9:59 a.m - WTC2 Collapses due to fires and structural damage caused by commercial jet

10:28 a.m - WTC1 Collapses due to fires and structural damage caused by commercial jet

5:21 p.m - WTC7 Collapses due to controlled demolition :Oh crap

Interesting that Larry Silverstein actually wanted to admit the truth about WTC7 being taken down by a controlled demo. His instinct was right that they should be honest about WTC7 as it wasn't hit by a plane. The problem is, now that people know they lied about WTC7, they will also suspect that WTC's 1 and 2 were lied about.

Relatively slight fires, with supposed fireballs that travelled down all that distance to apparently burn themselves out within seconds of the impacts.

Slight fires because they were localized, didn't affect the building beyond their immediate range, and didn't burn anywhere near hot and long enough to affect the structural integrity of the majority of the building below the impact zones.

NIST uses words that are misleading. Relative to the impact, for example, while they mention the 767 is 20% "bigger" (not very scientific word) than the 707s simulations were originally conducted with, they fail to mention there's much more aluminum to the modern planes, and that the majority of their materials couldn't have affected the internal structure of the building/s, with the exception of the engines which as far as is known were made of titanium.

They also make statements along the line of "the massiveness of the plane" vs. "the lightness of the WTC steel" - which is laughable on its face.

NIST claims the floors that were burning sagged and their weight pulled at the exterior columns and that "initiated" the collapses. This is where they stop. They don't say what happened during the destruction or why, and completely ignore the massive, multiple central columns that would have ensured only partial collapse of the floors concerned and support and preservation of the sections above and below the burning floors.

Actually NIST discounts "a great deal of the support structure" being decimated. The tons of concrete and steel above weren't "balancing precariously", because, if they were, the structurally sound majority of the tower/s would have caused resistance to the falling mass, eventually causing it to tip off one way or the other, following the path of least resistance.

As it is they came down straight through themselves, pulverizing everything, as if they had been burning from top to bottom at over 2200 degrees for at least four hours.

Not very believable.

WTC 7 is or will become the smoking gun in an eventual investigation in that it was uncompromised relative to damage and fire and came down "perfectly", suddenly without a hitch. NIST claims "thermal expansion" caused a cross-support section at one end to nudge a vertical support column off it's seat, that caused an internal collapse that ran from one end to the other before the whole exterior building followed - but not from left-to-right, apparently, it decided to stay up without having it's "perimeter" support pulled in asymmetrically until it just gave up and went down like a hollow shell...

Not very believable.

Good points there Jesus H Christ :thumbsup

One more point with regard to the Dollar being the world's reserve currency and the inflated spending power that gives the US, is to give an example of what happens to those who plan a new world reserve currency; Dominique Strauss-Kahn was about to collapse the US economy on a scale that's never been seen before.

The Story of former IMF Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Feb 10th 2011 - IMF calls for dollar alternative
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/mark...llar/index.htm
- Wants to create replacement reserve currency known as SDRs (Special Drawing Rights)

16 May 2011 - IMF head Strauss-Kahn charged over New York 'sex crime'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13402845
- Just 3 months later, Strauss-Kahn is in the headlines for the wrong reasons, he's later forced to resign from his role as IMF Chief.

More from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn

Under Strauss-Kahn the IMF's pursuit of financial stability has included calls for a possible replacement of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. An IMF report from January 2011 called for a stronger role for Special Drawing Rights (SDR) in order to stabilize the global financial system. According to the report, an expanded role for SDRs could help to stabilize the international monetary system. Furthermore, for most countries (except for those using the US dollar as their currency) there would be several advantages in switching the pricing of certain assets, such as oil and gold, from dollars to SDRs. For some commentators that amounts to a call for a "new world currency that would challenge the dominance of the dollar"

I repeat myself...and you are now dismissed.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Typical brainwashed American.

Seriously, where do this from?

They weren't slight fires. These were massive fireballs triggered by tens of thousands of gallons of high octane jet fuel burning up an inexhaustible supply of office supplies, paperwork, furniture, and everything else used in a city of fifty thousand people - all neatly confined in a small, space, all conveniently fanned by winds found one hundred floors up against ground level.

The fires weren't localized. At the moment of impact huge fireballs traveled down elevator shafts to multiple sky lobbies, and down to the lobby and basement. Fireballs and burning debris exited the towers and set fire to other buildings.

How in the world do you come up with "slight localized fires". Massive fireballs powered by jet fuel that hits a dozen floors and other buildings nearly instantly is not "slight" or "localized".

