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Christianity is outdated...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?

Does it look like a controlled demolition? Sure does. That's because a building demolition takes out a floor, and makes the floors above it collapse down - until the other floors. In this case, we didn't need an explosion - we had an airplane instead.

It's just like the birthers. They honestly believed there was no birth certificate, and then when one was produced they called it fake. Don't they feel stupid now?

I haven't heard explanations - only leaps of logic into leaps of faith; "common sense" logic, probability, possibility, hypotheses and theory.

There's nothing wrong with all these because we simply have not been given an explanation or investigation. We've been given a possible scenario, whose likelihood is closer to impossible than improbable.

I'd like to know how asymmetrical inward bowing of perimeter columns could lead to global, symmetrical collapse and the destruction of core columns. How fire and heat that should take several hours to even soften steel in an enclosed area, can do so in less than an hour in open-air conditions.

But just generally, I'd like to know how they get from point A to C without passing by B.

It's not what NIST says, since of course they will not say anything that is, in and of itself, incorrect. All they say, taken on its own, is probably 100% correct.

It's what they don't say, explain or outline that frustrates me. It's their denial of molten, lava-like rivers of steel beneath the debris.

Actually "squibs" or ejections of air, dust and other materials pop out of windows, not corners or anywhere there's solid structural support.

The problems with some of the squibs in the WTC videos is that they're erupting from building corners, where three to four solid steel skyscraper beams are intersecting...

The buildings were buildings, please. Their self-enclosure did not mean they created their own air to breathe; and the "air tight" argument goes "out the window" when those planes made those big holes in them, the engines and explosion of fuel punched holes in the walls and windows on the other side, and the so-called fireballs managed to fly shrieking down the elevator shafts to the lobby and blow out those doors while setting other fires along the way, I guess by blowing out those elevator doors too.

Anyhow, the kinds of ejections you're talking about happen with progressive collapses, or rather "pancaking". Since NIST and others discount progressive collapse, and since those who support the popular theory talk about all the air and wind needed to keep these fires "raging" for so long, you're contradicting yourself with the whole squibs as air-ejections.

Eh, you can lay off the Barium, I admitted I shouldn't have mentioned it solely, and that I meant it's apparent higher-than-normal levels. However it was a "for example" reference since I didn't have the actual USGS study or independent analysis before me.

Thermite and unignited Thermate flakes were found in much of the dust, from many sources. Thermite is not used for indoor welding, and somehow I don't think they would have found it so evidently in the dust if it was from the initial weld jobs forty years ago.

Iron spheres were found in enormous quantities in all the dust samples from non-WTC buidings all around, and were even the basis for a couple of lawsuits because of the connection with WTC, Silverstein Enterprises and the Port Authority - whoever was being sued by the insurance companies concerned.

Iron spheres can only be created by very very high temperatures that cause steel to separate and evaporate into these tiny little globular drops of metal that then harden in mid-air. Which is impossible in the temperatures reported and theorized by NIST and the other government bodies.

The sheer amount of these little iron balls can't be accounted by the welding that occured after the collapse, partly because there wasn't that much metal cutting, all the beams were already about the length required to load onto trucks, and secondly because the residue of metal cutting in the pit wouldn't make it as far as the initial dust cloud did, to deposit dust in layers inches thick in apartments dozens of blocks away.

Well I don't have to give a why, or who, did it, though it can be fun to consider, and there's so many people who benefited that it's hard to define any precise modus. I tend to favor the PNAC > Bush Regime > Big War Machine line of consideration, as well as the whole trading off of homeland freedom for security erosions of our world since the event.

That's what I say.

Don't dismiss any of the findings and evaluations in any government report, they're probably factual. It's the conclusions that are head-scratchers.

During the 1940s a B25 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building. To this day it blows my mind that the Empire State Building is still standing. However, the differences are staggering. The Empire State Building is "old school" - all concrete and steel and not hollow at all - the plane was a lot less smaller, had less fuel, and was flying a lot slower.

You tell me that an airliner has hit a building, and to me it's only common sense that the airplane is going to win.

Simple. The outer structure was damaged, nothing was holding up the floors, and then fell - down.

I never said anything about "softening steel". It was weakened. You have balls and jet fuel, it's common sense that steel can be weakened.

How many times do we have to cover this? The debris was on fire underground for weeks. It was so hot they mapped hot spots from airplanes. This simmered for weeks.

You haven't researched this, have you? The lines for the hydraulic fluid that ran lifts for the window washers were located in all four corners of the towers every few floors. That hydraulic fluid had to go someplace, and being as it had an outlet (read: weak point) every few floors where they hooked up to it, it's pretty plausible that this was hydraulic fluid bursting out of the buildings at high speed, taking debris with it.

These were not buildings in the traditional sense at all. They were in fact air tight - there was a massive hvac system that was larger than most buildings that pumped air in and out of the buildings. The elevator shafts were hermetically sealed, and not all floors were compromised.

