So you keep saying but nowhere do you actually present any science, just your insistence that this 'science' exists. So please again, enlighten us with the science?

Persomnally I don't know anyone but conspiracy theorists who profess the towers fell due to jet fuel and fire. They fell because two great big fuckin planes flew into them, severing the load bearing structures, weakening others. The weight above could not be supported so the structural supports gave way, then the upper mass crushed everything below as it fell.

But hey if you have science that refutes this then please don't keep us on tender hooks.

Oh wait the same soldiers who are in Iraq to find the 'supposed' weapons of mass destruction?

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the building.[3] The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged by debris, including damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floors, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor. [3]

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_f...ic_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Lol, are you serious? It's called a 'False Flag Attack' and our country has used these before as a pretext for war. (i.e. the Gulf of Tonkin Incident) They create the problem so that they can offer us their solution.

And why would we want to go to war? Hmmm... Money, power, control maybe?

You can use ad hominems all you want to attack us 'nut jobs' but we have science and reality on our side. The science is out, there's no way that those towers collapsed due to jet fuel and office fires, it's laughable at this point.

What's with the 'we' and 'us' in your posts? Is it MPD, repping the wankers in your SR&A circle jerk or are you speaking on behalf of bubbles...he's a mute? Shouldn't it be 'show me the science!'

The 'we' and 'us' is a reference to the people like myself who say your wild accusation and hearsay are not enough. That you need to bring actual evidence to the table and back up your claims.

Because we aren't gonna sit quiet while you try to spurt cum (nonsense) into our faces and expect us to buy it, that being the result of your own 'circle-jerk'. I for one aint playing your soggy biscuit games, without an empirical reason to do so.

Notice how he/she ignored the content and attacked the wording.

So you keep saying but nowhere do you actually present any science, just your insistence that this 'science' exists. So please again, enlighten us with the science?

Persomnally I don't know anyone but conspiracy theorists who profess the towers fell due to jet fuel and fire. They fell because two great big fuckin planes flew into them, severing the load bearing structures, weakening others. The weight above could not be supported so the structural supports gave way, then the upper mass crushed everything below as it fell.

But hey if you have science that refutes this then please don't keep us on tender hooks.

Fuck me sideways,i understand what a false flag op is,my question to you is,WHY would they make such a piss poor effort at the Pentagon when they 'obviously' put so much time and effort into the Twin Towers.

Why would they risk the Pentaqgon attack ? What was the extra benefit?

Oh and you have fuck all science on your side,the science is out and it explains why and how the Towers fell.

Explain to me the benefits of the conspirators flying a plane into the pentagon,what would be the point when they would've achieved their goal with the Twin Tower hits ?
To be clear,i think you,and people like you,who buy into the crazy theory are all nut jobs,but i would love the hear WHY.

The twin towers was a totally different kettle of fish

Professor Steven Jones' examination of WTC steel has shown the presence of thermate-signature chemical elements. Could this be "Finally the proof: Thermate used to destroy WTC"?

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_f...ic_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

That is my point, those buildings were old and already falling apart, cheaply designed and built... the towers were of a new tube-frame structural design, unlikely to just coincidently fall into a neat pile of bits and pieces.

Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.

Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his paper as an indication of controlled demolition.

But Jones and others making this claim know very well that these buildings are not built like the towers. Most of the buildings they point to are steel reinforced concrete buildings or have steel reinforced concrete cores. Others are constructed with a steel web evenly distributed throughout the building. These buildings are not a "tube in a tube" design. The towers were steel without concrete. The towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They also weren't hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour. While it's true they were designed to withstand the impact of a smaller 707, they never factored in the removal of fire proofing or fuel in the wings.

"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html

But it wasn't the impact which the NIST said brought the building down. That's a conspiracy theorist straw man. They show an interview with a construction manager who said the buildings steel skin should have held up by redistributing the load. He's right. This is EXACTLY what the NIST said happened. It wasn't the impact alone which the NIST said brought down the towers. It was a combination of factors. The only way conspiracy theorists can attack the report is by separating these factors and attacking them individually. It's like taking a car accident apart and saying the car shouldn't have skidded off the road because the factory said the car could grip up to .97 g's. While that might be true, the conditions on the road must be factored in. Was there rain, dirt, gravel, anything which could have contributed to the crash? Conspiracy theorists are engaged in deliberate disinformation when they talk about these factors in a vacuum. They KNOW these factors can't be separated.