I used the word "relatively" - as in relative to the building as a whole, relative to fires needed to even soften metal, relative to other infernos we've seen consume entire buildings for as long as 24 hours, without compromising any significant part of the structure.

The fires were localized to approximately 12 storeys. The presumed firebals lasted seconds, not setting fire to each floor they passed or they would have been weakened and dissapated. Other buildings aren't relevant here, with the exception that most of the fuel actually exited and ignited outside the buildings. It's estimated the fuel in the building had been consumed within ten minutes of impact, and the only "fuel" left was carpets, chairs, desks, etc... a widespread office fire.

Relatively speaking regarding the size of the buildings, and the damage the fires caused, yes it was.

:D

Yes the fact that there were explosive charges pre placed in WTC 7 has nothing to do with the other collapses. We all know buildings in NYC are always prewired to be demolished, just in case of emergency.

Yes so what if WTC 7 was wired to come down, how dare someone even think that the other buildings could be wired in the same way. Thank you for calling out the idiots with your wisdom.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

You guys are still arguing with lunatics? LOL

This just in...

http://appraisalnewsonline.typepad.c...03/30/flat.jpg

Don't question it. If that's what we're told, it must be true.

Your trying to make the fires sounds small and minor when they were massive. They were so massive that they instantly spread to other levels and other buildings.

Other "infernos we've seen consume entire buildings for as long as 24 hours" are pretty much irrelevant being as they weren't fueled by tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel and massive fireballs that traveled dozens and dozens of floors. A building can burn for 24 hours and still be standing. But it's not a building that is being feed by jet fuel after the impact of a large plane.

You say "A plane couldn't have done this" and then you say "A fire couldn't have done this". But what you fail to take into account is that it was both - a plane AND a massive fire that destroyed a good percentage of the support and then weakened the rest.

A fire on 12 stories is not localized. It was in multiple fires in multiple locations, including the lobby seconds after impact. It also caught other buildings on fire seconds after impact. That's not localized at all. At this point, it's not even one fire but half a dozen fires.

There's no "presumed fireballs". Fireballs traveled down elevator shafts all the way down to the lobby, instantly. There's no discussion about that at all.

The fire was feed by jet fuel. It doesn't matter if the jet fuel was gone in ten minutes or two hours. This was not a typical fire. It was huge, in multiple locations of the building, set everything on fire, and then was fanned by winds fifty to one hundred floors up.

Your trying to make this sound like it was a small little fire. It wasn't. It was a jet fuel fireball at sixty stories that instantly spread to dozen locations, including other buildings.

WTC 5 had the big WTC's fall directly onto it, burned all day in a huge inferno, and still had to be demo'd later. :)

There are so many people who think it is crazy to question the government's 911 story, but to me, you would have to be insane to actually BELIEVE IT!

It is the most coincidental collection of absurdities and conveniently lost information that has EVER occurred in our lifetime. Their bullshit story stinks so bad Newt can smell it from his moon base!

The bottomless well of stupid runs very very deep and with each of your idiotic posts, theories, its proven to be even deeper.

What "new Ivy League" school did you attend? I find it hard to believe you made it out of 8th grade.

Anyone interested in further evidence of this claim, see: youtube.com.

I still think 9/11 is a conspired joke, which was designed to get people looking one way while dark scheming was taking place elsewhere. If you want more information, click here.

Not to mention the increased pressure and shockwave that would have been sent throughout the buildings blowing out windows which is what some loons think were the controlled demo bursts.

No it didn't.

No it wasn't.

Moron, fires, gigantic planes plowing into them full speed with full fuel loads taking out major sections of the building's support, gravity, the weight of the section above the crash area on the building all contributed to them falling.

Was the massive building in Japan hit by a jumbo jet with a full load of fuel? No? I didn't think so. Was it even similar in design at all? Also, no. Was the building you are thinking of not even in Japan? It's in Beijing(not japan).

The following is just a copy-and-paste from a random "truther" site, but certainly an interesting list of missing puzzle pieces. Seems reasonable enough...

The disclosure of the following records could help in settling SOME of the unanswered questions about September 11, 2001:

• The recorded audio communications between the four flights, air traffic control stations, and other responsible authorities on the day of Sept. 11, 2001.

• The original passenger manifests of the four hijacked flights.

• Full, uncensored data from any undamaged cockpit voice recorders and flight "black boxes," as well as all records of phone calls from the four flights.

• Primary and secondary radar records of the four flight paths.

