Originally Posted by Rochard

Two huge towers - millions of tons of steel and concrete and what not - fell at the foot of WTC7. It was like an earthquake. Setting aside the fact that the building was on fire for hours, and damaged, it'a amazing any of the buildings are remained standing.

Originally Posted by **********

You keep saying it was symmetrical, and it wasn't. It looks symmetrical thanks to the distance the various cameras were away from the WTC. If you were far away, it would like they they fell straight down. If you were right beside it, it would be falling in a chaotic mess all around you in all different directions. A "Symmetrical collapse" is a perceived notion only.

Originally Posted by **********

If it were ONLY the jet fuel that was burning, maybe you're right, but other materials including gasses were burning as well. Jet fuel can burn at temps up to 980 degrees celcius. The temperature at which steel changes from cementite and pearlite (strong phases of steel) to austenite (significantly less strong) is 702.5 deg. Celsius.

Originally Posted by **********

Don't forget too that there was lots of damage to the building too. Damage + heat + time weakend a couple of beams (maybe only one, who knows) which caused it to bend, which caused more weight on those beams, which then bent even more, until the collapse.

Originally Posted by **********

Dude : You know I'm no engineer or scientist, but I have more than a passing interest in science, technology, physics and even astrophysics. Everything I have seen of ever video of the event clearly points to nothing more than fire and damage caused by planes which caused the collapse.

Originally Posted by **********

I have seen the side-by-side video of WTC and a controlled demolition of some building. They look similar for sure and the comparison is quite interesting, but its only interesting for a few minutes. All it takes as a little zooming in onto the details of the WTC collapse to see that it was very different from a controlled demolition.

Originally Posted by Rochard

So it was hot enough to melt steel only if your theory was correct, but not when we apply the government theory.

Originally Posted by Rochard

You sat there and you argued that it wasn't hot enough. NOW your telling us it was more than hot enough. You don't believe the government theory, but when it's your theory it was plenty hot enough.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Simple. Any third grader can explain it with their blocks. Build a tower of blocks, quickly remove an entire "floor" of blocks, and the the next row (floor) of blocks falls straight down. In other words, the blocks would fall down on each other.

Originally Posted by Rochard

I saw fireballs and an hour long fire. We all did. The fireballs were so big that they traveled down ninety floors and exploded in the lobby.

Originally Posted by Rochard

The core on one floor failed, passing the weight of the floor above it to the outer columns - of which thirty percent was destroyed.

Originally Posted by Rochard

An hour long fire weakened outer columns until they were unable to support the weight above it.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Note that columns on multiple floors were missing and others damaged.

Originally Posted by Rochard

There was no way the tower could continue to support itself.

Originally Posted by Rochard

This like third grade blocks here. Build a tower, remove one of the supports, and the tower falls down. A number of the outer columns were destroyed, others damaged, the core was destroyed, and when the weight was passed over to the outer columns... Eventually they gave way.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

The building was not the equivalent of third grade wooden blocks.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

If the design was so weak that removing "one of the supports and the tower falls down" was possible, it wouldn't have been built.

Originally Posted by wehateporn

With those who are still clinging onto the official 9/11 story at this advanced stage, I believe the best approach to convert them would be challenge the trust they have for Western authority, if that trust can be damaged, then they will be able to reconsider 9/11 in an open fashion, instead of feeling that they already know the conclusion before they've started investigating

Originally Posted by wehateporn

With those who are still clinging onto the official 9/11 story at this advanced stage, I believe the best approach to convert them would be challenge the trust they have for Western authority, if that trust can be damaged, then they will be able to reconsider 9/11 in an open fashion, instead of feeling that they already know the conclusion before they've started investigating

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

"clinging to the official story"?

"trust for western authority"?

Really? So if someone doesn't agree with your objective, well reasoned opinion based solely on the evidence (according to you), then a person is "clinging to the official story"?

This is the choice? Any party in this discussion/debate can only be delusional or brainwashed?

Originally Posted by Rochard

I don't believe in "Western authority". Or the media. Or our government.