The PBS special did a good job of explaining the difference between the towers construction and these other buildings conspiracy theorists like to point to. Most steel buildings have a web of steel like this...

might want to read this.

history of iraq's wmd programs

nothing "supposed" about it. found stuff all over the place.

'dumbsaint' date='Nov 4 2009, 12:29 PM' post='843320'
Leaving the twin towers aside,

Shifting the goalposts?
building seven did not have its 'upper level stuctural supports' severed. No plane hit it. Some debris hit a corner of it (far less than some adjacent buildings, which have large shards of the twin towers imbeded in them).

True it didn't have a plane hit it, but your claim that "some debris hit a corner" and was less than others is not varified by the evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Collapse
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf



Note the ten story gash, which you refer to as "some" and "less" damage.
We're still asked to believe an office fire took it down in a manner which looks an awful lot like a controlled demolition. At least a lot more like one than an office fire as nist claims. Nist have admitted to free fall during part of the collapse on this building also.
False claim, NIST have not admitted to free fall collapse. Just because you don't like the sound of fire damage being a contributing factor doesn't make it
not so.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factshe..._qa_082108.html
There's enough doubt to warrant a second investigation. The original commission that looked into it feels that they were "set up to fail". That fact alone should have people clamouring for one. There's certainly a better explanation for all of this than underskilled terrorists or boogiemen globalists. Someone just has to be allowed to look into it.

Noones stopping anyone from looking into this at all, It's just accusations assumptions and hearsay are not evidence of anything. The old, I don't like the sound of this so I'm going to throw wild accusations around on zero evidence and then ask skeptics to refute what I have no evidence for. logical errors abound and the shifting of the burden of proof to the other side by requiring the proof of a negative.
Real Life

A: Planes into buildings
B: Fire and debris
C: buildings fall down

Evidence, ample video footage, both professional an amateur that this occured.
Wild Claims

A: Buildings where demolished
B: Inside Job

Evidence, nada, zip.
If one idiot president can't even get his knob sucked and keep it in-house, how can we then believe that the next one can manage to get two skyscrapers wired up for demolition and no-one find out about it? The latter is totally more plausable based on zero evidence when compared with terrorists flying planes into skyscrapers(!)

Take the 17 floor Sheikh al Alakl building for example, it took 96 hours from the start of laying the explosives till it hit the ground, and that building was about half collapsed already, the 110 floors of the WTC towers would have taken weeks at least of activity to set up for controlled demolition. You're telling me conspiracy theorists that this went unoticed and is more likely (based on zero evidence) than terrorists with planes (which there is ample evidence of)?

Bring some evidence to the table people cause you've got imaginative speculation so far.

'dumbsaint' date='Nov 4 2009, 12:29 PM' post='843320'
Leaving the twin towers aside,

Shifting the goalposts?
building seven did not have its 'upper level stuctural supports' severed. No plane hit it. Some debris hit a corner of it (far less than some adjacent buildings, which have large shards of the twin towers imbeded in them).

True it didn't have a plane hit it, but your claim that "some debris hit a corner" and was less than others is not varified by the evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Collapse
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf



Note the ten story gash, which you refer to as "some" and "less" damage.
We're still asked to believe an office fire took it down in a manner which looks an awful lot like a controlled demolition. At least a lot more like one than an office fire as nist claims. Nist have admitted to free fall during part of the collapse on this building also.
False claim, NIST have not admitted to free fall collapse. Just because you don't like the sound of fire damage being a contributing factor doesn't make it
not so.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factshe..._qa_082108.html
There's enough doubt to warrant a second investigation. The original commission that looked into it feels that they were "set up to fail". That fact alone should have people clamouring for one. There's certainly a better explanation for all of this than underskilled terrorists or boogiemen globalists. Someone just has to be allowed to look into it.

