Pancake Theory. This is the theory embraced by men and women convinced of the official theory of events. The theory in which the fire did not melt the steel, but sufficiently heated it up to cause the floors weakened from the airplane strike to drape loose and fall on top of one another causing all of the floors to rip from their steel support columns and collapse.

So. what you would expect from this theory is to not only see the steel support beams still standing, but to also see the floors at the bottom piled upon one another, (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/24_pancake.jpg) neither of which you can see in photos and video, in which, shows the rubble completely pulverized, turned into dust, and no support columns are visible standing. The calculation for a pure Pancake Collapse, of this building, is 96 seconds, the towers collapsed in one-tenth of that time. The rate at which the WTC collapsed meant that the floors would have had to shatter at 8-10 floors per second, there is no scenario in this "theory" in which this is possible.

FIGHT FOR TRUTH

Pancake Theory. This is the theory embraced by men and women convinced of the official theory of events. The theory in which the fire did not melt the steel, but sufficiently heated it up to cause the floors weakened from the airplane strike to drape loose and fall on top of one another causing all of the floors to rip from their steel support columns and collapse.

So. what you would expect from this theory is to not only see the steel support beams still standing, but to also see the floors at the bottom piled upon one another, (http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/24_pancake.jpg) neither of which you can see in photos and video, in which, shows the rubble completely pulverized, turned into dust, and no support columns are visible standing. The calculation for a pure Pancake Collapse, of this building, is 96 seconds, the towers collapsed in one-tenth of that time. The rate at which the WTC collapsed meant that the floors would have had to shatter at 8-10 floors per second, there is no scenario in this "theory" in which this is possible.

FIGHT FOR TRUTH

http://i38.tinypic.com/2qwnevt.jpg

The picture you gave is a different size building and different material than the wtc.
Post pic of pancaked building made or steel and same height of the wtc then talk.

http://i38.tinypic.com/2qwnevt.jpg

The picture you gave is a different size building and different material than the wtc.
Post pic of pancaked building made or steel and same height of the wtc then talk.

I was showing what a pancake collapse would look like, even though they are made of different materials they should have looked relatively similar. Instead it was turned into dust.

Also there are no photos of a building like the WTC because it has never happened before. No steel framed building in modern history has pancaked, or even collapsed, from fire.

-February 23rd, 1991. Meridian Plaza, a 37-story sky-scraper in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours across eight floors. It did not collapse.
-May 4th, 1988 a 62-story sky-scraper in Los Angeles burned for 3 hours and spread over 3 floors. It did not collapse.
-February 12th, 2005, The Windzor Building in Madrid, a 32-story sky-scraper burned for 24 hours, completely eradicating the upper 10-stories of the building. Although the top 10 floors fell, the building did not collapse.
-October 17th, 2004 a 56-story skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela, built in 1976, burned for over 17 hours and spread across 26 floors. It did not collapse.

The WTC's have even had fires before.

. February 13th, 1975 a fire broke out between the 9th and 14th floors of the North Tower. It did not collapse. At this time there were no sprinklers in the towers. The sprinkler systems would come in handy May 19th, 1975 when 7 fires struck the World Trade Centers. The South Tower had fires between the 25th and 36th floors, and the North tower had a fire on the 11th floor. They did not collapse.

And yet on Sept. 11th the towers burned for barely an hour and half and lo and behold they collapsed completely and perfectly.

http://i38.tinypic.com/2qwnevt.jpg



In reply to you and the rest of gullible America

http://files.samhart.net/humor/dumbass.png

No steel framed building in modern history has pancaked, or even collapsed, from fire.


You forgot to mention the fucking 767 that hit the building not just fire.
Show me a steel framed building that DID survive from a 767 hitting it?

February 23rd, 1991. Meridian Plaza, a 37-story sky-scraper in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours across eight floors. It did not collapse.
-May 4th, 1988 a 62-story sky-scraper in Los Angeles burned for 3 hours and spread over 3 floors. It did not collapse.
-February 12th, 2005, The Windzor Building in Madrid, a 32-story sky-scraper burned for 24 hours, completely eradicating the upper 10-stories of the building. Although the top 10 floors fell, the building did not collapse.
-October 17th, 2004 a 56-story skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela, built in 1976, burned for over 17 hours and spread across 26 floors. It did not collapse.

