the unecessary physics,
But quoting Newtons second law of thermo-dynamics:

Using modern symbolic notation, Newton's second law can be written as a vector differential equation:

\vec F_{net} = {\mathrm{d}(m \vec v) \over \mathrm{d}t}

where:

\vec F\! is the force vector
m\! is mass
\vec v\! is the velocity vector
t\! is time.

The product of the mass and velocity is the momentum of the object (which Newton himself called "quantity of motion"). The use of algebraic expressions became popular during the 18th Century, after Newton's death, while vector notation dates to the late 19th Century. The Principia expresses mathematical theorems in words and consistently uses geometrical rather than algebraic proofs.

If the mass of the object in question is constant, as it always is in classical physics, this differential equation can be rewritten as:

\vec F = m \vec a

where:

\vec a\! = \frac{\mathrm{d} \vec v}{\mathrm{d}t} is the acceleration.

A verbal equivalent of this is "the acceleration of an object is proportional to the force applied, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object". If momentum varies nonlinearly with velocity (as it does for high velocities—see special relativity), then this last version is not accurate.

Taking Special Relativity into consideration, the equation becomes

\vec F = \gamma m_0 \vec a + \gamma^3 m_0 \frac{\vec v \cdot \vec a}{c^2} \vec v

where:

\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}
m0 is the rest mass or invariant mass.
c is the speed of light.

Note that force depends on speed of the moving body, acceleration, and its rest mass. However, when the speed of the moving body is much lower than the speed of light, the equation above reduces to the familiar \vec F = m \vec a.

Basically the faster an object is moving,
The heavier it becomes!!!

:rolleyes:

Or to put it into Schoolyard physics
F=M x A
Force = Mass x Acceleration

[shredmasteruk]

Cheeb hat off to you.

Weston seems to think that because the intact structure below the impact area, had been strong enough to support the STATIC load of the floors above, it would be able to withstand the impact of a DYNAMIC load of the floors above FALLING on it.

With a dynamic load, there is an extra variable which alters the effect of its weight: Velocity.

As you put it F = M X A.

WTC's 1 & 2 were designed to withstand the accidental crash of a landing 707 during foggy weather.
Planes landing fly at less than 180mph, thus the velocity is much less.

The planes which hit, were flying much faster, 490mph & 590mph
The kinetic energy transfer, was far far greater than that of the accidental 707 crash scenario, and the effect of fuel spray, starting widespread fires throughout the building, had not even been considered by Robertson or Skilling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/leslie_robertson/

PAUL NEAL:"Almost immediately after the impact somewhat bizarrely I smelt a, an overwhelming stench of aviation fuel, jet A1 gas which I recognised 'cos I'm a private pilot and I'm used to sort of airfield environments and I, and I recall, recall smelling it and almost instantly dismissed it as being illogical and didn't have any place in the World Trade Center."

That fuel did to the contents of the twin towers, what lighter fluid does to a barbeque.

Only a fraction of the fuel was burned away in the initial fireballs. a larger fraction of the fuel, & the burning contents of the planes aswell, remained INSIDE the buildings, and set fire to the contents of large working office buildings, which had a phenomenal amount of combustibles inside. Paper, Plastics, Wood, Carpets, & fabrics.

That aviation fuel may well have burned for 15 minutes. And hydrocarbon fuels burn hot. This would have been sufficient to ignite the plastics inside the buildings.

[helloperator]

Still doesn't account for the total collapse all the way to the ground

[sidlittle]

Jesus H Christ, are people still arguing gravitational collapse?

Why on earth waste your time and energy? :confused:

[shredmasteruk]

Because the collapse was gravity driven.

There is no evidence to support any of the alternative theories put forwards by the so called scholars of the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement.

And helloperator, the dynamic load crashing down onto a structure which wasn't designed to recieve such an impact, shearing bolts, and causing progressive collapse DOES account for the total collapse of WTC's 1 & 2.

And instead of asking sensible questions such as why wasn't more done to prevent hijackings ? The wild goose chase of 'controlled demolitions' has all the loose change fans distracted.

An entire conspiracy theory industry has built up around the 11th sept 2001 attacks, it sells stories of thermite, c4, mini nukes, space beams, but doesn't delve into the actual mechanics of what occurred, it attacks those who do, and distracts people from a more sensible argument.

Why were US airlines so lax with their security that hijackings were childs play?

[helloperator]

Why was random and chaotic damage to the structure of wtc7 followed by a uniform collapse?