Noones stopping anyone from looking into this at all, It's just accusations assumptions and hearsay are not evidence of anything. The old, I don't like the sound of this so I'm going to throw wild accusations around on zero evidence and then ask skeptics to refute what I have no evidence for. logical errors abound and the shifting of the burden of proof to the other side by requiring the proof of a negative.
Real Life

A: Planes into buildings
B: Fire and debris
C: buildings fall down

Evidence, ample video footage, both professional an amateur that this occured.
Wild Claims

A: Buildings where demolished
B: Inside Job

Evidence, nada, zip.
If one idiot president can't even get his knob sucked and keep it in-house, how can we then believe that the next one can manage to get two skyscrapers wired up for demolition and no-one find out about it? The latter is totally more plausable based on zero evidence when compared with terrorists flying planes into skyscrapers(!)

Take the 17 floor Sheikh al Alakl building for example, it took 96 hours from the start of laying the explosives till it hit the ground, and that building was about half collapsed already, the 110 floors of the WTC towers would have taken weeks at least of activity to set up for controlled demolition. You're telling me conspiracy theorists that this went unoticed and is more likely (based on zero evidence) than terrorists with planes (which there is ample evidence of)?

Bring some evidence to the table people cause you've got imaginative speculation so far.

GAITHERSBURG, Md.—The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,� said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.�


Shyam Sunder, NIST lead investigator, answers questions at a news briefing on August 21 about NIST's three-year study of the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

Photo by Don Berkemeyer
View hi-resolution image

“Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7,� Sunder said. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building’s construction—namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below—did not play a significant role in the collapse.

According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use

Word to the wise,some of you people that have legitimate questions ,do tend to get drowned out by this ever increasing debate..
When you go completely overboard with some of these crazy and outrageous conspiracy theories..you in turn serve to ridicule and invalidate the claims and inquiries you may have that may hold some root in reality...
Like why were the early terrorist reports/warnings ignored by the white house pre 9/11?
Why did they lie to us about so many things?..theres probably countless other quistions but I dont pretend to know them or know the answer to them.
and this is coming from me guys..

Both of us were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation.

What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success.

PUBLICATION FEES: The publication fee details for each article published in the journal are given below:

Letters: The publication fee for each published Letter article submitted is USD600.
Research Articles: The publication fee for each published Research article is USD800.
Mini-Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Mini-Review article is USD600.
Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Review article is USD900.
Book Review: The open access fee for a published book review is USD 450.

Orange County, CA., Sept. 11 - Lisa Anne Frost was 22 and had just graduated from Boston University in May 2001 with two degrees and multiple academic and service honors. She had worked all summer in Boston before coming home, finally, to California to start her new life. The Rancho Santa Margarita woman was on United Flight 175 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when it became the second plane to slam into the World Trade Center...

Her parents, Tom and Melanie Frost, have spent two years knowing they will never understand why.

A few days before the first anniversary of our daughter's murder, we were notified that they had found a piece of her in the piles and piles of gritty rubble of the World Trade Center that had been hauled out to Staten Island. It was Lisa's way, we believe, of telling us she wasn't lost.

In February, the day of the Columbia tragedy, we got word they'd found her United Airlines Mileage Plus card. It was found very near where they'd found a piece of her right hip. We imagine that she used the card early on the morning of Sept. 11 to get on the plane and just stuck it in her back pocket, probably her right back pocket, instead of in her purse. They have found no other personal effects".


But searchers also gathered surprisingly intact mementos of lives lost.

Those items, such as a wedding ring and other jewelry, photos, credit cards, purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency, are among seven boxes of identified personal effects salvaged from the site.

Derived from the full NIST report..not the preliminary..

Whole NIST report regarding building 7..official not preliminary..