Again your forgetting that a 767 hit the wtc.
The so called "evidence" you're giving does not support your claim because they are different scenarios.
There are no boeing 767 hitting those buildings, you're just giving "fire" scenarios.
Give me Boeing crashing into skyscrapers scenarios!


The WTC's have even had fires before.

. February 13th, 1975 a fire broke out between the 9th and 14th floors of the North Tower. It did not collapse. At this time there were no sprinklers in the towers. The sprinkler systems would come in handy May 19th, 1975 when 7 fires struck the World Trade Centers. The South Tower had fires between the 25th and 36th floors, and the North tower had a fire on the 11th floor. They did not collapse.

And yet on Sept. 11th the towers burned for barely an hour and half and lo and behold they collapsed completely and perfectly.

And Again!
You have no 767 involved with this "evidence":rolleyes:


In reply to you and the rest of gullible America

http://files.samhart.net/humor/dumbass.png

In reply to you and the rest of the rest of the noobs

Join Date
2008-07-14

Stfu acolyte
Gtfo of Totse you're not welcomed:rolleyes:

- Officials claim that the building was not supposed to be able to withstand this. Although the people that actually worked on the building knew that these buildings could withstand the worst.

-ABC, Hymen Brown (Architect of WTC) –“The towers were designed to withstand 200mph hurricanes, a hundred year storm, the worst nature could dish out.”— Tall buildings are designed to withstand air accidents.

- Peter Wazo President of Controlled Demolitions in news interview –“When this structure was designed, it was designed to take the impact of the most state of the art airplane on our country,”—

-Les Robinson, Structural engineer of the WTC –“We designed this building to take the impact from a 707 hitting the building at any location,”--

-Frank DiMartini, Manager World Trade Center Construction --“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, I believe that this building could sustain multiple impacts from jetliners because structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and this plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting, it does nothing.”— (this is the whammy)

Les Robertson, WTC structural engineer –“We designed the building to take the impact of a Boeing 707.”--

-John Skilling (WTC structural engineer) told the Seattle Times after the 1993 bombing that if a plane struck the building there would be a horrendous fire but the building would still stand

You're the ignorant one, read up on the facts.

It could NOT have collapsed from either a plane, fire, or combination thereof.

-Frank DiMartini, Manager World Trade Center Construction --“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, I believe that this building could sustain multiple impacts from jetliners because structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and this plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting, it does nothing.”— (this is the whammy)

However, as we saw, almost all of the kinetic energy of the 767 (a heavier plane) was dumped into the tower, very little emerged from the other side after the impact, demonstrating that this guy was wrong.

As a bit of preemptive debunking before any tinfoil hat wearer mentions free fall speeds, look at the stills, there is plenty of debris that is quite un-aerodynamic falling faster than the tower (or did the evil Government attach rockets to those pieces to trick people?).

However, as we saw, almost all of the kinetic energy of the 767 (a heavier plane) was dumped into the tower, very little emerged from the other side after the impact, demonstrating that this guy was wrong.

As a bit of preemptive debunking before any tinfoil hat wearer mentions free fall speeds, look at the stills, there is plenty of debris that is quite un-aerodynamic falling faster than the tower (or did the evil Government attach rockets to those pieces to trick people?).

I think the Manager of WTC Construction would be a little bit more knowledgeable of his building then you...

First of all a 707 may be lighter, but it can travel faster (carrying more kinetic energy), and it has four engines (instead of the two on the 747 and 757) which would cause much more damage than the 747 (think shotgun vs. bullet)

I didn't say the tower fell at free fall speed, but it fell very very close to it (approx 10-12 secs). Again 1/10 the time of a normal pancake collapse.

And the tin-foil hat is a fashion statement tyvm :rolleyes:

*correction* (the 757 and 767 have two engines)

Ohhhhh, the 911 pancake theory.

