Guess that's just as believable as the official story.

There absolutely were explosions heard before collapse... its on film and in many many testimonials.

There is also footage of the pentagon attack. unfortunately only a few frames were released and not a whole video... after being edited.

it's a lose-lose. the government was either behind it or too lame to stop it.

Same Ninjas that hid the WMD in Iraq.

I'm telling you. It's the aliens.

Water can explode in a hot enough fire due to the breakdown of the bond of the molecule & thus releasing hydrogen.
ds

First of all, it's not true that none of the recorded samples and videos registered explosive sounds.

Secondly, the rush/roar of the fall of the buildings would have masked the sounds of traditional explosions.

Finally, the "demolition" or whatever would have been covert, and the dust sample tests showed the existence of incendiary thermate which burns like hell but doesn't create a bang-pow reaction.

Read the NIST report, the final one. NIST states that debris from the falling tower was not a factor in the crash of WTC7.

They also describe how the fires went out when they ran out of fuel, and moved on to other sections that had carpeting, wood, paper, etc... nothing that could have affected the steel,

And regardless of "earthquake and having billions of tons of concrete dropped at it's doorstep", buildings like this have never "sometimes" fallen. They are built to withstand up to five times their load, and have never collapsed - ever- due to fire or physical damage.

.

You don't think it matters who did it?

You think it doesn't matter why Americans are getting killed in Iraq?

Doesn't make sense; they were built to withstand that.

So since you didn't watch any videos or read any archives of what happened that day, why would you post an "opinion"? There isn't any doubt about explosions, they're documented and recorded, etc...

Silverstein's rationalization makes no sense since all firefighters and firefighting teams had been called out of WTC7 early in the day...

That is a traditional, anticipated demolition; not a demolition meant to be covert and meant to appear "accidental". Also, there was no thermate/thermite or otherincendiaries used for that.

The real intellectual world has open questions about what happened that day that make a difference. Many of those "real issues and injustices out there" are a consequence of the false story about 9/11.

:D

you are deluded dude. why discuss anything with you. you can present overwhelming evidence that your theories are flawed let you still don't get it. just a robot parroting the talking points of the 9/11 cult. sad.

http://cdn2.holytaco.com/wp-content/...cketDeluxe.jpg
.

Who is deluded? I'm not repeating anything without having first confirmed it for myself. I have researched this, as well as simply using common sense looking at the videos - and having seen them live on TV when they happened.

The delusion lies in the person who just listens to news and accepts everything they see...\

:D

maybe if 9/11 truthers spent less time trying to find answers to questions that only other losers with nothing else happening in their life are asking, they would be more gainfully employed and less living-in-their-parents-basement-y and socially outcast.

Oh wait what? there are famous scienticians and professors who are truthers? Shocking, people who are socially inept and spend their whole life hanging out with books? ooohhh credible, yum.

Ironically, it's the truthers who are incapable of thinking for themselves - you ARE THE SHEEP, self perpetuating your insanity in a giant cluster-fuck if stupidity, stroking eachothers' e-peens with "theories" and "arguments" and "evidence". 9/11 is your religion and you are just as ignorant and obtuse as some religious nutbar, and yet the arrogance and smarminess overpowers you... it's pathetic.

You haven't researched a damn thing. You are just another GFY cut and paste artist that believes everything you read. You bash other people for believing everything the mainstream media says, yet you believe everything some anonymous blogger or nutcase conspiracy theorist says. Who exactly is the sheep here?

So from your previous post, you say the Twin Towers were built to withstand a plane crashing into them? So the Twin Towers, built in the late '60's and opened in the early '70's, were built to withstand impact from modern airplanes? Really? Even with today's technology you could build a tower that you believe can withstand a plane crash, but until a plane actually crashes into it you are purely speculating. Un-fucking-believeble...

I don't think you could classify me a "basher" based on that one thing I said regarding people who believe what is said on network news, or any other post I make.

Unfortunately some of those "anonymous" bloggers do more research and corroboration than the TV news, or at least ask more pertinent questions.

I believe what people who built those towers say. I also pay a little more attention to what government bodies like NIST and the FBI say regarding this situation, with regards to WTC7 and bin Laden respectively.

Modern planes are lighter and contain more aluminum, less steel, than airliners did in the 60s and early 70s, when the WTC was built.

:D

everything you posted has been debunked in this thread, yet you still parrot the same point like a deluded cult member, a moonie. pretty pathetic actually.

ps: i think what the mainstream media reports is bullshit, but i found the reality of the 9/11 truth cult to be even more full of shit.

you obviously did't read what I posted since I didn't post things
ps: i think what the mainstream media reports is bullshit, but i found the reality of the 9/11 truth cult to be even more full of shit.[/QUOTE]

I haven't posted anything to "debunk". I have repeated things that were published or established. I look at those buildings falling and the first thing that springs to mind is "demolition". That's my one "belief", but it's corroborated by facts and studies that make my "belief" more rational than the story we're told.

I'm not hearing any facts coming from you, just derisions and name-calling.