Ok ,exactly how do you truthers change or at best paraphrase the term "revise" unto "admit"...and then call NIST out on on it,when its an organization a 1000 times more credible than say "scholars for 9/11 truth"..when you do EXACTLY the same thing over and over and over again..revising your theories to fit to "the flavour of the month"..I mean C.mon..the NIST inquiry even took explosives into consideration just to satisfy you conspiracy folks on a somewhat independent investegation into 9/11 performed by real physicists/structural engineers/demolition experts etc etc etc...and then when it comes out..surprise surprise!...NOT in your favour..you dismiss it and try to discredit it and "piss" all over it..I suspect if the NIST investegation had come up with conclusions in your favour..you would be down on your knees performing, fellatio on them and praising their very names to the heavens..hypocracy?..hmmm maybe?

Really come on guys,we got struck by a terrible terrorist attack back then, and many of us have sacrifised/are still sacrifising more to keep the western world safe from the extremist jihadist..have some respect and decency..and give the victims etc peace at last..

(excuse my typos,as this reply is written in a state of sleep deprevation and with a malfunctioning wireless keyboard:) )

I respect your opinion, especially the US propaganda machine thing.

wow history channel... i always watch this channel but this right here is a perfect example how the elite get everyone to swallow their bullshit whole, i hope every single person in this country will soon realize how bad we are being lied to.

i used to live in Germany when i was a kid and one of my childhood friends came to visit me and we had many talks about many different things including 911 and the American government, what he told me did not amaze me one bit..what he said was that everyone in germany can see how the us government is responsible for 911 and that they are the biggest propaganda machine the world has seen since hitler. when they take away our guns we are fucked Holocaust all over again i just hope i will be out of here before that happens

if you are offended by any of this i really do not care i have a right to my opinion and so do you but you should think twice about what you are saying or doing because you indeed could be wrong just like i could be wrong but i firmly believe that we are on the verge of being killed one by one
another thing that has crossed my mind is if you can remember when 911 happend all you saw on tv and in the movies were pro-war movies and talk about war and terrorist, now what you see is allot of stuff about "aliens" yes aliens. movies, talk on tv, it just seems a little odd to me, i think there was someone who said that they might stage a false alien event or something of that nature to make everyone believe that we are being contacted for the "first" time by "aliens" well maybe they could be out there but maybe not chances are that we are not alone in the universe just due to the fact that it is too damn big for us to be the only accidental living creatures including us humans and all other life on this planet. personally i think that we have been visited by true "aliens" but as everyone knows the us government has been denying this for a very long time but other countries have acknowledged that there is something going on, also one of the believes in the indian religion is that there are aliens..if you ask any religious indians person what they think about it they will tell you that they believe that it is true.

this might sound crazy and yes it is crazy but it might be very true, well thats all from me i know some things are way of subject but oh well it was just a point i was trying to make that the us government is full of it.

take care

wow history channel... i always watch this channel but this right here is a perfect example how the elite get everyone to swallow their bullshit whole, i hope every single person in this country will soon realize how bad we are being lied to.

i used to live in Germany when i was a kid and one of my childhood friends came to visit me and we had many talks about many different things including 911 and the American government, what he told me did not amaze me one bit..what he said was that everyone in germany can see how the us government is responsible for 911 and that they are the biggest propaganda machine the world has seen since hitler. when they take away our guns we are fucked Holocaust all over again i just hope i will be out of here before that happens

if you are offended by any of this i really do not care i have a right to my opinion and so do you but you should think twice about what you are saying or doing because you indeed could be wrong just like i could be wrong but i firmly believe that we are on the verge of being killed one by one
another thing that has crossed my mind is if you can remember when 911 happend all you saw on tv and in the movies were pro-war movies and talk about war and terrorist, now what you see is allot of stuff about "aliens" yes aliens. movies, talk on tv, it just seems a little odd to me, i think there was someone who said that they might stage a false alien event or something of that nature to make everyone believe that we are being contacted for the "first" time by "aliens" well maybe they could be out there but maybe not chances are that we are not alone in the universe just due to the fact that it is too damn big for us to be the only accidental living creatures including us humans and all other life on this planet. personally i think that we have been visited by true "aliens" but as everyone knows the us government has been denying this for a very long time but other countries have acknowledged that there is something going on, also one of the believes in the indian religion is that there are aliens..if you ask any religious indians person what they think about it they will tell you that they believe that it is true.

