911 Truth on C-SPAN tonight!

Dunno, I don't think #7 was brought down by the US govt at all but rather a group that was to gain financially. The kind of work necessary to 'plant' the explosives in #7 would have really been impossible by Al Qaeda. Those that think the US Gov. is behind it though are more than titled to their opinions.

Well since it takes at least a month of planing and prep work to plant all the explosivies. Someone would have to have given the key to the building to Al Qaeda.

Or maybe they used box cutters to open up the doors.

They could have fired a missle at it.

At least that makes more sense than it falling to fire damage :P

Maybe so, but for a 4 cornered building to fall straight down. That takes specially placed charges thru out the building. And to have those charges placed you need access to the building 3-4 week in advance.

Agreed it is up to me. And I know what I meant and said what I meant. The fact that you have convinced yourself that no modern skyscrapper can be bought down by fire simply means you cannot accept what I mean so you believe what you want it to mean. Your delusions are the issue. Not my statement.


Have been through this already. Refer previous posts.

Yes I did say that about the sun and given the distance of stars from Earth and the size of yellow dwarf stars I would be impressed that we have directly observed the life cycle of yellow dwarf stars. That aside and if you wish to try and play this game then okay here we go again.

'I have observed buildings and have evidence of other buildings destroyed by fire ergo all buildings can be destroyed by fire' is the same as saying 'I have not observed modern skyscrappers destroyed by fire and have no evidence of modern skyscrappers destroyed by fire ergo no modern skyscrappers can be destroyed by fire'.

Observational assumptions based on what has happened or equally based on what has not happened is not quite the evidence or confirmation that you seem to think it is. For you to understand this you need to abandon your prejudice and preconceptions and actually think it through logically.

Your standards of hygiene are on a par with your standard of logical analysis

So 'modern skyscrappers cannot be destroyed by fire' is not hardcore proof? So why the fuck do you keep quoting it like it was?

Again have already answered this. Try and respond with intelligence rather than using the word 'magic' or references to 'Gamera' of whom I have never heard and suspect that I do not wish to either.

So the reasons given are completely unsubstantiated and leads you to believe the collapsing was setup in advance. Why? There is no linkage between the two statements.

Again big of you

What like say the hi-jackers perhaps?

I agree its healthy. So far I have questioned your intial statements and virtually every answer you have given and find them all wanting. Your response is to ignore the points raised and indulge in tedious abuse.

Millions have died over the centuries in the cause of various religions. Excluding suicides (you know the Gov/Aliens/Giant Lizards are coming to get me but I'll thwart their evil plans aargh!) I would say roughly zero people have died in the name of conspiracy. In short religion is taken far more seriously.This should tell you something about the relevant merits of conspiricy theories compared to religious ones.

The variation in font size and the urge to capitilize - is that the equivalent of writing in green ink?

You call people faggots because you can okay I get that. Its dull but okay. Just curious though what do you mean by '(and others)'. People we have covered so who else do you call faggots? Aliens? Your invisible friend perhaps. It would explain a lot if you helped out with this one

stupid possibly.... but at least, still living in reality.

if you have to end every sentence with a personal attack, its to deflect attention from the weakness of the "points" you think you are making.

Ask yourself this, who benefited from 9/11? I can't think of anyone except the Bush admin. After 9/11 Bush's popularity soared, he was able to take almost complete control of the country and pass any law in the name of terror. He used the fear of terror as an excuse to invade Iraq, he used the fear of terror to pass the Patriot Act, he used the fear of terror as a reason to tap phone lines without warrants, and he has used terror to accomplish just about everything else he has done (inlcuding being re-elected). To this day he still does not make speeches without using the word terror.

He mentions terror constantly but has not mentioned bin Ladens name in 3 years, doesnt that seem odd to anyone? And for anyone to think its beyond them to take out 3000 of its own citizens yet its okay to take out 200,000 Iraqi's better think twice.

Putting all the things about 9/11 that don't add up aside I would still question it. I firmly believe this admin (especially Cheney and Rumsfeld) have learned quite a few things from the Nazi's and how they were able to take complete control of a country and have applied them to this govt. The Nazi's were very proficient at using propaganda through the media, this administration has attempted to do the same thing with paying off reporters, making its own news stories and sending them to the media, and there's FOX News. The Nazi's were able to sway the German people by also using fear and patriotism (sound familiar?). In 1933 the German Parliament was burned to the ground. The Nazi's blamed the Communists (terrorists) and immediately declared a state of emergency and suspended their constitution (one month after 9/11 came the Patriot Act). It was later discovered that the Nazi's were behind the fire.