Why should we believe that a hijacker's passport was found in the street?

Why did the 1 & 2 buildings collapse all the way to the ground when huge amounts of direct vertical falling mass required to squarely pile drive the floors below appeared to flower out and away from the central region?

What were the squibs seen 30 stories below the rupturing line?

Why no release of footage of the plane that hit the Pentagon?

What blew up the lobby?

Where was all the wreckage in Shanksville?

How did Bush see the first plane crash on live camera?

What happened to the air defence system in the US? Surely it can't be put down to confusion because of training excercises. Surely they have some alert which puts to bed the key stone cop 'is this real world or drill?' confusion.

How was the suspect/ perp list determined so quickly?



I don't believe you have the answers shred...neither do I...I have questions. You go and put your faith in scientists to support your view, or in expert theory...that's all very well and good...I can go and find people with the same qualifications to theorise totally differently...scientists, experts. At the end of the day all you're really saying is that 'my scientists are better than your scientists' or 'my experts are better than your experts'...and so it's a bit of a farce.

You're trying to promote one answer...but there's a million questions. You're determined to stand behind your experts and scientific theories...when such things are a dime a dozen on the internet....for and against the 911 issue any way you want to look at it. Sounds like your pet theory, like you're the voice of reason and maturity and the rest of us asking question are just kids with no clue. You don't have all the answers.

[shredmasteruk]

Why was random and chaotic damage to the structure of wtc7 followed by a uniform collapse?

WTC 7 was damaged in a different way, and did not recieve its damage from planes crashing into its upper floors.
WTC 1 tore a gouge into the south face of it, and caused damage lower down.

The thing caught fire.

Why should we believe that a hijacker's passport was found in the street? Because it was?...


Why did the 1 & 2 buildings collapse all the way to the ground when huge amounts of direct vertical falling mass required to squarely pile drive the floors below appeared to flower out and away from the central region?
The WTC was constructed with an inner core, and outer columns, with trusses knitting the two together. It was not a GRID construction like the empire state. When the floors fell, the stuff inside, applied downward pressure, like a V , below this were outer columns. When these were hit, many broke off, and were catapaulted outwards by the force which hit them, and the resistance from below[/quote]

What were the squibs seen 30 stories below the rupturing line?
Pneumatic pressure generated by the collapsing floors above.
The towers were 90% air. That air had to go somewhere, the force above pushed it down. And it broke windows below.

Why no release of footage of the plane that hit the Pentagon?
Footage has been released of it. It may not satisfy the conspiracy people, but there is plenty of evidence for it. Plenty of eyewitnesses including Mike Walter saw it.

[quote]What blew up the lobby? What lobby?

Where was all the wreckage in Shanksville? Somerset County Shanksville.
A plane crashing into the ground at full speed, isn't going to just slide along the ground its going to dig in...

How did Bush see the first plane crash on live camera?
A tv in his limo ? This is the 21st century.

What happened to the air defence system in the US? Surely it can't be put down to confusion because of training excercises. Surely they have some alert which puts to bed the key stone cop 'is this real world or drill?' confusion.
the US air defence system was like chain home, it looked outwards.
Domestic radar was covered by civillians.

How was the suspect/ perp list determined so quickly?
Passenger lists.


I don't believe you have the answers shred...neither do I...I have questions. You go and put your faith in scientists to support your view, or in expert theory...that's all very well and good...I can go and find people with the same qualifications to theorise totally differently...scientists, experts. At the end of the day all you're really saying is that 'my scientists are better than your scientists' or 'my experts are better than your experts'...and so it's a bit of a farce.

I don't know every fact about the 11th sept attacks, but I do know that it was not the inside job, that Dylan Avery and others like him, would sell you.

You're trying to promote one answer...but there's a million questions. You're determined to stand behind your experts and scientific theories...when such things are a dime a dozen on the internet....for and against the 911 issue any way you want to look at it. Sounds like your pet theory, like you're the voice of reason and maturity and the rest of us asking question are just kids with no clue. You don't have all the answers.

All I'm doing is trying to concentrate on the false allegations of controlled demolitions.

I did civil engineering at college.
I know a thing or two about bending moments.
And this:
http://www.infowhores.co.uk/images/collapse/collapsing.jpg

This is a bending moment.

In controlled explosive demolitions, the 'squibs' shoot out, BEFORE the collapse, and there is a series of extremely loud bangs that goes with them. Then the stuff falls.

