Quote from Racer X NZ :

There were large quantities of molten steel for over SIX WEEKS after the collapse of the buildings, what actually caused this if it wasn't the jet fuel ?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html

This has NEVER happened in the case of a fire in a similar building anywhere in the world.

What caused the seismic shocks just prior to each buildings collapse ?

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

If there was molten stuff that long afterwards then who knows. No bomb, detonator, fuel or what-have-you would manage to keep contrete and steel glowing for that long without a source of energy.

So where did this energy come from? Was the debris plugged into the mains, or have they found a way to slow cooling, contravening Newtons laws of cooling?

I think the people that think of these theories are very very clever. they work so hard to turn normal images into 'scientific' fact, often with quite believable reasoning. But they remain, in my opinion, idiots.

Off Topic: The amount of nonsense that gets quoted or linked to in these debates (these being this one, the religious ones, and that sort of thing) demonstrates that some people must spend all their time looking for a form of truth that appeals to them and not enough time leading their own lives! I don't have time to read 99% of the articles quoted, let alone read hundreds of them to work out which ones are credible (although I reckon most don't read others, they read one and quote it to others as the truth, claiming it as research). Why give a shit about if some officials somewhere conspired to make a random building fall over to kill some foreigners (when they could have just shouted "God says kill those wearing towels") if you have to waste your life reading about it? Move on. Make a cake. Run a marathon. Race a car. Read a classical novel. Teach yourself carpentry. Watch brainless TV quiz shows if you must.

Oh, by the way, fracture and failure of ferrite components (indeed, most metals) tends to take on uniform, almost fake looking angles. I see nothing suspect about the clean breaks in the metal structure, nor the appearence of something molten on the edge of that break - it could be plastic for a chair that happened to be near by at the time... Why does a clean break (perhaps even a designed in breakage point to control parallel collapse in the event of earthquakes, terrorism etc rather than toppling) have to mean alien technology (which is that that rate of cooling must be).

Quote from Technique :

It may just be an "internet video" but to be perfectly honest I trust this guy more than US media.

+1. goverments ( and police units :rage: ) keep so much from the public.

Quote from tristancliffe :

If there was molten stuff that long afterwards then who knows. No bomb, detonator, fuel or what-have-you would manage to keep contrete and steel glowing for that long without a source of energy.

So where did this energy come from? Was the debris plugged into the mains, or have they found a way to slow cooling, contravening Newtons laws of cooling?

What your saying is my point !!

Rather than abusing me why not look at the facts and the science, I'm not giving answers, just asking questions that people can't answer if you accept the party line.

You of all people should be able to accept scientific proof, everything I've pointed out is scientific fact - not looney theory.

The whole point is that there are a number of things which don't make any sense if you accept the official theory. That to me means that the official theory is wrong. That is basic science, a theory is only a theory until it's disproved. Then you need to look for a new theory which fit's the facts.

If you choose to go through life accepting everything that you are told by the 'media' or anyone else is only ever the 'truth' then that's your choice, if you ever have any experience of government 'spin' or advertising then you become aware of the fact that the 'truth' tends to be very subjective. Unfortunately I've learned that personal agenda's do tend to be far more of a fact than blindly believing that everything your told.

People rarely ever tell the honest truth !

There is often a large degree of self interest in whatever people say.

Just look at the lies that were told with the invasion of Iraq to get some idea of this.

IMO we are not going to know the truth, never. And if someone discover it and tell us, we are not going to be able to differentiate between what is true and what is false.
Media sucks, and we are living in a f****ng world where knowing the truth of some story is almost impossible. That´s life

This is confusing. As I can't be bothered to read anything about it anymore I never know if you're referring to daft conspiracy theories or whether you are quoting from the Official report...

If this was in the Official report then it does look a bit weird. But if it was weird why would they even allude to it? If they can, apparently, cover up the reasons behind buildings falling over in a city then why do they struggle to come up with reports that don't leave gaping holes in them.

Unless it's very clever control tactics

Quote from Racer X NZ :

The whole point is that there are a number of things which don't make any sense if you accept the official theory. That to me means that the official theory is wrong.