• Video footage from the airports from which the alleged hijackers boarded their flights (boarding areas, parking lots, check-in).

• Video footage of the Pentagon attack as taken from the Sheraton Hotel across from the Pentagon (impounded on Sept. 11 by the FBI) and from video cameras on Pentagon grounds.

• Deployment and readiness plans in effect on Sept. 11, 2001 at the bases responsible for air defense procedures, including Otis AFB, Langley AFB, Andrews AFB and others in the Northeastern United States.

• The content of the Presidential Daily Briefing of Aug. 6, 2001, entitled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE U.S."

• The content of the redacted passages from the Congressional Joint Inquiry Report on the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as of relevant documents relating to these and other passages.

• Records of surveillance by CIA, BND and other German and U.S. agencies in the cases of Mohamed Atta, Ramzi Binalshibh, Marwan Alshehhi, Ziad Jarrah and other reputed members of the "Hamburg Cell" during their time in Germany up to summer 2000, and of their movements and actions in Florida and the United States up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

• The documents said to prove the involvement of Osama Bin Laden in the attacks, which the German government reported receiving from the United States after Sept. 11, 2001.

They certainly would be massive if they were happening to a house or an apartment.

I'm trying to make them sound like what they were: not hot enough long enough to soften and disintegrate one of the hugest buildings in the world.

But the WTC fires weren't fueled by tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel. They were ignited by tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel that burned off in minutes.

Fireballs didn't not fuel any fires, though they potentially started some. However they didn't seem to start any in the lobby - since there were firemen and people in their minutes after the occurrences some think were fireballs, some thing were explosive events. And the video shows little actual fire damange.

The WTC fires ultimately were fueled by the usual office fire source material - desks, computers, carpets and paper.

As I said, there wasn't a constant supply of jet fuel thus it was very much like a lot of big office building fires.

I don't fail to take that into account. A plane crash with a horrendous fire to follow were taken into account and the buildings withstood both. Regardless of how much infrastucture was compromised by the impact over those dozen floors, the remanding seventy floors below were not and could not have been compromised; the building should not have disintegrated.

In a twenty storey building, that is correct.

In a 100-storey building it isn't.

The fires weren't out of control or raging, there were firemen on the 74th floor, according to recorded and documented evidence, claiming they could take it out with two teams.

Minutes later the whole thing went down.

The fires were moving along after burning away their carpets and desks; this is what happens. They weren't raging, softening beams, or anything that usually occurs in office fires. NIST's disingenuous statements, theories and computer simulations are hardly believable.

The lobby was another short-lived fire because it had hardly any fuel. Some people were flash-burned, others were killed outright. Minutes later people were able to circulate, looking for vicitms.

Ok I see, you're playing on semantics as a form of argument? Ok, then. It wasn't a localized fire. Let's call it a massive conflagration which is on record as never having reached temperatures hot enough to soften steel, and initiate a complete global collapse of a building who saw structural damage (I believe the worst-case estimate was 17% of the columnar support in an area of three to five floors was damaged) which realistically could not have been part of the initiation process.

Survivors did see fire, but it happened so rapidly it seems that it could have been either elevator-shaft fireballs or basement explosions. Taken with testimony of people from the basements, outside the buildings on the concourse, and in the lower floors (who did not see or experience fire), it could just as well have been explosions.

Nope, just ignited.

If you continuously feed a fire with jet fuel, the way some propane or natural gas leaks can feed fires, temperatures given enough time can reach 2000 degrees.

None of those in the WTC reached more than 1000.

Of course it makes a difference whether a fire is ignited by jet fuel or fed by jet fuel, and it particularly makes a difference if the fuel or ignition source is gone in ten minutes, or two hours.

Just like any huge office fire caused by a variety of reasons, from fuel lines to gas lines to arson.

No, it was just a relatively small fire in comparison with building size, which created a huge fireball within the immediate area of the impact zone floors - especially in the case of one building.

But fireballs and rapidly expanding jet fuel burns off quickly; it's highly volatile, which is why it is suited for commercial jet liners.

The fireballs didn't soften the steel, or contribute to the collapses; even NIST doesn't make that claim.

In the case of the other building, the plane went in at a glancing angle, hit the corner, you saw what seems like the engine missing everything inside to go zooming out the other side, along with most of the fuel.

Strange how two buildings with different type of damage and different levels of fire propagation managed to fall exactly the same way...

I was under the mistaken impression that large commercial airliners, fully loaded with fuel, crashed into them at about 500 knots causing significant structural damage as well.