For example, I don't believe JFK died the way he died. I question the Gulf Of Tonkin, Bay Of Pigs, or the USS Liberty incident. I bet half of what our government tells us is far from the truth. But that doesn't mean I have to question everything I'm told.

A fucking airliner hit a skyscraper that is 200 feet wide - and hollow. That in itself is the only fact you need to know.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Sure it was. Remove the support of the floor below, and all hell breaks loose.

Originally Posted by Rochard

But it wasn't "one of the supports" that was removed. It was dozens.

Originally Posted by Rochard

A fucking airliner hit a skyscraper that is 200 feet wide - and hollow. That in itself is the only fact you need to know.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

I doubt anything that is one-sixth the mass of another object would be able to crush it down so fast and perfectly, taking out the basements somehow on the way down. Certainly the area above the floor or floors that give would collapse down - but it would stop due to the uncompromised majority of the structure beneath being intact, or it would topple since the chances of a symmetrical and simultaneous failure of all joints and support for that one floor is pretty slim to impossible.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Actually it was about three dozen, say 35 perimeter columns, out of 235 perimeter columns, that were severed or critically damaged. The building wasn't so badly built that removing between 7 and 15% of its structural support would completely annihilate the remaining 85% that was for all intents and purposes, especially considering the relatively low temperatures hypothesized by the official theory, structurally intact.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

The WTC was far from hollow - in fact it was the complete opposite, with one of the most solid core support structures in building history.

The "tube within a tube" description is deceptive at best.

:D

Originally Posted by Rochard

You have it backwards. It wasn't an object one sixth crushing something six time larger. The floors above were six times heavier than the floor below it could support. Thus, it collapsed.

Originally Posted by Rochard

So what your saying is that each side had 58 columns, and nearly half of one side was destroyed. That's before the fire PLUS the stress of the weight above it.

Originally Posted by Rochard

I mean, seriously, take a look at this picture? How in the world do you expect that not to collapse?

Originally Posted by Rochard

Compared to other buildings, it was rather hollow. It was the other perimeter and the inner core that supported the building, as opposed to other buildings that have support throughout each floor.

Originally Posted by Rochard

There was physically no support from the inner core to the outer wall:

Originally Posted by Rochard

It's pretty simple: A huge airplane destroyed an entire side of perimeter support across ten floors, damaged the core, and further fire weakened it.

Originally Posted by Rochard

From wikipedia:

After the planes hit the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel. As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of higher floors. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards.

The building fell because a fucking airplane destroyed a large percentage of the support and the building was unable to support it's own weight.

Originally Posted by Rochard

It's pretty simple. Take out 70 percent of my load bearing walls on one side of my house, the second floor is coming down.

Originally Posted by Rochard

I don't believe in "Western authority". Or the media. Or our government.

For example, I don't believe JFK died the way he died. I question the Gulf Of Tonkin, Bay Of Pigs, or the USS Liberty incident. I bet half of what our government tells us is far from the truth. But that doesn't mean I have to question everything I'm told.

A fucking airliner hit a skyscraper that is 200 feet wide - and hollow. That in itself is the only fact you need to know.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

... and crushed one or a few weakened floors. What about the 70 or 80 structurally sound, unheated floors below those? Where was the resistance? How did they each give out in about one-tenth of a second each?

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Half of one side, meaning one-eighth of the support of a floor or a few floors. Even if it was a whole side that was completely eradicated, the buildings were designed to take such an impact, even a couple such impacts each.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

A form of failure would be logical if it followed the path of least resistance. However the failure went down vertically through the path of most resistance.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

The floors did not float in mid-air - there was plenty of truss support above and below each floor.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

On top of this ridiculous contention, the increasingly thickened core column support also disappeared in dust. If the official version were logical, wouldn't this "spindle" have remained? It wasn't grated to shreds by the only part of the airplane massive and hard enough to sever them - the engines - from top to bottom zig-zag style...