Just because something cannot be explained doesn't mean it's wrong. Human history dictates this. Science, religion... EVERYTHING we know as fact today, was once unexplainable, and people did what people are doing now - they came up with alternate explanations (e.g. witches, gods... government conspiracies) to satisfy their needs to have things make sense. It's human nature.

Here's some more stuff for you to "alternately explain:"

13 Things That Do Not Make Sense

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

Just because something cannot be explained doesn't mean it's wrong. Human history dictates this. Science, religion... EVERYTHING we know as fact today, was once unexplainable, and people did what people are doing now - they came up with alternate explanations (e.g. witches, gods) to satisfy their needs to have things make sense. It's human nature.

http://space.newscientist.com/ ... at-do-not-make-sense.html

Very good point!

What really got me going on this because Cos I don't like GB anyway so I might just be looking for bad things anyway BUT.

If you simply start with the Pentagon, I have seen visual evidence on Loose Change which shows the immiediate damage to the building before it collapsed altogether at the point of impact.

It shows a hole in the building where the cabin of the plane "might" have impacted, but there was no damage to the building where the 7 ton engines would have impacted and no sign of any wreckage from the plane itself, along with no sign of the Pencilvania plane at the crash site.
Apparently there was at least five cameras overlooking the Pentagon site, all of which were confiscated after the crash.
All we have seen in footage terms from these cameras, is five frames which really show nothing at all.

Then we have two buildings brought down by plane impact, the only two buildings that have ever been brought down by plane impact, plus a third building that thought it would fall down for no reason at all really.
And miracles of miracles they claim to have found the pilots intact passport in the wreckage of the collapsed towers, when everything else was ground into powder.

I have read lots of other stuff that I find curious to say the least, and I'm not saying any or all is true, but three into two don't go, and if nothing else I would like to know exactly what it was that hit the Pentagon, cos it sure was not the twin engined plane they said it was.
and if they're lying about that then why? and then you got to ask what else are they lying about?

Somebody made a lot of money that day, and it looks like they got away with it.

Just like Kennedy's true killers

I don't have any theories as to what actually happened so I won't buy into this argument.

What I do have is dissatisfaction at the official theory. Considering skyscrapers of the time were over-engineered to withstand exactly such impacts, both WTC 1&2 came down almost at freefall speed and fell very, very neatly into their own footprints. People have theorised bombs (numerous reports from firefighters who said they heard series of explosions), thermite, missiles - all which point to an insanely complex inside job or an even more complex outside job. I'm also deeply concerned that all the debris and rubble (i.e., the evidence from a major crime scene) was trucked away and destroyed, as a detailed examination of every piece of that evidence would have shed invaluable light on the investigation.

There are still, for me, unanswered questions as to why Bush & the Whitehouse stalled a 9/11 investigation for so long, and why Bush did not testify either under oath or by himself (Cheney was sitting next to him & coaching him the entire time). Considering this administration's blatant, consistent dishonesty & deep secrecy concerning just about everything since the attack - especially the wars, justified by 9/11 and other things which have all proven to be false, which continue to rage & worsen and have claimed over 1000 more American lives than 9/11, not to mention between half a million and one million Iraqi/Afghan lives - I don't think I'm too far out on a limb to have my doubts.

There's also Bush's baffling behaviour at the school right after he was told: why continue to read stories to children after being informed the nation's under attack? Do you think FDR sat down and smoked a bowl after being informed of Pearl Harbour? Did the Revolutionaries finish their poetry reading after Paul Revere told them "the Redcoats are coming"? You'd think, even with a disconnected daddy's-boy dropout like Bush, that a report of a civilian airliner striking a major landmark would have him jumping out of his seat like his pants were in flames and actually doing his job - or at least have the Secret Service drag him into an armoured limo and rushed to a bunker somewhere. For some reason, the exact opposite.

WTC 7 is a major source of suspicion for me too: why was it levelled so soon? It had only minor damage - certainly not enough to bring it down on its own. If it was pulled, who ordered its demolition? How did a demo crew get in, place their charges and get out so quickly at such short notice?

Like Polyracer said, three into two don't go.