With the twin towers that didn't happen, the progression of the collapse was gravity driven, and the structure hadn't the strength to arrest the collapse.

With WTC 7, it had been structurally damaged and had been on fire for several hours.
Firefighters who had given news interviews had spoken of their frustration that the water mains had been knocked out, and that it wasn't safe for them to go in there and put it out. "already the structural integrity is not there" (firefighter Miller).

[weston white]

You are failing to over look the fact that buildings are overbuilt to support 1-1/2 to 2 times their load bearing weight. Otherwise events such as wind shear, earthquakes, metal corrosion, internal fires, prolonged weight, sonic/subsonic vibrations, etc., would cause buildings to utterly fail in such an event, if the event was severe enough.

You are not correct about the 707, the 707 at its standard cruising speed of 612+ knots would cause more inertia at impact then a 767 at full speed 493 knots. As well the 707 would likely cause greater damage over a smaller area then a 767, being that the 707 had 4 engines while the 767 only has 2 albeit slightly larger engines.

707 length: 144ft 6 inches
767 length: 155ft

707 – 3,875lb – 4 engines, 2 metric tons each (8 metric tons combined)
767 48,000lb – 2 engines, 4 metric tons each (8 metric tons combined)


Based on these theories you are attempting to push the jet engines on aircraft should weaken in their encasing and fall from the plane… or just simply melt the wings off from the plane (see below for reasoning, see science is really fun, you should look into it sometime):

Combustor - In the combustor the air is mixed with fuel and then ignited. There are as many as 20 nozzles to spray fuel into the airstream. The mixture of air and fuel catches fire. This provides a high temperature, high-energy airflow. The fuel burns with the oxygen in the compressed air, producing hot expanding gases. The inside of the combustor is often made of ceramic materials to provide a heat-resistant chamber. The heat can reach 2700°.

[masonfree party]

Bush confesses 911 was an inside job !

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please forward this to anyone who may watch it...Bush must know the games up..
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7892004186194307613


This is the first hour including the part which was transferred to the 2nd hour.

If you haven't digested this material yet, I would strongly suggest you take a look - the implications of it are likely to grow in significance this year.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you interested in what's really going on in the world, behind the facade? Then...
http://www.checktheevidence.com/

What happened on 9/11?
http://www.drjudywood.com/

[weston white]

Because the collapse was gravity driven.

There is no evidence to support any of the alternative theories put forwards by the so called scholars of the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement.

And helloperator, the dynamic load crashing down onto a structure which wasn't designed to recieve such an impact, shearing bolts, and causing progressive collapse DOES account for the total collapse of WTC's 1 & 2.

And instead of asking sensible questions such as why wasn't more done to prevent hijackings ? The wild goose chase of 'controlled demolitions' has all the loose change fans distracted.

An entire conspiracy theory industry has built up around the 11th sept 2001 attacks, it sells stories of thermite, c4, mini nukes, space beams, but doesn't delve into the actual mechanics of what occurred, it attacks those who do, and distracts people from a more sensible argument.

Why were US airlines so lax with their security that hijackings were childs play?


Again, you mean besides the video evidence? What more do you need, honestly? OK, fine all throw a little science into the mix, what the hell...

These buildings were spread out horizontally in all directions by about 600 feet in a fine dust (pyroclastic flow), the only other three things this action could be related to is a #1 a volcanic eruption, #2 a hydrogen detonation, and #3 a controlled demolition using high explosives. WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 all fell in violation of several laws, these being:

The Law of Increasing Entropy
The building fell down remaining vertically straight at freefall speeds; this is an impossibility for any steel structured building to do without the help of high explosives or the instantaneous removal of the supporting interior and exterior structures (a aircraft crashing into a portion of a building that is many times larger then the aircraft in all directions does not qualify).

The Conservation of Energy Law
PE-Potential Energy Stored KE-Kinetic Energy of Motion (PE=KE)
Tons upon tons of steel was found embedded within surrounding structures, this means that tons upon tons of debris was launched over 600 feet around the perimeter base of the towers, 360 degrees. Hundreds of tons of steel from the WTC was found atop the roof of the Winter Garden, a building which can be found approximately 600 feet away from the WTC's. The structure below the damaged area of impacted would have remained stabled, the only portion of these building that would have been in peril would have been from and above the hit point, not below it, these buildings were built to sustain a jet aircraft impact from a Boeing 707 a slightly smaller aircraft that operates at a much faster cruising speed, capable of passing much more inertia during impact.