this might sound crazy and yes it is crazy but it might be very true, well thats all from me i know some things are way of subject but oh well it was just a point i was trying to make that the us government is full of it.

take care

honestly i think you are very brainwashed or just afraid of the real truth, who is to say that "NIST" is not under the control of some very powerful people who will cherry pick what to say about that subject. it is a CONSPIRACY and not a theory. about the line where you said "when its an organization a 1000 times more credible than say "scholars for 9/11 truth".....are you kidding me???? why are they so much more credible then normal citizens who are EXPERTS in their respected fields and are not afraid of the truth they dont have a reason to lie nor do they have someone standing behind them and making sure they say the correct thing so not to make the government look suspicious, even if they did take explosives into consideration, they still didnt look hard enough into it maybe they did but just did not tell us everything they knew. THINK for a "change" this government has lied to us, and covered many things in the past who is to say they are not still doing it. there is just TOO much evidence pointing to that this was NOT done by "extremist jihadist"

I come from a Muslim family and no i am not from the middle east, i was brought up just like any other person. just because i am a Muslim does not mean i hate everyone else who does not believe in Allah. I for one do not care what religion you are or where you are from i care about what kind of person you are and nothing more. the mass media made every Muslim look like they hate everything that is not Islam and that my friend is far from the truth. all you see on tv and read in the papers is how bad Islam is and how they hate the "freedom" the west has, you must be very misinformed and/or just believe everything your goverment tells you...try educating yourself a little bit about the real Islam and the culture then you will see how big of a farce this whole thing is.
thank you for that i really appreciate that, i understand that some of the stuff i stated seemed very crazy and it is but if you just stand outside the box you will see my point again thank you

really now both of you are very stupid and its not even worth replying and quoting but i will say something anyway..it is very "close-minded" on your part and one of you just insulted me and didnt even bother to say something in return to what i have said...its people like you 2 that let this country get where it is now ( and no i dont mean how good it is..because its not anymore) you people walk around with your eyes open but your mind closed GET OUT OF THE BOX..i seriously feel sorry for both of you

this is for "maximius" and "mark8"
btw dont bother insulting me or quoting wha i have said because i really do not care and will not be looking here again, mainly because this video is based on lies just like both of your lifes. goodbye sheeple

....yes yes the bully boys are back in town.
I addressed several points to you guys recently, and by name. You know what these are and you know who you are, therefore you should not require me to repeat myself;

Its not physically impossible,youre just ignoring the evidence and solid facts that does not fit your highly speculative theories.
I will go so far as to say that noone can prove 9/11 was an inside job,that is for one simple reason..it wasnt,,'
Can I prove beyond reasonable doubt that the "official" story is true..yes in fact..
Full NIST report:here is defenitive proof that at least the "controlled demolition" fringe theory hold no merit whatsoever..
You may choose to ignore this or call it government disinformation/psyops,but it wont go away..
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion,however he/she is not entitled to his own facts.

Maybe you should direct more of your time to support the hard strained military?,...
One place to start is Soldiers Angels...you dont know how much it means for a grunt on deployment just to get even the most basic packages from home...

Dude, the NIST report is garbage, you should know this if your familiar with it at all. It doesn't even explain the mechanism of collapse, that's pretty sad. What you believe in is physically impossible. The hypothesis is not an "inside job" the hypothesis is "controlled demolition" and if you took the time to look at the evidence you would see this is the ONLY way the towers could have collapsed. Do yourself a favor and go watch "9/11: Blueprint For Truth" and I promise if you watch it objectively with an open mind you will come to the same conclusion.

'omnitribe' date='Nov 4 2009, 07:22 PM' post='843583']
I don't necessarily have to give you all the science,

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, you say you have science to back your claims. It's put up or shut up time.
semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit
I can just point out the obvious and you can do with it what you will. So tell me, do you really believe that all of that structural steel could magically vanish beneath the building as it collapsed?