Dude, seriously, Wikipedia:

Thermite is not an explosive; instead it operates by exposing a very small area of metal to extremely high temperatures. Intense heat focused on a small spot can be used to cut through metal or weld metal components together both by melting metal from the components, and by injecting molten metal from the thermite reaction itself.

Thermite may be used for repair by the welding in-place of thick steel sections such as locomotive axle-frames where the repair can take place without removing the part from its installed location.

Your telling me that Thermite is an explosion that was used to bring down buildings, and wikipedia is telling me it's not an explosive. Wikipedia is also telling me it's used in welding. The caption I grabbed says "thick steel sections" - as one would imagine would be used in a skyscraper.

Of course thermite is going to be present. The entire skyscraper was built using it.

I don't know what happened but I do know that those buildings were built to withstand hits from airplanes and jets. All skyscrapers are. I also know that such large buildings (like building 7) do not collapse due to a fire that isn't even visible from the outside.

A lot of crazy things happened on that day. Most of it will never be explained so everyone can agree. But honestly, box cutters? How many of you would allow some Arab to take control of a plane with a fucking box cutter? He would get his head stomped in. On the other hand, Americans are such pansies asses, maybe they did allow Arabs with box cutters to control the plane and fly it into the buildings. But at the end of the day, I don't care. And I don't care because even if the truth came out that it was an inside job ordered from the White House, they would still get away with it and nothing would happen. A few protests, some media, a Facebook black out or some stupid shit, and that would be that. So I don't care either way. I live on the other side of the world now and honestly can't be bothered about 9-11 unless it's to whip some of you up in a frenzy.

Thermite can be used as a cutting agent, if Thermite was explosive this would be counter-productive during a controlled demolition as it would also blow the cutting agent away from the steel it was meant to cut. This is why Thermite is used in conjunction with with explosives during controlled demolitions; the Thermite cuts the steel then the explosives move the cut pieces away from the support structure

yes they were built to withstand the planes of the early 70s.

funny how most truthers are libertarians of the ron paul variety who think that government is a total inefficient failure in everything they do except for when it comes to 9/11 where now the government has near-superhuman planning, efficiency, execution, cunning and competency.

It wasn't the government

They had fake bombs which they were threatening to detonate... not just "box cutters".
:2 cents:

oh yeah the illuminati, aliens or whatever.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._sept_11_.html

One flight attendant on American Flight 11, which also crashed into the World Trade Center, said she was disabled by a chemical spray, while another flight attendant said a passenger was stabbed or shot. On the Pentagon plane, American Flight 77, Barbara Olson reported hijackers carrying knives and box cutters but did not describe how they took the cockpit. And on United Flight 93, passengers reported knives but also a hijacker threatening to explode a bomb.

No need to be silly, it's already been discussed time and time again so I can't be arsed

who is it? i can't remember.

why not state it for our education?

Enough of this...taking too much of my time :upsidedow

Yes. No.

They were built to withstand the impact of a 1960s jet carrying 1960s fuel that hit the tower by accident - not a 1990s jet with higher octane intentionally ramming the building at a much higher speed.

You can even argue the towers did in fact withstand the towers.

My car is designed so I can survive a head on impact at 30mph. But if the car explodes, I'm out of luck.

Sure, I can see it. Someone with a box cutter in a crowded space can slice a dozen people before someone figures out what's going on and is able to do something about it.

why does this persist?

no one here will ever be able to do anything about it.

give up...and move on...rape the whirlwind

You missed the entire point.

They - the "so called truth movement" - claims that thermite is the smoking gun proving that explosives were present. The truth is thermite is used for welding, and it would surprising if thermite wasn't present.

Now your telling me that thermite is used in conjunction WITH explosives.... Then explain to me how we can detect thermite but yet we found no explosives?

The differences between the Empire State and WTC are enough that they don't have to come up in these discussions. The speed of the aircraft probably made all the difference.


If the outer structure was damaged - and we know only one quarter of the outer structure at the uppermost portions of the buildings was affected - how can you say nothing was holding up the floors. Even NIST says this isn't so. About seven percent of the structure encompassing those floors at that elevetion was compromised.

And even if this would lead to collapse - how could it lead to uniform collapse? Why wouldn't it just collapse on one side...

When these NIST and engineer people refer to weakened steel, they mean softened by exposure to heat.

Taking this into account, modern skyscrapers, beyond using complex infrastructural design to create stronger steel constructs out of equal or lesser volumes of material, are also built to take massive fires and heating into account so that softening or "weakening" distributes gravity loads equally to absorb the weight and prevent failure, effectively turning the weakened areas into a spring or shock absorption system.

It wasn't "debris" however. It was described by first responders, fire professionals and others as "flowing rivers" of liquid and molten magma-like material, glowing dark orange, like liquefied steel.