Newton’s Three Laws of Motion:

#1 Law of Inertia
Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.

#2 Law of Acceleration (The Law of Conservation of Momentum)
The rate of change of momentum of a body is proportional to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction.

#3 Law of Reciprocal Actions
All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
High Power Explosives = Ejected Steel to be launched over 600 feet along with pluming concrete dust, building material, office equipment, human lives, etc. Simply put for every action there is an equal and opposite Reaction.

The Law of Projectile Motion
Tons of steel was launched from the Twin Towers for distances of up to 600 feet away, the rooftops of the Twin Towers where blow at upward and outward angles. These feats would not be possible for a mere structural failure to achieve.

Natural Convection/Thermal Conductivity/Thermal Radiation
Simply put heat transfers throughout a given area and rises. The top of each of the two towers would have failed prior to the base of the tower failing. Therefore the damaged sections just above reinforced sections (located approximately every quarter distance length of each tower) of the Twin Towers would have failed and broken off from the towers and the Twin Towers themselves would have remained standing while the top portions of the towers either fell down onto the ground below or hung dangling against the exterior of the massive structures.

http://defendindependence.org/OIF/9-11ARP.PDF

[weston white]

WTC 7 was damaged in a different way, and did not recieve its damage from planes crashing into its upper floors.
WTC 1 tore a gouge into the south face of it, and caused damage lower down.

The thing caught fire.

lol, well that answer sells it for me, well not really.


Because it was?...

lol


The WTC was constructed with an inner core, and outer columns, with trusses knitting the two together. It was not a GRID construction like the empire state. When the floors fell, the stuff inside, applied downward pressure, like a V , below this were outer columns. When these were hit, many broke off, and were catapaulted outwards by the force which hit them, and the resistance from below

This theory is ludicrous when you stop and seriously analyze it. We are not talking about rubber bouncing balls where, were are talking about massive steel columns weighting several thousand pounds each. This theory is saying that the downward collapsing weight sheered the entire building straight into the ground while at the same time caused that weight to bounce or spring up, out, and away from the building. That is just silly. Sure sometimes you can have your cake and eat it too, but not in this case my friend.


Pneumatic pressure generated by the collapsing floors above.
The towers were 90% air. That air had to go somewhere, the force above pushed it down. And it broke windows below.

That air could have went out the entire top radius of the building, being that the supposed pile driver was being launched up ~600 feet in all directions the entire 1000 foot trip to the ground. As well for the air pressure to build up so much that it would launch such air pressure to appear as an explosive had been set off it would have caused windows to blow out all along the entire floor, not just one window here and one window there. BTW, those do not appear to be windows blowing out, the explosions going off appear to come from a very pinpointed source, i.e. a squib.


Footage has been released of it. It may not satisfy the conspiracy people, but there is plenty of evidence for it. Plenty of eyewitnesses including Mike Walter saw it.

You call those few frames footage? lol. OK so what about the remaining 80+ videos, surely if they released one they could release them all, why the secrecy? Their argument is they can’t release footage because of pending courts cases, what court cases? The families of the victims are not involved in any court actions, the government has no charges listed for any known suspects, it has been over 6 years since the event. Release the damn videos Mr. JFK assassins!

Eyewitnesses, so you choose to believe the eyewitnesses whom were at the Pentagon (eyewitnesses that did not actually see the plane crash or cant agree on if it was a big plane, small plane, even calling it a missile at one point; the witnesses only saw a low flying plane and then saw an explosion) but not those at the WTC (you know those ones who have live video footage)?


What lobby?

lol, you are seriously debating 9/11, claiming it “was not an inside job” and do not even know what the lobby refers to?


Somerset County Shanksville.
A plane crashing into the ground at full speed, isn't going to just slide along the ground its going to dig in...

OK, whatever, I say it depends more on the terrain, size, speed, and angle of impact, but it does not really matter either way. But again where is the plane at, was it not found scattered over a path of 7 miles in length? Sort of strange, right? But that must be apart of that bouncing theory you were arguing before, right? The plane must have dug into the ground and then bounced its contents backwards over a distance of 7 miles… yea I could see how that could happen.


A tv in his limo ? This is the 21st century.

Oh, you forget that video of the first impact was released several weeks later by a private party. So again how was he able to view that first impact? We know he has access to television sets, that was not the question.


thee US air defence system was like chain home, it looked outwards.
Domestic radar was covered by civillians.