Guess I misunderstood the whole thing.












....
Fucking idiot.

Yeah...obviously nothing more than the equivalent of a bird hitting a window. Surprised it even managed to crack the glass.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...tc2_crash1.jpg

Remember kids, if there's an atomic bomb attack, don't forget to duck and cover!



https://youtube.com/watch?v=89od_W8lMtA

See, the government would never deceive you. They can not tell a lie.

http://www.ara.com/Projects/SVO/SVO_...WTC2Damage.jpg


You mean like a paper airplane weighing almost a quarter of a million pounds, fully loaded with jet fuel, with cargo and with a wingspan of 70+% of the width of my house - and that happens to fly completely thought it causing a massive explosion and wiping out a great deal of both the internal and external support structure?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

This is an orange...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

It didn't need to be hot enough or long enough; The fire didn't disintegrate the towers. A huge amount of the support was missing, and it failed to support the floors above the impact zone. Keep in mind here that at the moment of impact, entire floors were destroy. Eventually, the floors above the impact fell because the support at the impact was either gone or weakened.

The fire was in fact fueled by tens of thousands of jet fuel. I'm sure it burned off in ten minutes of jet fuel is enough to make that a burning inferno.

The fires burned from impact until the towers fell. Stop making it sound like "some office furniture caught on fire". Fifty thousand people worked in those towers; There was enough fuel in the towers to keep burning for weeks.

Clearly you've never been to the WTC when they were standing. The lobby is huge, massive, four - six stories tall, and for the most part all stone, marble, granite, concrete, and steel. Yes, the fireball that shot down to the lobby quickly burned itself out. There wasn't much of anything to catch on fire in the lobby.

Doesn't matter. It was enough to damage what was left of structure to cause it to fail.

No, it wasn't a "relatively small fire in comparison with building size". Entire floors were missing form the building, and dozens of floors were instantly on fire.

Re-read what you wrote here and try hard not to laugh.

From Wikipedia article....

"While calling for further study, FEMA suggested that the collapses were probably initiated by weakening of the floor joists by the fires that resulted from the aircraft impacts".

Then....

"NIST also emphasized the role of the fires, but it did not attribute the collapses to failing floor joists. Instead, NIST found that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns: "This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers."

Not at all. The buildings both had the exact kind of damage - a large airplane destroyed most of the support structure, fires in both buildings weakened the towers, up to the point where the impact zone was unable to support the floors above it and then it all fell down.

Take a look at this picture:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HLHbBHnOLO...-4-1x17jj1.jpg

It looks to me like the entire side of the building is gone for four - eight stories. It's stunning that the towers were able to continue to support it's weight for as long as it did. And keep in mind here, that's only the damage we can see.

And while we are talking about fires..... Here's an interesting read from Wikipedia:
Basically what I get from this is... The towers did not have traditional heavy construction inside, were basically empty from the outer walls to the inner core - nothing was there to stop or isolate the fires. In other words, in a more traditional skyscraper (i.e. Empire State Building [I'm guessing]) the fires would have been prevented from reaching the inner core because there would have been concrete walls, etc, stopping them.

This is why NIST stops at the initiation of collapse; they would not be able to follow through logically on their "probable collapse sequence".

While the fire didn't disintegrate the towers, the towers did disintegrate.

A huge amount of support was not missing. Even by worst-case estimates, NIST says 35 of 235 exterior columns were compromised, and they conjecture via computer-animation 1 to 3 core columns were severed and maybe up to ten more were damaged, probably by the engine core/s. NIST calculated the building lost 15% of its structural integrity in total.

This isn't "most of the support"; they were made to take more than this.

The first plane hit between floors 90 and 100, taking out most of those on one side, not all four, not "entire floors", which leaves ten floors above to entirely crush and ditintegrate the remaining structurally undamaged 90 floors.

The second hit somewhere between floors 70 and 75, on one side, not entire floors. This means 25 floors crushing down on 70 structurally unaffected floors.

Yet both buildings fell the same way. And took out the spindle or core of 45 or 50 massive central columns? How could inward bowing explain a falling object crushing another object that is roughly five to ten times it's own mass? Basic pyhsics says it can't.

The point is that the jet fuel ignited a huge office fire, it didn't fuel that fire; fuel is what sustains a fire. If it burned off in 10 minutes, then it didn't fuel the fire.

Some probably did. But even NIST and FEMA describe them as office fires.

What's your point? There were less than 7000 people in the towers when it happened; there were no tourists and workers hadn't all started their shifts.