The bottom line is there is no better way to control people than through fear. Bush and company fully realize it and have used it to constantly since 9/11. Imagine if Clinton would have done the same after the OKC bombing, the republicans would have went berserk.

Bin Laden actually admitted having nothing to do with 911. also, FBI recently admits they have no hard evidence linking bin laden to 911.

Infact, the FBI *refuses* to say Bin Laden was involved.

Yeah, ?my delusions?. I have not convinced myself of anything, the evidence has done that little tommy. No modern skyscraper has been brought down by fire. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. It?s hardly delusional when there hasn?t been ONE SINGLE SKYSCRAPER brought down by flames. Furthermore, structural engineers seem to be saying the same thing (that fire alone could *never* bring down a modern skyscraper) including those commissioned by FEMA. Ya got that little buddy? =)


Getting pretty pathetic there tommy boy. Buildings close to WTC didn?t suffer the same fate that #7 did? why? Again, because of magic? Luck? Jesus?s second coming? Maybe Mohammed asked them politely to not please fall even though they suffered essentially the same identical conditions that #7 did? Damn that Mohammed, he?s a pretty powerful playah? I guess.



You are a fucking moron. I call you out on your stupid fucking ?analogy? or whatever the hell you pretended you were trying to prove. We have ?observed? the life cycle of yellow dwarf stars directly based on what we understand about stellar events. It?s not like we have a telescope/camera system powerful enough to say zoom in to even the closest star, but based on the observational characteristics scientists have came up with a pretty decent working THEORY as to their life cycle. Sorry if I didn?t make it that clear for you tommy boy, I know you have that whole issue with reading and comprehending. Don't feel that bad about it tom tom, I have a problem with flatuence!

Don't feel that bad about your disorder though tom tom, I myself have a problem with flatulence!


Wow? what a load of faggot shit. It?s hardly the same thing; normal buildings are easily destroyed by fire ? most buildings are not made with such finesse as a STEEL SKYSCRAPER is. However, many buildings that suffer fire damage are not destroyed, including homes primarily made of wood, but that?s another matter. STEEL SKYSCRAPERS on the other hand CANNOT be destroyed by fire alone. It is technically impossible and has been stated as such by structural engineers. Even the structural engineers who were hired by FEMA consent to that point ? they themselves say it is IMPOSSIBLE for fire alone to have destroyed a skyscraper. They claim that #7 was destroyed due to structural instability from falling debris from the WTC in combination with intense fire. Since buildings much closer to the WTC were exposed to the SAME FALLING DEBRIS, the SAME INTENSE FIRE, and did NOT fall, we can take FEMA?s report dubious at best. So get this through your head my dear faggot: It is I M P O S S I B L E for a STEEL SKYSCRAPER to be destroyed by fire based on FACTUAL DATA.


Yes, my hygiene is identical to my logical analysis? lmao, nice try faggy one. Fire cannot destroy a steel skyscraper friend. I hope you realize this by now. If not, I feel so sorry for you tommy boy.


No, I have no hardcore proof in what I believe who/what group took down Building #7. There is plenty of proof to support that modern STEEL SKYSCRAPERS cannot be destroyed by fire.


You haven?t heard of Gamera you stupid faggot fuck? Jesus Christ, that?d be funny if it wasn?t so depressing. Gamera is a giant turtle who defends those who cannot defend themselves, another great pop-icon from Japan. I would recommend watching a few Gamera movies but I?m sure you?ll start screaming halfway through NO THIS IS NOT LOGICAL GIANT TURTLES THAT BIG CANNOT EXIST LOL EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NOT OBSERVED A GIANT TURTLE ROFL.


*sighs* Fema claims building was taken out by fire + structural damage, which is fairly unsubstantiated. This leads me to believe then that the collapse of #7 was setup in advance by another entity since Al Qaeda could not have done it without hundreds of hours of prep work + inside help. Simple enough for you shit for brains?