So, no theories here, just a stack of questions. I ask these questions in a rhetorical sense as I don't expect they can ever be answered to my satisfaction, least of all here.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Very good point!

Agree, I loved it

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

Just because something cannot be explained doesn't mean it's wrong. Human history dictates this. Science, religion... EVERYTHING we know as fact today, was once unexplainable, and people did what people are doing now - they came up with alternate explanations (e.g. witches, gods... government conspiracies) to satisfy their needs to have things make sense. It's human nature.

Here's some more stuff for you to "alternately explain:"

13 Things That Do Not Make Sense

I suggest you look up the theory of the Electric Universe, that answers many of these points, but yes, there's a lot in the universe that isn't understood, that's the fun of living now !!

Quote from Hankstar :

Considering skyscrapers of the time were over-engineered to withstand exactly such impacts, both WTC 1&2 came down almost at freefall speed and fell very, very neatly into their own footprints.

Ahh, people use this as an argument, but they miss one critical point. They DID withstand the impacts, which is what they were designed to do. BOTH of them withstood the impacts. What they were NOT designed to do was to withstand the heat, which is something that is very, VERY difficult to design for.

As for freefall speed, I don't see why that is so surprising. When you have 20 stories worth of building falling down, there is not much that has the necessary inertia to actually slow that down very much. Sure, you could argue that it's 1/5th of the building hitting 4/5ths, but it didn't hit 4/5ths all at once, it hit each floor individually. If you have someone hold up 100 sheets of paper, and you try and shoot a marble through them, it won't penetrate the first sheet. Space those sheets out an inch apart, and it's likely that you'll get through at least half of those sheets. If you look at the footage, you can see that the outer skeleton started peeling away as the building fell. As this was where most of the support was, it stands to reason that there was not much else resisting the downward collapse. In fact, as the 'skin' peeled away, it's likely that the floors underneath started falling even before they were hit. This leaves only the central core to resist the collapse, and being relatively small, that got crushed.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

everything I've pointed out is scientific fact - not looney theory.

I don't want to get into another fight now but I think it is highly disrespectful to the families of the 5,000 people who died that day to keep bringing up their deaths with sensationalist, paranoid conspiracy theories.

Quote from flymike91 :

I don't want to get into another fight now but I think it is highly disrespectful to the families of the 5,000 people who died that day to keep bringing up their deaths with sensationalist, paranoid conspiracy theories.

...or legitimate questions as some of us like to call them.

I don't hold much with the conspiracy theories, frankly. My recollection on the day is still pretty vivid. I remember the news reports and video of number 7 being damaged and burning. I don't think the collapse was a demolition job, even if it did look like one. It just doesn't fit with my recollection of the day.

The temperature that jet fuel burns when ignited may indeed be below that needed to melt steel, but I also remember it not being a total still that day.. there's a very visible strong breeze on a relatively calm day, at that height, and the video of 9/11 shows that the air is moving pretty quickly. It doesn't look like it from afar, but zoom in and you'll see.

Anyone who's ever fired a pot, or wrought a bit of iron, or had to get a wood fire raging to warm a room quickly on a chilly morning, should be absolutely familiar with the concept of firing a furnace to amplify the temperature of a fire to melt metal (or turn glaze into glass). The conspiracy theorists never mention this effect, though, even though it's pivotal. It doesn't get a mention because it defeats the conspiracy. They're not being entirely honest, frankly, and they're guilty of misleading by omission of simple facts.

The way the towers collapsed.. I'm not much of a physicist, tbh, but I'm pretty sure that if you rest a hammer on an egg, nothing will happen. Drop the same hammer onto the same egg, from pretty well any height at all, and the result will be very different indeed.

I'm afraid the conspiracy theories on the day are far too "poke-able" for me, and the errors of omission are far too significant, leaving me wholly distrustful of the theorists. But I understand that it is a basic human desire, to pursue a belief in something that *seems* tangible, if you just squint your eyes and only look at it from a particular angle.

Speaking of disrespect, I think it's the very height of disrespect to send 4000 more Americans to their deaths in two deserts for absolutely no good reason - all the while lying to their faces and telling them it's payback for 9/11.