The obvious is the two massive fucking planes that plowed into the WTC or did you somehow miss this? Which buildings are you refering to by "magically vanishing steel"?

If it is the twin towers, then it is the fact that two planes compromised the structural integrity of the remaining upper floors a cascading failure ensued in the lower tower section.
The guys at NIST, with the latest most detailed investigation, couldn't even explain the mechanism of collapse.. and you can?

Mechanism of collapse are you kidding me? It's fully covered in their final reports. *facepalm*
Can you also explain away un-ignited chips of nano-thermite that were found in the WTC dust?

If you spent less time on conspiracy sites and more time actually investigating their claims you would have answered this yourself, I'll help you out this one time though.
http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_the...at_the_wtc.html

Now that that claim has been dealt with I'll remind you that the ball is in your court as the positer of the hypothesis, to explain said hypothesis and actually back it up with evidence.
How about the pools of molten steel found at the foundations of all 3 buildings? The nearly free fall speed in the path of least resistance of all 3 buildings? You can't ignore these unless your afraid of what the truth might be, and NIST did just that, they ignored all that evidence.

Shit you're the assertion master, the amount of claims one person can make with zero evidence is amazing, all with a straight face I bet too. You obviously haven't read my pist above where I deal with the free fall lie.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factshe..._qa_082108.html

But hey, don't let the evidence get in the way of a good story, God knows the religious fundies don't.
But if you are really interested in the science I can point you in this direction;
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Your whole conspiracy rests on your thermite hypothesis, which not only did NIST deal with in their final report, but you'll find it comprehensivly covered and refuted in the link I've provided. Now that the proverbial rug has been pulled out from under your conspiracy what do you think of your hypothesis now?

And this is why thousands of tons of structural steel was magically gone from where the collapse initiated? Sorry not good enough for me, doesn't really explain anything..

Well said, omnitribe.

Are you now claiming that steel was removed from the structure ?

Yes in mid air, and it was.

You'll need to explain this to me as i am finding it hard to understand what you are claiming.

From where the collapse initiated, the top of the WTC dropped to the bottom as though there was nothing underneath to support it.

Just for shits and giggles i went through your posts (it's easy to check) and you have neither addressed nor added any points.

If you claim you have then you are clearly not an honest human being.......

You can be a smart ars if you like, i have no problem if you just want to act the tool.....
The fact is I did and I have, and those people know who i am addressing; I cannot be arsed referring you to what i am talking about, your not worth it............

You see, that's something a 6 yr old would say, and you clearly have no knowledge of what im talking of, nor does it have anything to do with you, just becuse your too ignorant to find something does not mean that it does not exist.

ps....if on the other hand, you are indeed a 6 year old, then i apologise, please continue in your usual fashion.........

Again,that's not true,it's also not what you just claimed.

Again,are you claiming that steel was removed from the structure prior to the planes crashing ?

The hypothesis is not an "inside job" the hypothesis is "controlled demolition" and if you took the time to look at the evidence you would see this is the ONLY way the towers could have collapsed.

And this is why thousands of tons of structural steel was magically gone from where the collapse initiated? Sorry not good enough for me, doesn't really explain anything..



You're right, I said nearly freefall though, but how much resistance could be there really be with only a few seconds off? It seems to me the only resistance was the wind, if there was any support from the structure beneath (real world scenario) the building wouldn't have collapsed in the path of least resistance. Common sense dude.

My whole theory isn't "my theory"

Dude, it was removed, the steel wasn't there beneath the collapsing building - hence; the virtually freefall speed of the collapse.

No, not before the planes crashing, as the building was being demolished, or as the conspiracy theorists would have us believe..

Dude, it was removed, the steel wasn't there beneath the collapsing building - hence; the virtually freefall speed of the collapse.

No, not before the planes crashing, as the building was being demolished, or as the conspiracy theorists would have us believe.. "the compromised structural integrity of the remaining upper floors a cascading failure ensued in the lower tower section." - sounds cute though.

here's a very interesting full-length documentary about the Pentagon attack- mainly made up of eyewitness accounts including those from local police officers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o