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

On one of four sides of a few floors, probably. Does this explain the absence of an uneven, logical toppling in at least one of the towers? Instead two towers hit differently collapsed identically.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

The building was made to support it's own weight beyond the extrapolated damage in the NIST report.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

What about the Oklahoma City bombing?

/

Originally Posted by Rochard

What about it? I've never given it much thought.

Originally Posted by Captain Kawaii

http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5656

That page or wikipedia... which is whackier?

Actually, some interesting posts on the first page...

Originally Posted by Rochard

One damaged floor didn't fall onto one un-damaged floor. It's more like a dozen floors fell onto "less damaged floors" below it. Because the outer column was damaged, it pretty much affected ALL floors.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Again, your making sound as if the damage was limited. A certain number of the columns were just gone. Once you lost multiple columns, you weaken everything.

Originally Posted by Rochard

It did follow the path of least resistance - down. One floor (or multiple floors) fell down onto the floors below it. You don't drop an entire floor onto the floor below it and have it tip over sideways.

Originally Posted by Rochard

The floors were supported by columns and the core, not the floor below it. In other words, there was no load bearing walls. In fact, there were no walls - the entire space from the core to the outer perimeter was empty. They put walls into to make rooms for the offices, but none of those walls were load bearing at all.

Originally Posted by Rochard

They floated in the air - they were hooked up the outer column and the core, no place else.

Originally Posted by Rochard

You understand the core itself was hollow, had a dozen elevators, bathrooms, support rooms, right?

Originally Posted by Rochard

The two towers were built the same, and were both hit by airplanes pretty much in the same fashion. Airplanes hit both buildings, damaged columns, weakened or destroyed the core support, and caused massive hour long fires that weakened the now damaged structure.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Sure, totally; I'm sure it was. The building was designed to support it's own weight.

However, the building was not designed to survive an impact, have the outer perimeter destroyed and weakened, and then it wasn't design to have multiple floors crashing down.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Could it support the extra weight? Maybe? But not when most of the support was weakened and the weight was crashing down the way it was.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Media Guy, you can sit here and debate this all you want. The truth is an airplane slice through the buildings, destroying a percentage of the column support and instantly weakening all of the perimeter. The core was also damaged. The damage to the support, the fire that continued to weaken everything eventually lead to one or more floors collapsing onto the floor before it, which was unable to support the load because it too was damaged. It was only a matter of time before it fell.

Originally Posted by Rochard

What about it? I've never given it much thought.

Originally Posted by mayabong

Too bad someone wasn't there to call these men conspiracy theorists and retards. These guys were obviously loons. He even said other there might be bombs in other buildings.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Okay, I listened to the first fifteen seconds and they are talking about explosions in the lobby before the building collapsed. YOU THINK? Fireballs that traveled nearly one hundred floors, fires everywhere... Of course shit was exploding.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Actually, 15% or less of the perimeter columns being damaged would not affect ALL floors or the core.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

True, if a large number of perimieter columns were compromised top-to-bottom. But they were not. The damage WAS limited, as per engineers' and architects' expected designs...

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

If that floor were more solid, uncompromised and structurally sound, then yes your top section would meet resistance and either take much more than one-tenth of a second to give way, or present the much more likely amount of resistance that would cause the toppling upper section to tilt towards the side where structure was most compromised and weak.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

And this doesn't explain why the core disappeared, the perimeters shredded, and the whole building was destroyed as though the whole thing was hit by a 100-storey jet plane.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Yes. And no combustibles, and 50 columns thicker than your bathroom, which got thicker the further down you went, and whose shredding can in no way be accounted for by the official theory.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

The two airplanes hit in completely different fashion. There is no proof that core columns were damaged, even if it's likely; in fact the impact that could be considered "glancing" had a titanium engine go right through, which removes the possibility that it hit any of the core columns.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

An hour-long fire would not weaken steel unless it was approximately 6 times the reported temperatures.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Actually, this is precisely what it was designed to withstand. One of the building engineers is quoted as saying that they could withcstand multiple impacts of this sort, based on the largest airliner at the time, which contained more steel and less aluminum than modern air craft.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

The truth is, the building was designed to take your airplane hit.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Actually, neither have I, but it was the one conspiracy theory you didn't mention :P

It was also the instigator of the first "Patriot Act"....