Thanks boy! Keep your eyes off my cock though please. It?s making me kind of nervous and I can?t perform well when I?m nervous


Lmao, yeah, box-cutting maniacs were the true and only masterminds behind this operation all right. ?Oh dear god he has a box-cutter! Whatever shall a plane full of people do??? Oh my god, the box-cutter, it?s so scary!?. Go back to sucking cock, you are really good at that. Not so much at debunking conspiracy theories though. =(


I have responded every point you have raised you mother fucking faggot while you sit back and continue to jerk off. I have debunked just about everything thus far you have said using analytical thinking and just pure logic. You on the other hand keep spewing nonsense such as ?just because you haven?t seen it doesn?t mean it?s not possible LMAO?. I have not seen a giant knife wielding gorilla serial killer running around looking for his next victim either but I guess to you that?s possible eh? Guess that?s ?logic? to you? stupid fucking faggot. Oh I?m sorry, you think that?s tedious abuse. Maybe this will be a bit better for you: Guess that?s ?logic? to you? you inferior closet-concealed troll.


*claps!* The little guy finally agrees that one of his statements was horrendously stupid. Yaaaah! Only a few dozen left to go and I can call it a night.


That?s a big negatory captain re-re, it?s mainly getting the unimportant statements out of the way to keep you focused. I know that you have a reading disorder so I try to make it as easy as possible for ya assclown.


*yawns* Really reaching there kid. You are the one that said ?and others? so I was just reiterating what you said. But because of your reading disability, it?s to be expected you missed that.

Anything else my little cum guzzler?

fire alone did not bring down the WTC. two huge fucking passenger jets flew right through them.

your tin foil hat is on too tight.

The twin towers were designed to take many impact from jumbo jets...

Each tower was designed to survive the impact and fire from a collision by a 707-340 carrying 23,000 gallons of fuel. The similar- sized 767-200s that hit the towers were each carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel.

Each tower was supported by both a palisade of columns forming its outer wall and a bundle of 47 massive steel columns in its core structure. Like all large engineered structures, the towers were over-engineered to support many times anticipated loads, to survive severe and improbable events, including bombings and fires. The plane crashes severed about 33 of the North Tower's and 24 of the South Tower's 240 perimeter columns. The South Tower impact trajectory suggests its core structure was barely damaged. Absent severe winds and earthquakes, each tower should have easily survived damage to even a majority of its columns. Each tower's crash and fire damage was limited to an asymmetrical minority of columns and a few floors. Yet each tower collapsed

Didn't I just get through saying to you on page 2 that I have NOT BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE WTC you stupid MOTHER FUCKER? I am talking about Building #7, one last time for you god damn STUPID mother fucker, BUILDING #7 IS NOT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, can I make this any simpler for you pal? God damn you are one STUPID MOTHER FUCKING IDIOT.

This whole thing is like arguing politics and religion...

The two beliefs will not change.. no matter who says what...

You have 3 buildings that fell at freefall speed.. all near each other.. all within minutes apart.. and are the first in the history of steel frame buildings to fall from fire.. Coincidence?

And speaking of the fire... even after the arguments that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to do as claimed, it can be seen by the photo posted in this thread that most of the fuel exploded outside the building.. and the fires lasted a very short period of time.. but there are those who will not be convinced of anything other than the fires brought em down..

Who was involved... There are those that know the facts, which will come out some day..

But til that happens, threads like this will be full of opinions, references, slams, yada yada.. and nothing will change.. Those who think it was more than the gov't is saying will still be labeled as conspiracy nuts, and those who believe the gov't will still be sheep..

Then in a month or so, another thread will pop up and the same scenario will take place.. and again.. nothing will change...

As for me.. I'm still trying to figure out how a plane with a 135' wing span and 2, 6 ton engines slammed into a building at 500 mph and managed to get through a 16 foot hole.. Some of the explanations given by the gov't and other folks are hillarious..

Myself, I'm wondering how a plane got close enough to the Pentagon to do that damage. The whitehouse has a missile defense system on it's roof. What does the Pentagon have... a cannon that fires liberal hippies? Seriously, why the fuck wasn't that jet shot down ASAP? It's scary to think that the PENTAGON was hit due to government ineptness if anything.