I thought you meant the JFK pancake theory.

http://www.netropolitan.org/saar/72_aunt_jemima.gif

My bad.

Of course, if you look carefully, you'll see that Aunt Jemima's head has been grafted onto Mrs. Butterworth's body, in an attempt to implicate them both.

Also, there's no way she could have fired that accurately from the flapjack depository.

The shots had to have come from the syrupy knoll.

You're the ignorant one, read up on the facts.

It could NOT have collapsed from either a plane, fire, or combination thereof.

Orly?
Obviously it did.
The wtc was "supposed" to withstand a 707 but not a 767.

And again please provide information that a skyscraper survived being hit from a 767

First of all a 707 may be lighter, but it can travel faster (carrying more kinetic energy), and it has four engines (instead of the two on the 747 and 757) which would cause much more damage than the 747 (think shotgun vs. bullet)
:

Hahahah!
This is great!
So you're claiming that a 707 cause more damage because it has 2 more engines?
Ok ill play your game....
The 767 has a wider wingspan and a bigger height difference than the 707.
Not to mention it has a heavier weight and can carry one thousand more gallons of fuel than the 707.
Oh btw the 767 has bigger engines.
So all in all the 767 is more bulkier then the 707.
So in your words....."which would cause more damage"

http://i36.tinypic.com/2rxd18g.jpg

so what quotes are you going to bring to the table this time acolyte?

I think the Manager of WTC Construction would be a little bit more knowledgeable of his building then you...

Well, evidently he was wrong. His whole claim about it punching through like a 'pencil through mosquito net' is debunked by the video of the impact. There's a fair bit of flame but very little of the aircraft coming out the other side (in other words, most of the kinetic energy is dumped into the building supports).

The twin towers I could give you the benifit of the doubt but would about WTC 7, it wasn't hit by the planes.

Orly?
Obviously it did.
The wtc was "supposed" to withstand a 707 but not a 767.

And again please provide information that a skyscraper survived being hit from a 767



Hahahah!
This is great!
So you're claiming that a 707 cause more damage because it has 2 more engines?
Ok ill play your game....
The 767 has a wider wingspan and a bigger height difference than the 707.
Not to mention it has a heavier weight and can carry one thousand more gallons of fuel than the 707.
Oh btw the 767 has bigger engines.
So all in all the 767 is more bulkier then the 707.
So in your words....."which would cause more damage"

http://i36.tinypic.com/2rxd18g.jpg

so what quotes are you going to bring to the table this time acolyte?

again 707 would be traveling faster and would have two more, two ton engines that would fly off in different directions causing more damage and more fire than a 767.

There is no precedent for a 767 you know as well as I do. But there was the Empire State building as you well know and that building did not collapse in the slightest.

If anything the most that could happen would be a partial collapse of the building. A plane would not cause a building like the a twin tower to pancake perfectly, in 1/10th the speed it should have collapsed, would not cause it to fall very perfectly into its own footprint, would not cause a no where in the immediate vicinity to collapse. Any respectable scientist examining this from an unbiased viewpoint would tell you the same thing.

and AF85 I'm not even going to reply to your comment. The person who built the WTC would most likely be more experienced in this matter than you.

also this is the Windsor building in Madrid burning. It was completed in 1979 (WTC completed in 1976). It took over 24 hours to quell the blaze, parts of the building fell but the structure remained standing. Do not try to argue 'oh well, it was constructed different than the WTCs', because all modern buildings are built for fires like these, no matter what the steel support structures look like.
http://www.infowars.com/images2/sept11/200306windsor.jpghttp://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/windsor7.jpg

and after

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/madrid_remains.jpghttp://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/madrid_skyscraper.jpg
(I can show you some more buildings like this if you want)

It had 32 floors and all were in raging inferno and it did not collapse, yet two of the most structurally sound buildings in the world had scattered fires, which burned no hotter than 1000 degrees F and barely over an hour and a half, and yet they collapsed in the exact same way as a demolished building might have.

again 707 would be traveling faster and would have two more, two ton engines that would fly off in different directions causing more damage and more fire than a 767.