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Really? How could explosions occur in the lobby before the collapse? How could they (as reported by other witnesses) occur before the impacts?

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Your fireballs are hypothetical, and could not take out basements. Explain those.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

The possible fireballs that you believe in would have descended the elevator shafts (possibly) and taken out either one of the sky-lobbies, the lobby or blown out the doors of the sub-basements. Not all of these, and certainly not the structural bases of the basements.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

A fireball is a ball of fire, not an explosive event. How could it have taken out (for example) the huge marble tiles of the walls in the actual labbies?

Originally Posted by Rochard

The perimeter columns supported all of the floors - from the ground level up to the top. They perimeter columns were damaged, and in some cases completely destroyed. The perimeter columns started to bend outwards due to the damage and the fires, pulling the trusses on every floor below it.

Originally Posted by Rochard

You keep trying to minimise the damage to the perimeter columns. In some places they were completely destroy, so nothing was supporting the floors above. The perimeter columns were also pushed out, pulling the floors with them which not only affected the perimeter columns below, but also affected the perimeter columns on all sides being as the floor and the trusses holding the floor in place were being pulled away.

Originally Posted by Rochard

But not all floors were uncompromised or structurally sound.

Originally Posted by Rochard

And no, nothing would have "tilted to the side". The floors fell down. Not sideways.

Originally Posted by Rochard

A massive one story building collapsed. This was so massive that it caved in ten levels underground, and was still ten stories tall above ground. Millions and millions of tons of concrete, steel, and god knows what fell.

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is where your points fail. Your making it sounds like the core magically disappeared, but that would have happened no matter what. Even if the building was brought down entirely by explosives, the core and everything else would have been pulverised and turned into debris.

Originally Posted by Rochard

What do you mean by no combustibles? In the core itself were utility rooms with back up batteries and generators. Bathrooms had paper towels and rags and trash bins. Your making the core to be solid steel with the fact it was elevtaors and rooms full of combustibles with load bearing walls.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Two large airplanes hit two tall buildings.

Saying they were different is like saying one car hit another car head on at 70mph opposed to one car hitting the passenger door head on at 70mph. Very different, but you still end up with the same result.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Planes crashed into the towers, destroying the support and hitting the core.

Originally Posted by Rochard

So what your saying here is that thermite couldn't have been used to take down the buildings because the fire wasn't hot enough?

Originally Posted by Rochard

The buildings were designed to survive a plane crash, but not the kind of plane crash that happened. They were designed to survive an impact of a plan traveling at 300 mph - not a plane intentionally slammed into a building at almost twice that speed.

Originally Posted by Rochard

And the towers did in fact survive the impact. It was the impact and the resulting fires that took down the towers, not the impact itself.

Originally Posted by Rochard

No, it wasn't. It was designed to withstand an impact at 180mph, not the 600mph. Planes don't travel 600mph at that height, and at the time it no one imagined someone would intentionally ram the towers at 600mph.

Originally Posted by Rochard

And the Patriot Act did what?

Originally Posted by Rochard

Do you mean to tell me that the US government bombed buildings to enact a law? What exactly did that law accomplish? Can they read my email? Could they read my email before? Now? I'm sure they can.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Each floor was buttressed by the perimeter columns. The failure of these on one or multiple floors would not lead to their failure top to bottom of all floors.

The unlikely NIST theory is that the inner buttresses between the core and perimeter began to "sag" because somehow low temperatures for a short amount of time weakened the steel which they were made of.

The official conspiracy theory states the perimeter columns bent inwards, not "outwards" as you claim.

Regardless, this would not "pull" all perimeter columns all the way down to their undamaged and un-weakened base 80 stories below.