I think this 2 minute video says it all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVLhE7JjMZ8&NR

what does building 7 have to do with skyscrapers burning and collapsing due to fire??
your meds are wearing off possibly?

thats not at all true. they had no concept of planes that big when the buildings were designed. if i recall correctly, they were designed specifically to withstand imapcts from 707's.

It's time to tell the truth about Notabook. Although not without overlap and simplification, I plan to identify three primary positions on Notabook's initiatives. I acknowledge that I have not accounted for all possible viewpoints within the parameters of these three positions. Nevertheless, to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of what I call dour knuckle-draggers, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but Notabook's teachings should be labeled like a pack of cigarettes. I'm thinking of something along the lines of, "Warning: It has been determined that Notabook's vaporings are intended to generate alienation and withdrawal." Many of Notabook's cop-outs have been criticized for being slanted in favor of a particular stance. And that's the honest truth.

That's the most likely reason, even though nobody (especially not the govt itself) would like to admit it.

Did... did ... did you really just ask that? Building #7 is a STEEL SKYSCRAPER near the WORLD TRADE CENTER. On 9-11, in addition to the WTC buildings falling to structural damage + fire, Building #7 also mysteriously shared the fate of the WTC even though it did NOT get hit by jets. If you had read this thread you would have obviously read this by now... anyways, Building #7 was further away from the WTC than a couple of other buildings and yet it was the only other building to fall that day besides the WTC. Buildings MUCH CLOSER to the WTC suffered almost identical damage as #7 did, as well as the fire intensity from the WTC, yet they did not fall. The entire time I've been posting I've made it clear that I've been talking about BUILDING #7 and NOT the WTC. So please, for fuck's sake, either start reading or stay out of the discussion.

this thread is serious business minus the business

Look fuck for brains, I'm obviously not the one who can't follow a thread. The *ENTIRE* time I've been talking, other then those little interjects now and again, has been about Building #7 and not the WTC. I even admitted throughout the thread that the WTC was probably taken down by the combination of fire + structural damage. Then you come here and start saying ridiculous shit that has nothing to do with Building #7 directly to me. "lol they were hit by PLANES rofl". When I try to explain to your dumbass that I'm not talking about the WTC (and if you?d been following the thread it would have been obvious to anyone with an inkling of intelligence) but instead Building #7, you come back again with your idiotic statements saying something like "lol, don't get all uppity LOL" to which I respond 'At least I can tell buildings apart.'. For some unapparent reason you keep trying to interject useless tidbits of blather into this conversation yet for some reason you can't get it through your thick skull that I am talking about BUILDING #7. Not the WTC....

So to summarize for you buddy since you and a couple others here have a bit of a problem with reading comprehension:

The World Trade Center was hit by two jets. Building #7 was not hit by a jet. The World Trade Center most likely fell due to the structural damage from the jets in combination with the high intense fires caused by jet fuel. Building #7, however, suffered no more or no less damage that the other building closer to the World Trade Center sustained, and as such it should have not fell because of fire w/combination of limited structural damage. Because of this, Building #7 is a highly debated issue and remains a hot topic for conspiracists and non- conspiracists alike.
*Note: Building #7 is NOT the fucking World Trade Center you god damn moron.

2 key points stand out here

1) Notabook's paranoid WTC fantasies are not just about jingoism but also about jujuism,
and
2) Notabook has no fixed ethical principles.

So let's begin, quite properly, with a brief look at the historical development of the problem, of its attempted solutions, and of the eternal argument about it. Whenever he is blamed for conspiring to undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole, he blames his representatives. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Notabook work hand-in-glove with insincere losers. Easy as it may seem to change the world for the better, it is far more difficult to lead the way to the future, not to the past. And now, to end with a clever bit of doggerel: United we stand. Divided we fall. Notabook's peevish methods of interpretation will destroy us all.

Uh... yeah, I could go use a generator as well if I wanted to be a mother fucking moron. If you can't add to the debate how about you just stay out of it and let adults talk, k junior?

all i have been doing is fucking with you and you are the one blowing a gasket. your behavior speaks volumes for your limited ability for rational thought and when looked at in the wider context of your moronic conspiracy theories, offers some insight into the potential worth of your deductions.

Curious to know - how many people commenting on this thread have actually walked those several blocks between what was once the Twin Towers and WTC7?

I was there in October 2005. I have some interesting pics to post as soon as I get them up.