Just look up things like molten metal, free fall "collapse" and reports from people who were either in the building or nearby. The official story collapses when confronted with facts.

I'm not saying who did it or what happened. I'm just saying that the story the government fed the media is bullshit, and the event needs a real investigation.

:D

Interesting ... but how come these modern "more aluminum, less steel" airliners were able to penetrate the heavy exterior, structural steel skeleton of the towers? Based on your logic that shouldn't be possible?... Right?

Or perhaps there's a lot about engineering and physics you don't know?

You say in a previous reply "I'm not repeating anything without having first confirmed it for myself. I have researched this, as well as simply using common sense looking at the videos..."

How did you confirm the steel didn't melt? You took some samples of the steel, right? Or no?

How did you confirm there were planted explosives? You interviewed people who were there? ...and did chemical and other physical analysis of the debris, right? Or no?

How did you confirm WTC7 wasn't badly damaged due to the falling debris? How you know for sure that WTC7 was intentionally brought down? Surely, not from the videos, because in all of them (at least all I've seen) WTC7's collapse is somewhat obscured. Do you have hi-res, unobstructed, clear video of WTC7 collapsing? Or no?

On an aside, are you familiar with Occam's Razor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

In light of that, the official explanation for collapse of towers 1, 2, and 7, as much as one may not want to believe it, is mostly likely the correct one.

As for whether the U.S. government knew an attack was imminent and allowed it to happen is another matter - it's possible the U.S. government did (there is much precedence for that, including Pearl Harbor), but that still doesn't mean anyone intentionally brought down the towers - no need, just the sight of airliners crashing into them would be enough justification for the Iraq war, the PATRIOT Act, creation of Homeland Security, etc.

In summery, often the truth is the middle - did the U.S. government allow the attacks to happen, very possibly ... but were towers 1, 2, and 7 intentionally demolished, most likely not. Again, Occam's Razor comes to mind.

Ron

Actually my "logic" would tend to support the new theory's implication that a somehow unified dissemination of equally molten aluminum coming into contact with water in a "natural" uncontrolled environment caused the explosions (which government statements denied occurring) in an even, steady progression downward as well as somehow upwards, into the levels above the crash points. An unlikely theory.

I've always wondered at the smooth-as-butter penetration of all parts of the airplanes into the buildings. Is it accountable by their velocity and mass? Is there something to the construction of the external supports that should have been investigated? But then, all the evidence was removed before there could be an investigation, and it seems to be a completely ignored point.

The engines were the only parts of the aircraft that could have seriously damaged or cut through the inner structural supports, though the remaining steel of the planes should have done some damage - what I'm saying is when they built the WTC, they took into account planes which were heavier than those that exist today and claimed that the buildings could withstand more than one impact each. Logically, single impacts from modern airframes should not have taken them down completely.

Of course not, the NIST report confirmed the steel didn't melt.

Of course not. Subsequent analyses of debris by independent bodies confirmed the presence of explosive substances, explosive residues and incendiary effects on debris recovered before the majority was removied.

Because the NIST report says the building wasn't badly damaged due to falling debris, as do witnesses and visual records.

There are at least a couple videos taken from higher above street level that show the building coming down straight. There's also the aerial photo evidence of the pile cleanly having avoided any surrounding structures, which would be expected in an asymmetrical , "natural" gravity-collapse.

There's the length of time it took to come down. There's the fact that somehow all three buildings fit much of their mass into their (multiple) basements, leaving relatively low rubble piles considering these shouldn't have been removed/blown out of the way by a top-down gravity collapse.

There are many other occurrences and details that can't be explained by the government theory. One of the most telling "details" to me though is, to paraphrase Norman Mineta's (suppressed) 9/11 Commission testimony, that if something happens one time, it's an accident; twice, and it's a pattern, but three times means it's a program.

Three buildings collapse in a historically unprecedented, similar and smooth manner in an average ten seconds time frame each all on the same day. Coincidence and happenstance??

Occam's (Ockam's?) razor becomes more of a litmus test here. The government theory can be accepted if you refuse to acknowledge or consider any of the dozens or more questions it raises, and finally resign yourself to the uncritical "failure of imagination" theory. But there's just too many dots not connected for Occam's to slice any other way than that this was an engineered event, in my opinion.

those planes were fueled for a cross the US flight, so they had a huge load of jet fuel (refined diesel).
btw, have you ever heard that if you hit water at a high speed it is similar to hitting concrete. these planes were going around 500 mph, they could have been made off goo and still would have made a huge penetration into that building.

what the Norweigan says makes sense, perhaps this could even provide logic to the "incendiary" found in the dust.

These should just be quoted over and over because they pretty much destroy any truther opinion on the matter...


Not believing in this bulshit doesn't mean we don't question our government and the media, we all do that daily. It just means we know the difference between what an actual fact is and what is science fiction and speculation.

Whether you have a tanker full or a bucketful, that fuel couldn't have burned above 30% of the temperature needed to reach steel's melting point (if exposed consistently in foundry-conditions for several hours) or about 60% the temperature needed to get the steel to begin to soften (probably a little more).

NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 Commission reports actually say the fires weren't hot enough at their hottest, and even then didn't maintain constant temperatures for very long.

You're right about speed and surface-impacts. (The speeds were probably overstated or the media probably reported the planes' top speed at high altitude, though, because they couldn't have been going so fast at this altitude - the air density would make it difficult for the engines to operate at that speed - but I'm sure their max speed was fast enough).

What the Norwegian said doesn't make sense to me though because of the improbability of the aluminum being uniformly molten across such a vast area and the chances of it all encountering water at so many equally distributed points to cause such a smooth and symmetrical progression of explosive reactions that would have taken out ten floors per second for the at least 50 floors we see getting destroyed before the cloud of pulversized materials obscures the views.

It couldn't explain the incendiary found, or the iron microspheres in the dust or even any of the molten metal that burned in the rubble for up to five months, but it could explain the oxidized steel beams that were discovered.

I didn't say anyone in this thread blindly believes what they see on TV, just those that do believe what they see on TV are delusional - it was a general statement to define "delusional" and point out that the accusation was wrongly aimed at me.

I've stated one opinion, and then posted facts.

If you know the difference between "actual fact" and speculation (and sci-fi ;) ) can you point out to me how those posts or any other here do any "debunking" or offer anything other than ad hominems and opinions of agreement with the government theory (which to this day, without "actual facts" from the government, remains one step below theory - a basic hypothesis)?

Al Qaeda warns Iran to 'Stop spreading 9-11 Conspiracy Theories'
 

Al Qaeda, who are currently fighting on the same side as The West in the warn on Libya

Libya: the West and al-Qaeda on the same side
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...same-side.html

have warned Iran to stop spreading the 9/11 conspiracy theory

Al Qaeda to Iran: Stop Spreading 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qae...ry?id=14620643

Whether you believe that Al Qaeda are funded and controlled by the CIA or that Al Qaeda are completely independent of Western control, who do you feel benefits from the pressure Al Qaeda are putting on Iran? If the 9/11 conspiracy theory eventually gets large enough it will bring about revolution in the USA, which if successful would end the wars on Muslim countries. If folk believe Al Qaeda are behind 9/11 then it will mean more countries that are in any way linked with Al Qaeda (e.g. post-war Libya) being attacked by the West.

May i remind you nutjobs about the 1993 attack on the towers by muslim extremists.

That's what they do. They are terrorists.

It's truly amazing how you idiots come up with the MOST CRAZY theories but a group of muslims hijacking a plane, flying into a building with a collapse as a logical result is totally impossible to you.

100's maybe 1000's of people involved in a complot to kill 3000 of their fellow citizens is something they don't question. They don't see a problem at all there.

Fucking idiots.

If the official story ever becomes an actual religion, you can become a 911 Priest :thumbsup

May I remind you that the FBI's agent/informant who had infiltrated and/or brought the "terrorists" together, helped plan that, build the bomb, and finally was supposed to switch the explosives with "harmless powder" - but was prevented doing so by the FBI supervisor in that case - or so his immediate superior claims.

I don't recall any theories being put forward here. Is it crazy to wonder how three buildings could be taken down with two planes, or to think that a 50-story and two 100-story buildings could all come down on the same day, in virtually the same way, in about 10 seconds each, is a bit of a stretch of the imagination?

The collapses weren't logical, the symmetry wasn't logical, and neither was the time it took for them to collapse.

Crazy is the government theory four commercial jets could be hijacked at virtually the same time and fly around for up to an hour and a half without being intercepted, or that "hijackers" who could barely get a Cessna off the ground could fly these jumbo jets....

Who's pointing fingers? Sure there's crazy, zealous fundamentalists everywhere in the world, who come together sometimes to work toward a common goal. But whodunnit? Who knows...?

At any rate, I'm just saying the Norwegian gentleman who says molten aluminum reacting with water brought down the towers has not considered building 7 nor has he gone over the video evidence, evidently... His theory may explain some elements of the demolitions - the rocket-like projectiles that shot out and UP from the "gravity" collapse, say - but no way can it explain the entire thing.

:D

Fucking nutjob.

Oh, yeah, and also this: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...ror/index.html

:D

There's no question what happened. Research the design of the trusses. To summarize, they lost their strength from the heat.

There's plenty of questions as to what happened.

Considering the effectiveness of steel girder heat dispersion, how did trusses 50 stories below the crash site and any fires experience such loss of tensile strength - considering that it would take temperatures several hundred degrees higher than the fire was at its hottest to even begin to soften the metal?

And supposing somehow heat reached that far from burning jet fuel, how did it propagate evenly to all trusses on every level so that the building could come down straight, smoothly, and without any resistance, in a few seconds, without any toppling?

.

Omg you are really retarded.

If you're going to go the name-calling route you could at least explain why you think so. My questions and statements of fact have been fairly reasonable, I think...

:D

Fucking retard.

You win.

.