"in some places they were completely destroy" meaning that on one side out of four of several floors of the tower there was damage - 25% or less on those floors. They didn't affect the perimeter columns below, as video and photographic evidence shows.


Exactly correct. Most floors were uncompromised and structurally sound.


Yes they did fall down, vertically. Against all probability.

Out of three buildings, you'd think at least one would tilt and fall sideways, but none did.

One did start to fall sideways, but against all probability got "eaten up" and consumed in the vertical destruction.

There's nothing in these "collapses" that smacks of "origanic" or natural collapse...


A plane hit it at about the 80th level. How could that have any effect on the multiple sub-basements that were eradicated?


Well certainly if there had been a planned demolition the core would have been destroyed - it is one of the sturdiest parts of the structure, and would require special attention.

But your officially sanctioned theory would have it that the building fell by happenstance, and that the core somehow was pulverized along with the "accidental" destruction of the exterior columns and inner floors.



Toilet paper and plastic toilet seats will not melt steel. There were no office furnitures in the cores. Batteries and generators weren't detected or reported as having melted down.


One building was hit head-on. Nothing erupted from the other side. The other was hit at an angle, and one engine apparently went through out the other side. Most of the Airliner fuel was ignited outside one building, whereas most was ignited inside the the other.

The buildings suffered very different impacts.


Nice, popular theory with no basis in reality. The support was not "destroyed" and the core was not "hit" or compromised. NIST report.


What I'm saying is that the government theory cannot account for the behaviour of the steel and the building with its ridiculously low temperatures.

What I'm saying is that it would require exceedingly hotter temperatures than those accounted for by the government hypothesis to produce the results we were witness to...


The impact speed was secondary.

Another thing is the actual speed of the airliner - according to pilots who disagree with the official theory, commercial airliners couldn't reach or maintain such a speed at this elevation and air pressure. It's unlikely that they were actually going as fast as reported, and even if it was possible they wouldn't have compromised the entire structure's solidity.


If they survived the impact, it wouldn't have affected their integrity. According to readings, they oscillated perfectly and behaved exactly according to projections.

There's no reason - and there were no indications - that they would crash down through their basements.


About the intentional ramming of planes in the buildings - you're wrong. They were expected, and planned for.

The speed estimates have been exaggerated through ignorance. No commercial airliner can move at 600mph at this sea-level and air-pressure. Whether 200mph or 400mph, these sorts of incidents were considered.

Plenty of agencies were planning for such attacks. Only Condie Rice and Bush Jr. ever claimed that no one imagined attacks of this sort.


Made your life so much better.


I didn't or don't conjecture what "the US government" did or didn't do. I know they can do a lot more now without legal or constitutional resort than they could before September 11, 2001.

Whether or not that's affected you yet I can't say. I can bet that it will sooner or later though...

:D

Originally Posted by Rochard

You are right.

You have changed my mind.

It's obvious to me now that by smashing a jet airliner into a skyscraper it's impossible to bring it down. It didn't happen the way the government told us. Clearly the Jews wanted us to build a pipeline through Afighanistan.

Thank you for helping me see the truth.

Originally Posted by Rochard

You are right.

You have changed my mind.

It's obvious to me now that by smashing a jet airliner into a skyscraper it's impossible to bring it down. It didn't happen the way the government told us. Clearly the Jews wanted us to build a pipeline through Afighanistan.

Thank you for helping me see the truth.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Glad to hear you've approached it from a science/physics point of view.

Though I don't know what you're talking about Jews for. I didn't even mention Zionists... what's your point?

:D

Originally Posted by Rochard

Oh no, I took science right out of it and now it makes perfect sense.