Normal building "debris" wouldn't burn for weeks, or cause massive steam explosions when firefighters dropped water on it.

Hydraulic fluid, I feel confident in stating, is not composed of anything potentially explosive; regardless of it's rapid expansion potential, I doubt it could take out cross-welded industrial steel connections or it wouldn't be used.

One video in particular taken from nearby, not miles away and zoomed in, clearly shows WTC building corners disintegrating explosively.

All agreed, all until they were severely compromised. Regardless, temperatures that were about 20% less of what would have weakened steel did not occur. And if they were so hermetic, how could the fire have had the oxygen it needed to propagate and generate temperatures sufficient to weaken steel?

[QUOTE=Rochard;18828344]Dude, seriously, Wikipedia:

Thermite is not an explosive; instead it operates by exposing a very small area of metal to extremely high temperatures. Intense heat focused on a small spot can be used to cut through metal or weld metal components together both by melting metal from the components, and by injecting molten metal from the thermite reaction itself.

Thermite may be used for repair by the welding in-place of thick steel sections such as locomotive axle-frames where the repair can take place without removing the part from its installed location.

Dude, seriously - this is a description of what I told you about welding with thermite. It's done outside, usually with copper for big electrical connections or things like railway ties; it's not used indoors.

Also, I never said it was explosive; in fact I distinctly cited "incendiaries" and metal cutting - and thermate, which is generally iron oxide mixed with sulfur or "super thermite". However it burns very hot and very fast and cuts steel like butter, producing molten iron (which was observed in the basements and beneath the rubble after the collapses).

What's described above is when you used a very small amount of thermite; and thermite and thermate (especially the military application) can be used to coat areas, or directed by devides, to simply slice through steel beams from railway ties to the incredible thick and strong core columns of the WTC.

I never said it was an explosive, or even explosive. I said unignited flakes of thermate (and possibly thermite, I don't remember) as well as thermite residue were found in the dust.

From what I know, the steel beams of the WTC were bolt-welded, unless the very earliest foundational components were done with thermite, which I doubt; I might look it up if it's possible, though from what I understand exothermic welding or whatever it's called is usually done to bond two different types of metal or for major electrical copper and other conductive electrical joints. Not for steel skyscraper frame construction...

Sorry Mediaguy you're wrong on absolutely everything in that last post. Please provide details, proof and links.

Which were heavier and contained more steel than modern airframes.

From what I've read this isn't so. From the "Truth Movement" sites I've read, no one claims thermite is a smoking gun. The smoking gun reference I've seen has always referred to the WTC7 collapse which was identical to a controlled demolition.

Thermite was found in the dust. Other indicators of indendiaries including uninignited thermate were identified as well as trace or residual explosive and incendiary by-products, if you will. The truth is thermite has classically been used for taking down large structures like derricks and tall, steel constructs.

Who says we found no explosives? Trace elements, residuals, yes.

NIST is the one who admitted they didn't even look for explosives.

If these buildings were demolished, it looks like they were weakened prior by metal-cutting agents, because of the distinct remnants of unexploded incendiaries found and the predominance of vaporised iron spheres, and probably displaced by relatively lighter and lesser amounts of explosives used to take out buildings traditionally.

The shape of the beam cutting could have also allowed gravity to compress the structure easily and fall into itself without resistance and minimal explosive assistance (yes, that is a hypothetical).

I'm not aware of the by-products of explosive charges and their likelihood of fallout or residue in the event of their use, particularly if they're minimized to non-destructive, targetted displacement use.

But the presence of thermate alone, and the eutectic steel corrosion initially identified by FEMA, should have prompted an investigation (when in fact any destruction of a building of this sort is automatically investigated for these materials, according to the fire inspection manual).

:D

Maybe I could ask you to provide details and proof and links determining I'm wrong?

:D

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...002/7TOCPJ.htm

lighter construction materials were to be applied to the 7X7.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

http://www.ae911truth.org/fr/nouvell...un-of-911.html

http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/wtc/

http://www.navysbir.com/n08_1/N081-020.htm

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110230.PDF

http://www.historycommons.org/contex...kedemo lition

?at that point he thought there were bombs up there because [the collapse] was too even.? [CITY OF NEW YORK, 12/6/2001] http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110230.PDF

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...68779414136481

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-e...rts-speak-out/

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/i....1289/ehp.5930

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/

http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/wtc/

.nih.gov/article/info:doi/10.1289/ehp.5930

http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=1728

There's more that your local TV station didn't report... probably avaiable upon request.

How many buildings have fallen down after 9/11?

Oh... uh... None.

:D

Mmmmmmmm pizaaaaaa...

http://franchise.littlecaesars.com/P...ull_hi_res.jpg

thats not a pizza

Is THIS a pizza?

http://www.aiellospizza.com/pizza-page.jpg

needs more toppings :)

2nd one looks better tho

Aliens from Israel.