In theory the towers should have been able to burn for weeks, without collapsing.

That's what I said...

What makes you say that? Most of the structure was intact, the jet fuel burned off right away; the fire would have to have burned six times hotter for four to six hours to melt steel, and at it's hottest would have to have sustained itself for about three hours to soften steel.

For the buildings to "give out" means somehow all vertical and horizontal support and all joints were heated equally over their entire surface to compromise their mass enough to "prepare" them to give out instantly without resistance - a feat that not only would have taken much more than an hour to an hour and a half at the reported temperatures, it would be physically impossible under the circumstances.

Entire floors were never missing from any of the buildings. Sections of floors were taken out and collapsed internally without affecting exterior columns and especially not core columns; core columns never reached, at their hottest, the average temperature of the fires on the floors.

Volatility means that the fuel is quick-burning though, unless under the right conditions, not "explosive". It certainly means there's no way it can burn very hot in an open environement for very long.

That is a theory, a suggestion of probability, not established by investigation or fact. Unfortunately FEMA was taken off the case.

FEMA and the American Society of Engineers (?) said the perimeter columns bowed out.

All agreed this occurred on one of four faces of the building/s.

This could have initiated a partial collapse of portions of the towers.

But a portion of the uppermost perimeter facade pulling in or out, whether from horizontal sagging or thermal expansion, doesn't explain why the undamaged, unmelted, unsoftened core wasn't left standing or why the building experienced a global collapse.

That is generalized or similar damage. One building, in theory, due to probability based on the plane's trajectory, had some core columns damaged.

The other building had little to no core columns damaged, again because the plane trajectory put it out of the path of the core.

This is not "entire side of the building" being gone damage - it's significant damage across as many stories as you say.

Actually it's exactly the kind of damage it was built to withstand.

:D

If the planes' light, aluminum wings managed to cut through the aluminum cladding and steel perimeter columns (because of the added mass of fuel in their tanks and their velocity?), they would have smashed through concrete no problem. All the steel survived the crashes, and almost none of the cement escaped pulverization.

The fires didn't reach the WTC inner cores, btw.

That quote contradicts itself in what it describes is a space that had less combustible materials or fuel for the fires - less walls, closet, storage, shelves, etc...

A floor layout of this sort would make the fire propagate faster, consuming more of the fuel sooner - certainly creating an insane raging fire at first, but expending itself and needing to move on to more fuel, probably through the celings, vents or other communicating spaces between floors.

Much of it would probably die out fast unless they didn't design to prevent this from happening. But it seems like that quote actually backs up evidence the fires were going out when the buildings fell down.

According to video, photo and witness reports from survivors, recordings of victims trapped in the towers, and firemen who both made it out and didn't, the fires appeared to be dying just before collapse.

It seems the fires raged at first, as long as they had something to burn, and then the smouldering started - people were overcome by the thick smoke. Firefighters one or two stories below the collapse initiation point reported "isolated" fires they could easily "knock out". Survivors scrambled down out from above the impact zone and didn't report "raging infernos" but the opposite.

The NIST hypothesis doesn't concord with available evidence; they used only what they needed to establish a sequence of circumstance, and conjectured a series of possible scenarios, that backed up the official story, and discarded evidence that flew in the face of that.

Describing the massive support system and solidity of the buildings, for example, as "hollow" and "light" and "full of air" is so specious. The construction of the WTC was more economic than traditional buildings and actually pretty brilliant, but didn't make the buildings more fallible to fire, and certainly didn't make them prone to collapse.

Seriously.... Two massive airplanes with tens of thousands of jet fuel hit two skyscrapers. Somewhere between the impact, the fire, the loss of support, the wind.... If you can't plainly see why the buildings fell, well, I can't explain it to you.

He seems to be ignoring this the whole thread lol

he is using reason and logic, a foreign concept for some.

it was hit by debris you fucking retard.

Unfortunately Rochard, you'll never be able to explain it to him. I love the guy but he will is made out of lead. Physics and good old common sense take a back seat to conspiracy theories with this gentleman.

Sorry Greggy! But sir Rochard is correct on everything.

Those are two of the most dramatic and verifiable facts.

Well you can't explain it because NIST couldn't, FEMA admitted it couldn't, and there was never an investigation into what happened that day.

All we're left with are the two main facts and a tonne of unanswered questions and scientific-sounding conjectures, without a "somewhere" in between those points to bridge them following the laws of physics.

The physical evidence actually challenges the most popularly accepted theory, so it's ignored like any logical question or argument is by followers of any belief system.