Question: If WTC7 collapsed from debris and impact, why didn't the building immediately adjacent to the south collapse under the same conditions?

Maybe the debate is not as much about what did happen as it is about what will happen geopolitically. Conspiracy? LOL It's not about conspiracies - it's about agreements. I have personally (and professionally) seen it on all levels from "let's go to lunch" to various people getting a pass on a murder beef. That's reality.

I was about to leave the legal profession over all of this shit.

BTW - Interesting how things conveniently started up between Israel and Lebanon right before the mid-term elections. Gee, what a coincidence. Don't tell me you didn't see it coming.

Lastly, do you really think the government gives a fuck about regulating porn? Your answer to that question will reveal a lot. 2. If not, then why do they do it?

I think I liked your useless drivel that you got from your random text generator more. Maybe you should use it again, it sure the fuck made you sound more intelligent that the shit you just spit out right now. If you have something of serious substance to add, then by means do it. YOU can NOT ignore this simple fact: Prior to 9-11, not ONE modern skyscraper has fell to fire damage. Not one. That number again for you is ZERO. Zip, Nada, ZILCH. Structural engineers, even the ones commissioned by FEMA also state that the chance of a steel skyscraper falling to fire damage alone is nothing.

Now again for ya buddy since your brain may revert and think I?m talking about the WTC? I?M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE WTC. Building #7 simply wasn?t damaged enough from the falling debris to be affected by the intense fire. Where I disagree with FEMA?s report, however, is their assertion that the falling debris from the WTC somehow did enough structural damage to Building #7, in combination with the fire, to make it collapse. Yet 97% of the evidence had already been removed by the time they got to examine the remains? for them to make that claim is, in words you can understand, RETARDED. Couple that with the fact that the buildings closer to WTC received similar if not identical conditions and were still structurally sound support the conspiracists claim that Building #7?s collapse was planned in advance.

i am going to take this opportunity before your impending ruptured aneurysm to let you know one last time that i don't care. i didn't care and probably, in the foreseeable future, won't care. you are so far off the chart with your insanity, that had 9/11 not happened you would be sitting here saying "looking you fucking no good prick idiot... i'll explain one more time... crop circles....."

while you changed no ones opinion, drove your bloodpressure through the roof and took 2 years off your life,... i got a lot of work done and a smile at the same time.

thanks.

I do not have enough information to say either way, however I would not put it past a group within the US government to do such a thing. I would say the same thing about the JFK assassination.

Sadly, we will probably never know the truth.

and btw notebook, ... Building 7 was part of the WTC.... as were all the other buildings in the complex.

I actually have chronically low blood pressure, so if anything these heated debates probably help me out physiology speaking, and honestly nothing puts a bigger smile on my face (well... almost nothing) than responding to dipshits such as yourself. All of the typing I do is mainly to kill some time while I wait for video to render. I get so fucking bored capturing clip after clip after clip and GFY is like the time killer. Time passes so easily here that I forget about the sheer boredom of my job lol. I do get a bit worked up about 9-11 because I want whoever responsible for bringing down Building #7 to be held accountable. As for crop circles, they are all fake. Sorry if ya didn't know that bud =(

You're welcome btw
Cheers!

Before 9/11



After 9/11

Does the word DUH come to mind? I use WTC to describe the twin towers for simple folk such as yourself since from the BEGINNING you assumed Building #7 was somehow the main towers of WTC. Don't try to think too hard buddy, you'll hurt yourself.

That picture never gets old. I wish I had a tinfoil hat I tried to make one once, I inadvertently caused a small explosion in the process... from that point forward I decided never to try to make anything ever again.

why do you have a link to a shitty MFA site with free articles in your sig? thats definately a new one for sig-whoring! thats adsense i guess... one click at a time.

wow, never saw that one. those flashes coming out of it and then seconds later it falls.....

http://www.impawards.com/1990/poster...d_two_ver2.jpg

http://www.film.org.pl/soundtrack/im...die_hard_3.jpg

http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P...2.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

http://www.year01.com/forum/issue12/face.jpg

Somethings really wrong when the movies hints before any real shitting occurs by them.....Its all in sequence

Have you not seen the video of Goldstein (owner of WTC including WTF 7)saying "So it was decided the best thing to do was to "pull it" so thats what they did. they "pulled it" and we then watched the building collapse".