For godsakes give me some fucking evidence that THIS would create more damage
You're just blowing shit out of your ass now:rolleyes:


There is no precedent for a 767 you know as well as I do. But there was the Empire State building as you well know and that building did not collapse in the slightest.


omfg AGAIN different scenarios because of DIFFERENT aircrafts and DIFFERENT structures.


A plane would not cause a building like the a twin tower to pancake perfectly, in 1/10th the speed it should have collapsed, would not cause it to fall very perfectly into its own footprint, would not cause a no where in the immediate vicinity to collapse.

It did not fall perfectly in its own footprint
http://i33.tinypic.com/k2o50o.jpg
look at the scattered debris everywhere that took out nearbye buildings.
Sorry, buildings dont fall like jenga in reality.


and AF85 I'm not even going to reply to your comment. The person who built the WTC would most likely be more experienced in this matter than you.

orly?
tell me your wonderful experience that makes you qualified?
woops sorry, watching loosechange doesnt.

also this is the Windsor building in Madrid burning. It was completed in 1979 (WTC completed in 1976). It took over 24 hours to quell the blaze, parts of the building fell but the structure remained standing. Do not try to argue 'oh well, it was constructed different than the WTCs', because all modern buildings are built for fires like these, no matter what the steel support structures look like.
http://www.infowars.com/images2/sept11/200306windsor.jpghttp://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/windsor7.jpg

and after

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/madrid_remains.jpghttp://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/madrid_skyscraper.jpg
(I can show you some more buildings like this if you want)

It had 32 floors and all were in raging inferno and it did not collapse, yet two of the most structurally sound buildings in the world had scattered fires, which burned no hotter than 1000 degrees F and barely over an hour and a half, and yet they collapsed in the exact same way as a demolished building might have.

Ohhh dont worry i wont say "oh well, it was constructed different than the WTCs"
What i will say though.......
Congrats! YOU JUST GAVE US ANOTHER DIFFERENT SCENARIO!!!!
AGAIN!!!!
WHATS YOU PRIZE!?!?!?!?
ITS A BRAND NEW FAIL!!



For godsakes please....
PLEASE!
Give us a evidence of the same scenario of what happend in 911
WAIT!!!
There isnt!!
SO PLEASE STOP GIVING US INFORMATION THAT DOESNT QUALIFY AS EVIDENCE!


Lack of evidence is NOT evidence.:mad:

The calculation for a pure Pancake Collapse, of this building, is 96 seconds, the towers collapsed in one-tenth of that time. The rate at which the WTC collapsed meant that the floors would have had to shatter at 8-10 floors per second, there is no scenario in this "theory" in which this is possible.

It's not a "pancake collapse," the primary support columns throughout the structure underwent compressive stresses far in excess of the design limits after the initial elevated temperatures caused plastic deformation. After that initial collapse, the axial load of the floors above on the remaining columns was sufficient to cause bucking, which happens faster than you would think. Any of the dynamic finite element models that have been produced since will show you this, It's a common failure mode.

This is all basic structural engineering. If you're trying to prove there was something unusual about the collapse, you're looking in the wrong place because the rate of collapse is not a theoretical issue. Better luck next time.

also this is the Windsor building in Madrid burning. It was completed in 1979 (WTC completed in 1976). It took over 24 hours to quell the blaze, parts of the building fell but the structure remained standing. Do not try to argue 'oh well, it was constructed different than the WTCs', because all modern buildings are built for fires like these, no matter what the steel support structures look like.
http://www.infowars.com/images2/sept11/200306windsor.jpghttp://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/windsor7.jpg

and after

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/madrid_remains.jpghttp://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/madrid_skyscraper.jpg
(I can show you some more buildings like this if you want)

It had 32 floors and all were in raging inferno and it did not collapse, yet two of the most structurally sound buildings in the world had scattered fires, which burned no hotter than 1000 degrees F and barely over an hour and a half, and yet they collapsed in the exact same way as a demolished building might have.