I really don't think you can do worse than to ask a man to lay down his life for his country under false pretenses. I always think of that on ANZAC Day (tomorrow), when we in Australia & New Zealand pay our respects to all our countrymen who put their lives on the line for us. To think that the guys who never came back, or came back broken, from places like Vietnam were lied to (by our government and America's) to get them there really, really gets my back up.

Quote from flymike91 :

I don't want to get into another fight now but I think it is highly disrespectful to the families of the 5,000 people who died that day to keep bringing up their deaths with sensationalist, paranoid conspiracy theories.

Would it not also be disrespectful if they all died for a lie? and some of us were prepare to sweep it under the carpet for a bit of piece and quite.

I have seen an image of one of those main supporting columns which clearly shows that it was highly likey to have been cut by explosives, I have seen comparitive images which show how the charge was set and what the column looked like after demolision.

Both images showed a pretty clean cut in the column at a 45 degree angle,
maybe coincidence..... well maybe but they sure got rid of any possible evidence pretty god dam quickly.

Is that how they do things in the states?

Quote from Polyracer :

I have seen an image of one of those main supporting columns which clearly shows that it was highly likey to have been cut by explosives, I have seen comparitive images which show how the charge was set and what the column looked like after demolision.

Both images showed a pretty clean cut in the column at a 45 degree angle,
maybe coincidence.....

I'm not going to pretend I know much about that particular topic, but isn't it just as likely that the beam was subjected to almost the same amount of force as a detonation charge during the collapse?

Even better, do you know where in the building that "questionable beam" came from? Because it may have very well been hit with an explosive blast when the PLANE HIT THE TOWER AND EXPLODED?

Then again, maybe not. There are very few certainties in this debate, unfortunately.

Anyway, I'm off to take a calculus test, which means that throughout the whole thing, all that's going to be running through my mind is this thread... lol.

al qaeda did it

/thread

Quote from flymike91 :

I don't want to get into another fight now but I think it is highly disrespectful to the families of the 5,000 people who died that day to keep bringing up their deaths with sensationalist, paranoid conspiracy theories.

I lost a friend at the Pentagon on 9/11, and if there's anything to the conspiracy theory, I want to know. I think it's good to get the conspiracy theories out and debunked wherever possible. The theories exist, and when they're not examined and/or exposed, and when they're suppressed they turn into urban myth and lore. They spread like a cancer, under the surface, running rampant and unchecked.

I think it's very important to get this stuff out and looked at, and wherever possible, exposed for being bullshit.

Well, it's one of these "If you want to believe then it's best to ignore all the debunking stuff out there" scenarios.

My own opinion is, yeah some things did seem a bit odd, i.e Bush's strange day http://s3.amazonaws.com/911tim ... ssayaninterestingday.html, and other questions have yet to be answered to any satisfactory level, like, when exactly did the American government sanction the invasion of Afghanistan http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/preplanned.html . But, theories like, the buildings being brought down by planned demolition and a missile being fired at the Pentagon are utterly ridiculous.

But, i tend to think that 9/11 was more of a second Pearl Harbour, rather than a second Reichstag.

On the subject of Bush, 9/11 wasn't the only example of him taking his time to get active. I remember Katrina.. all he wanted to do was play golf. It took him weeks to move, that time but, AFAIK, there are no theories as to which nationality the butterfly was, that flapped its wings to start that bitch off.

Quote from flymike91 :

I don't want to get into another fight now but I think it is highly disrespectful to the families of the 5,000 people who died that day to keep bringing up their deaths with sensationalist, paranoid conspiracy theories.

You're quite the political puppy-dog, aren't you? Maybe when you get a bit older you'll acquire a healthy skepticism.

Anyway, as far as I'm aware none of you are civil engineers with any experience in anything to do with skyscrapers. And I doubt that rhetorical observations about fireplaces, hammers and eggs, desks nailed together with yardsticks and their behaviour under certain circumstances are particularly relevant, given that very few yardsticks or eggs were actually used in the construction of the world trade centre towers.

how ignorant. Those were demonstrations of the laws of physics not actual building materials moron. You don't even know how those things apply to physics much less how a skyscraper works. Nice input.

More fuel on the fire.

No answers, just more questions:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/