What now?

Anyways, in this argument there are only two real issues to consider: A. The complete and total failure and breakdown of NORAD (why shoot down orders were changed a few months prior to 9/11 and why the senior NORAD commanding officer was promoted after 9/11) and B. Why the fly-by-wire systems were not used to take control of the planes rather then allowing them to be crashed; especially, since we know that the terrorists were transmitting gibberish and praising Allah on the aircrafts communications and that we know that the flights were off their intended courses. The argument about why missiles were not fired at the planes for entering the most secured no fly zone in all of the world is important, but I think these two points deserve much more attention.

It is also worth noting that the airliners do not have either of the flights that crashed into WTC1 or WTC2 as being on the flight roster for that date. Opps.


Passenger lists.

Yea, figure that, they had the entire case solved within the first 6 hours; that is pretty damn amazing, isn’t it? Way to go FBI guys! Every piece of evidence just literally fell right into their hands from out of the sky.


I don't know every fact about the 11th sept attacks, but I do know that it was not the inside job, that Dylan Avery and others like him, would sell you.

This explains a lot.


This is a bending moment.

Yes and it has the entire rest of the building to compensate the damage, that corner has sagged down slightly in the process, sure, but that is a far fetch from this being the cause of the building exploding all 600 feet in all directions (even when taking into consideration the fire theory, unless of course massive amounts of explosives were stored within both WTC1 and WTC2).


In controlled explosive demolitions, the 'squibs' shoot out, BEFORE the collapse, and there is a series of extremely loud bangs that goes with them. Then the stuff falls.

No, it would more so depend on the building size and design, but generally the squibs go off as the building follows in collapse several floors above the squib explosions.


With the twin towers that didn't happen, the progression of the collapse was gravity driven, and the structure hadn't the strength to arrest the collapse.

So 47 massive 1000 foot long steel columns positioned centered at the buildings core and hundreds of steel columns exterior of the building was not enough to resist falling floors from above? OK, if the floors failed then what happened to the 47 1000 foot long steel columns? They should still be standing up tall right? What about the hundreds of other exterior columns, should the have not remained standing and possibly even tiled inwards to lean up against the steel core beams and/or exterior beams positioned along the opposite sides of the building.

With WTC 7, it had been structurally damaged and had been on fire for several hours.

So you are actually saying their damage was different and yet they both collapsed in an identical manner… you might want to rethink that.


Firefighters who had given news interviews had spoken of their frustration that the water mains had been knocked out, and that it wasn't safe for them to go in there and put it out. "already the structural integrity is not there" (firefighter Miller).

I don’t know of a firefighter Miller, never heard of the guy before, I have to wonder though why if he is making statements such as this why CNN and Fox does not have him on to debunk the 9/11 truth movement on a regular basis. I have to wonder why the Bush Administration is not raising him as a national hero as they attempted to do with William Rodriguez, until William started telling people that he knows 9/11 was in inside job, then they dropped him like a hot potato.

[cheeb]

It would be interesting,
If you looked beyond the smoke and fireworks,
Of 911,
And actually found a link to covert operations within the US cabal:

There is a link between the Murrah bombing and the events of 9-11. The 1993 WTC bombing materials had been purchased with the credit card of a US Muslim and an FBI provocateur named Melvin Lattimore. Melvin Lattimore was seen by 4 witnesses in McVeigh’s car at the OKC Travelers Aid office adjacent to the Murrah federal building just ONE DAY before the OKC bombing. Six FBI agents spent 9 months browbeating the 4 witnesses, trying to make them change their story about seeing Lattimore at the Travelers Aid. Lattimore was the roommate of the 20th 9/11 hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui while he attended the Airman flight school in Norman Oklahoma in 2000 and 2001. Lattimore was also the roomate of 9/11 hijackers Al Hazmi and Al Shehhi in Norman Oklahoma. Retired Air Force General Benton K. Partin informed AG Ashcroft in August 2001 of the Travelers Aid story in writing and in person. Yet, not surprisingly, nothing was done by Ashcroft about Lattimore.

Frankly the focus of 911,
Is in the wrong place,
Covert operations,
MK ultra,
CIA,
Should be the focus of research,
Rather than the dynamics of a collapsing building!!!

IMO
:eek:

[sensimillia]

Frankly the focus of 911,
Is in the wrong place,
Covert operations,
MK ultra,
CIA,
Should be the focus of research,
Rather than the dynamics of a collapsing building!!!



true that.