"Pull" is a demo term for taking down a building with explosives.

exactly....

as I was scrolling through this thread, I was wondering why all the discussion about WTC 7 when it was publicly stated by the OWNER of the building that it was demolished. It aired on PBS in September 2002. You have to be quite a sheep to dismiss that and still believe a fire brought it down.





Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." [wmv download]

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." [mp3 download]

There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.

Even more telling is the loud thunderous explosions. Notice in the beginning there is a dust cloud at the bottom of the building, approximately 30 seconds later you hear some sort of explosion. Then as the building is falling you hear an even louder explosion. Since that video was taken from at least a mile away and the fact that sound does not travel as fast as light tells me that the first explosion caused the cloud of dust and the second explosion happened just before the building fell and was the cause of it falling.

And what the hell is with that helicopter hovering over the building for over half a minute and as its leaving the building falls?

To the people that think explosives did not bring the towers down whats your explanation of the explosive sounds?

Of course it was demolished. But there are a few things that don't add up about it.

First off they didnt admit this at first, sounds to me they finally admitted it because people were starting to question how it fell and since no other explanation made sense they figured to just admit to it.

Secondly, I find it VERY hard to believe under normal circumstances that explosives could have been brought in and set in that amount of time.
Larry Silverstein stated that they decided to demolish it late in the afternoon. So we are supposed to believe that in just a few hours they brought in explosives and set them? Bull fucking shit. Demolitions take weeks of planning not hours. And how many fucking times has anyone decided to demolish a building because they felt they couldnt contain a fire? People need to wake the fuck up.

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth.

http://www.media-criticism.com/911_Theory_10_2003.html

http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/bra.../pentagon.html

http://www.911-strike.com/PlaneBomb.htm

http://www.deceptiondollar.com/

come on guys lets calm down slightly,
Urgh

true that....

First - I am not a conspiracy theorist - I deal in science as that was my lifes work prior to retiring - as a physicist.

If anyone believes that the WTC came down due to the planes - all I can say is that it is physically impossible to fall as fast as they did without help from below and a lot of it - the 10 secs or so put out in the Official Report on 9/11 and seen visibly on tv would equate to Earth having a gravity effect of many times normal only at that one spot in NYC - whether you want to accept it or not - all things on earth fall at exactly the same speed - dependent on friction of course(which in the case of floors collapsing on top of each other is a lot of friction) -and totally independant of their weight - this has been proven over and over for at least 500 years - and is one of the very basic premises of physics(I believe it was Newton and his apple tree that started this conspiracy theory).

Second scientific problem with this is really a little more common sense - the floors where one of the planes hit - considered in the official report as the source of failure due to fire heat and metal collapse - would require certain amounts of heat to get to that point - around 1500 deg F. Assuming that all of the jet fuel (10,000 gals is what they left with on takeoff) burned inside the building (which based on the pictures posted in this thread really didnt happen - looks like most was an outside the building fireball) - I would agree that the temperature could reach that point.
However - this part doesnt make sense(and evidently based on legal suits that are being filed by firefighters associations shouldnt make sense) - just before one of the towers fell - firefighters were on their way to put out the fire - they were in the stairwell leading from the floor just below the floor where the plane hit - and were in communication with the temporary command post set up by the mayor - and reported on their radios they were going into the floor where the fire was - just as the building collapsed - of course these were some of the firefighters killed. This means that human beings were able to function normally in a temperature that is 500 degrees above the temperature used to cremate dead bodies in a mortuary.

Third and last - the actual engineering studies used when the towers were built called for the ability for a jet carrying over 20000 gallons of fuel to be completely immeresed in the building (all of the fuel burning inside - no fireball outside) and allow the firefighters 3 hours to fight the fire with structural failure assumed from the impact of the plane on the steel beams occuring at about the same rate that actually occured - and with no possibility of collapse of the building itself - note that a lot has been made of the size of the jet (707 vs 767) - the weight of the plane and attendant damage are based on the primarily the weight of the fuel since there are very small other weight differences - and again the official report states that these planes only had half of the fuel load that had been calculated for originally.

I draw no political conclusions here (although I really like the comparison someone made about the Reichstag building fire and subsequent Decree for the Protection of People and State that Hindenberg signed for Hitler being real damn close to the Patriot Act) - just scientific and common sense observations.