You told me that the fire didn't burn hot enough to bend the steel beams. But then you told me that Thermite must have been used, which means the fire was four times hotter than required to bend the steel beams. Once you take science out of everything, anything you say makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Actually that's not correct according to too much video and eyewitness testimony. If you don't see symmetry and global obliteration there, you're not watching enough videos.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Yes they did fall down, vertically. Against all probability.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

The impact speed was secondary.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Another thing is the actual speed of the airliner - according to pilots who disagree with the official theory, commercial airliners couldn't reach or maintain such a speed at this elevation and air pressure. It's unlikely that they were actually going as fast as reported, and even if it was possible they wouldn't have compromised the entire structure's solidity.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

If they survived the impact, it wouldn't have affected their integrity.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

According to readings, they oscillated perfectly and behaved exactly according to projections.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

There's no reason - and there were no indications - that they would crash down through their basements.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

No, I said the government's version isn't consistent or logical because it's version has fires burning much below and for much less time required to soften/bend/weaken steel.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

The only way the steel could have softened/bent/weakened so much - and so universally and equally - in such a short time is if the alternate theory were accurate.

Originally Posted by **********

You cannot dismiss speed because it does not fit with your view of the "Facts".

Originally Posted by **********

Just because some pilots disagree doesn't mean they are right. Radar and GPS data make it easy to know the speed.

Originally Posted by **********

Exactly how many supporting beams have to be wiped out before it would infect the integrity of the building?

Originally Posted by **********

Oscillation did not destroy the buildings. Projections did not include the melting of steal beams. WTC was built in the 1960's before computer aided design. There was no possible way to simulate a plane crashing into it, let alone render it and the damage due to fire, especially in any great detail. "Projections" at the time, while I'm sure based on the best engineers at the time, were nothing more than good guesses.

Originally Posted by **********

The amount of energy at floor level was 5 x 10^11 Joules. http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf . More than enough energy to crash through the basement and destroy everything.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Your right, the government's version isn't consistent at all. This is because it's not putting out a story at all, but instead, smaller government agencies are trying to explain what happened. These government agencies do not have anyone telling them what to say, and they come up with their own, independent versions of what happened.

Originally Posted by **********

It's like ten people seeing a car accident from different angles. Ten people will come up with three or four explanations of what happened.

Originally Posted by **********

The truth is they are trying to explained what happened on 9/11 without having enough information, and only going on clues. They can't explain why steel bent because they didn't have a camera up there recording what happened during that hour.

Originally Posted by **********

You can pick it apart so quickly because we don't have all of the answers - and we never will.

Originally Posted by **********

Not true at all. You assuming that only fire did damage.

Originally Posted by **********

At the moment of impact, some of the support was instantly destroyed while others were damaged. Yet other support beams were instantly supporting more and more weight. The already damaged beams, under a huge amount of stress, were then exposed to heat... Plenty enough to do further damage to the beams.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

I don't dismiss the speed for those reasons. I dismiss it because regardless or the speed of the impact, it wouldn't have made a difference to the damage or the resulting effect to the building/s...

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

....most of the engineers and pilots in question refer to the maneuvers as extraordinary.

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

What I do know is that steel of this sort needs controlled and constant temperatures to reach the point of weakness or complete failure of support. Apparently on the order of three hours. This so-called rate is usually 2500°F, which none of the three towers reached in their intended periods...

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Wow. So rather than the "official" story which is put out by the govt. you're saying they're all saying something different?

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

We can't have the answers obviously because for some reason the City of New York thought it was appropriate to remove the evidence and recycle most of it....

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Not true at all. I'm not assuming anything. I consider the facts that according to building designers and steel support construction, buildings such as WTC 1 and 2 as well as number 7 could not have collapsed due to the damage incurred by the foreseen airline impacts and fires which occurred...

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Your belief that exposure to the government's theorized amount of heat caused the building/s to collapse is no more than a religious aspiration - purely belief-based without a shred of actual scientific confirmation.

Originally Posted by dgraves

I'd like to see at least one other camera angle of the Pentagon attack. My gym has 12 cameras monitoring the outside so I'm a little surprised that the Pentagon only has a parking lot gate camera keeping an eye on things.

Originally Posted by dgraves

I'd like to see at least one other camera angle of the Pentagon attack. My gym has 12 cameras monitoring the outside so I'm a little surprised that the Pentagon only has a parking lot gate camera keeping an eye on things.