[john white]

Frankly the focus of 911,
Is in the wrong place,
Covert operations,
MK ultra,
CIA,
Should be the focus of research,
Rather than the dynamics of a collapsing building!!!true that.

And theres plenty of research in those areas

It's just that discussion on this forum doesnt tend to go there

And debunkers would much rather focus on proving what cant be currently conclusively proved cant be conclusive proven, rather than what can be conclusively proven and beggars belief with regard to the offical story having any credibility

Thats up to the members to do something about, of course

[cruise4]

A controlled demolition is totally obvious just by looking at the videos. Anyone saying otherwise is clearly delusional of disinfo. Whilst I could post endless stuff about diesel properties, or molten steel versus aluminium, or properties of, and witness accounts of small fire etc. why waste our time. The one thing shred has said is, this is but one aspect of a situation with 100's of clues to what really happened. I mean just the post about the Pentagon 5 frame vid release shows what a complete sham this guy's search for truth represents.

Disinfo Agent or Idiot. And he's clearly no idiot, (or she).

[shredmasteruk]

A controlled demolition is totally obvious just by looking at the videos. Anyone saying otherwise is clearly delusional of disinfo. Whilst I could post endless stuff about diesel properties, or molten steel versus aluminium, or properties of, and witness accounts of small fire etc. why waste our time. The one thing shred has said is, this is but one aspect of a situation with 100's of clues to what really happened. I mean just the post about the Pentagon 5 frame vid release shows what a complete sham this guy's search for truth represents.

Disinfo Agent or Idiot. And he's clearly no idiot, (or she).

No mate, quite the opposite, its obvious to anyone with knowledge of bending moments that what occured was NOT a controlled demolition, its obvious by the lack of BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG -> Collapse initiation, that it was NOT a controlled demolition.
And those who say it was, are distracting the issues from the really important things which have occured since.

Btw there was no molten steel in any of the debris piles (as the fires never reached a sufficient temperature to melt steel (though they were sufficiently hot enough to weaken the steel).
Take a look at this page from the steel industry giant Corus:
http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/design_and_innovation/structural_design/fire/steelwork_fire_resistance/

Before 9/11 there were procedures which allowed people to carry knives onto aeroplanes, there was nothing to stop passengers storming the cockpits of aeroplanes, and this is at a time when US embassies had already been suicide bombed, there had been a suicide attack on the USS Cole, off the coast of Aden, and there had already been one failed bomb attack against the world trade centre, it was a time when Rick Rescorla, (murdered security chief for Morgan Stanley) had conducted a threat analysis to the world trade centre and had predicted a kamikaze plane attack against the twin towers, and had tried to alert those with the means of stopping it to the risk.
Simulations with MS Flight sim, showed that once an airborne jet was hijacked, there was little or nothing that could be done to stop it from being used as a kamikaze weapon.

Right, other important issues:
Camp X ray and the breaches of the geneva conventions there.
Extroadinary rendition.
unnecessary new anti terrorism legislation being introduced when all that needed doing was for airport security to be beefed up.
Iraq.
Torture by USA and its Allies.
Friendly fire by US soldiers, covered up and defended by the US authorities.
The murder of civillians by US soldiers covered up and defended by US authorities.
Blackwater a private mercenary force, defended by US authorities.
Son of Star Wars a 'missile shield' which only the Americans want, which is antagonising other countries, and threatens to create a new arms race.

Breathtaking arrogance of the Bush admin in trying to be the worlds policeman, when he cannot even clean up his own capital.
Breathtaking incompetence of the Bush admin.

Global climate change, and the lack of introduction of technologies which would reduce mans impact on the environment.

There's loads more other things.

But unsubstantiated controlled demo THEORIES, distract from issues of far greater importance.

[sensimillia]

in all fairness, some good points has been brought up by the "officials". but as pointed out, their knowlegde of other aspects of the 911 fraud is lacking, thats probably why they focus so much on the building collapses. to really understand 911, you have to look what happened before, during and after the event. an example: gary heart (CFR), just one day after that horrible event, wanted the president to use this disaster, for establishing a new world order. that sick fuck couldn´t wait longer than one day...:mad:

[weston white]

Actually I heard a report awhile back that pilots have always had a gun in a lockbox kept inside their cabin, that we must arm the pilots was a just a BS political stunt.