:D

But, but, but, you don't understand.... when he said "pull it" he meant, his finger!

It was just a big joke, get it?...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2162/2...dfb8fe2c_z.jpg

Since you follow the "common sense" of the most commonly believed theory without answering any of the questions I raise or pointing out in the government story where the mechanisms that prompted collapse are described, can you point out where I outline any theory that could be considered "conspiracy" as mine or contribute any information that takes a back seat to Physics?

:D

Let's not go that far....

I've always just been ruled by common sense. Common sense tells me that when a huge jet airliner hits a sky scraper, there's a pretty good chance the skyscraper is going to fall down. And when a tall building falls down, they don't tip over, they fall straight down. Nothing that anyone has showed me proves that it didn't happen the way it did.

Exactly! That's why, when a plane slammed into building 7, it went straight down. You got that right, no doubt!

Huh? What? Building 7 was never hit by a plane? Well, I'm sure it was close enough...

Again, this is an orange...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

And this guy wants you to pull his finger...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

Christianity is outdated...

911 is a modern day religion

http://www.jasonvana.com/wp-content/...lic-Church.jpg

This was a huge event and lots of things happened that day. At the same time, it was widely photographed and video taped, witnessed by thousands of people in person, and hundreds of thousands more live on television. It's easy to second guess everything and ask questions. But you second guess the most obvious things and then refuse to accept the explanation.

My favorite example is the so called "squibs". Clearly, we can see something popping out of the corners of the towers as they come down. Looks suspicious, huh? However, you need to stop thinking of the towers are "buildings" and more of "enclosed cities that housed fifty thousand people". Everything that was needed by fifty thousand people was housed in the towers... Steam, water, air, Hydraulic fluid - did you know that their was lines for Hydraulic fluid all the way to the very top of the towers... For the window cleaning. Is it not possible that one of these lines, under pressure under normal circumstances, burst and found the path of least resistance, exploding out of the building? Don't answer that yet.

At the same time, the buildings were air tight - completely air tight, meaning you couldn't open up any windows. You have dozens of air tight floors with all of that air instantly being compressed with no where to go. Again, something found the path of least resistance and exploded out of the side of the building.

When it's on crappy video taken from miles away and zoomed in on, it could be anything, but according to the 9/11 so called truth moment it can only be one thing: Explosives.

Speaking of explosives, there's a lot of discussion about certain chemicals found in the debris. This seems to come as a surprise to some, but common sense tells you that a city of fifty thousand people would have pretty much everything it needed to support itself. We discussed Barium earlier - you said it was impossible to have barium found there - yet sixty seconds of research tells me it's found in light bulbs. Another commonly discussed chemical is thermite, which is laughable. Of course there was thermite - it's using in welding, and the WTC complex was constantly under construction with improvements, upgrades, companies moving in and out, etc. Then there was sulfur found - Really? Setting aside the construction uses, I ram sulfur down my throat when my stomach is upset... Is it so difficult to understand that in a city of fifty thousand people that wasn't a few thousand bottles of Tums?

Anything that you come at me with can quickly be explained away by using common sense. In the mean time, you can't give me a reason why anyone would want to do this. You talk about pipelines that have been in the planning stages for twenty years, and the Jew bashers are trying to tell us that Israel is behind it - while ten years later, nothing has changed for Israel.

You got nothing.

I love this video! You show a building that looks like it's completely undamaged, and then claim it fell for no reason. Even before that, WTC7 was in fire on multiple floors. It burned out of control from 9am until 5pm.

Again, your making it sound like a "building on fire fell for no reason". But the truth is more like if you take a building and set it on fire, and then let it burn unchecked.... Sooner or later it's going to collapse.

at least know the basics and read the source material first before you try and discuss anything.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f..._qa_082108.cfm

It wasn't just fires that damaged WTC7. The commentator clearly said that there was lots of damage by debris of WTC 1 and 2, as witnessed in the video and by police and firefighters who were at the scene.

Come on everyone, its time to put this thing to rest.

If you want to think that some people had a hand in 9/11 then fine. Do your digging and connect your dots, but please stop calling the destruction of WTC a "controlled demolition". It is the silliest, most stupid argument that so-called "Truthers" can make and it makes everything else you say sound extra dumb. There is no evidence that this took place.

Same goes for silly ORB sightings. Geezuz you people sound dumb.

No Orbs. No UFO's. No Bigfoots, no God, no Magic, no controlled demolition.

what specifically are your issues with the data there, genius?