Did a plane crash into it? Didn't think so. Do you really think that enormous amount of kinetic energy the planes had did nothing?

I am going to argue that it was constructed differently because it was. It was largely constructed out of concrete.

I'd rather if, instead of you showing more buildings like that one you showed us some buildings which were crashed into by large aircraft, burnt and had a steel construction.

Did a plane crash into it? Didn't think so. Do you really think that enormous amount of kinetic energy the planes had did nothing?


I thought i was the only one that caught onto this.
This is one tactic that "twoofers" use
They spoonfeed you all this information that are different scenarios to make it look like it was really an inside job. When you first look at what Question Authority gave us it is pretty convincing that he was right because he gave us all information on fires that didnt collapse a building. But then you have to wakeup and realize that they are DIFFERENT SCENARIOS which do not support anything.

There is no precedent for a 767 you know as well as I do. But there was the Empire State building as you well know and that building did not collapse in the slightest.
.

ill concentrate more on this topic here since this makes me giggle.....

The maximum weight of a B-25 ranged from 27,100 lb to a limit of 41,800 lb, for instance (see www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/b25mitchell.html). A 767-200 ranges from 179,080 lbs (empty) to 395,000 lb (maximum takeoff load) (www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b767), and FEMA said the 9/11 planes had “an estimated gross weight of 274000 pounds” ( http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf ).

The maximum speed of a B-25 ranged from 275 mph to 315 mph, depending on which version it was, and as the B-25 pilot was trying to avoid the building it's unlikely he'd have reached that (cruising speed was 230 mph). On 9/11, "American Airlines Flight 11 crashes at a speed of roughly 470 mph" and "United Airlines Flight 175 crashes at a speed of about 590 mph" (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside911/timeline.html), a considerable difference when you factor in the extra mass as well.

The B-25 had a "normal total fuel load of 974 US gallons" (http://www.b25.net); a proportion of this would have been used already in the plane’s flight. By comparison, "it has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted" (www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm).

Oh i think you can say there was less impact damage....
http://i38.tinypic.com/ejev7n.jpg

So again two different aircrafts and two different Buildings does not support anything.

Lack of evidence is NOT evidence.

also this is the Windsor building in Madrid burning. It was completed in 1979 (WTC completed in 1976). It took over 24 hours to quell the blaze, parts of the building fell but the structure remained standing. Do not try to argue 'oh well, it was constructed different than the WTCs', because all modern buildings are built for fires like these, no matter what the steel support structures look like.
http://www.infowars.com/images2/sept11/200306windsor.jpghttp://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/windsor7.jpg


And ill get at this one too...

The Madrid Windsor fire is sometimes cited as being relevant to the WTC collapse, but in reality there are major differences between the two situations.

No plane flew into the Madrid Windsor Tower, for instance. It didn't sustain any structural damage prior to the fire beginning.

The Madrid Windsor Tower was much smaller than the WTC, too, at 32 storeys.

More significantly, the design of the Madrid Windsor Tower was entirely different to that of the WTC.

But the thing that really makes me giggle is that PART of the building DID collapse from a fire which make your theory of no building ever collapsing due to a fire FALSE.
You just screwed yourself over bud.

Lack of evidence is NOT evidence.

Do not state that the Windzor building is not relevant because it is. The 9/11 Commission was not stupid enough to state that planes contributed to the complete collapse (instead of partial where the plane hit) of the WTCs so they threw fire into that equation as well. This is an example of how a modern building does NOT collapse from fire. The structures may be built differently, but they are both built from steel nonetheless, and we all know the official story of the collapse is "fire weakened the steel enough so that the WTC's collapsed". This is simply the proof that fire does not bring down buildings built with this grade of steel.

Look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw
The fires in the building were not even hot enough to melt the aluminum from the plane, much less steel from the towers.
God fire or explosives?

If anything the planes would have contributed to local collapse ONLY.(Like the engineers who built the towers have stated) not total obliteration of the building.

The towers DID fall right into their own footprints they barely damged surrounding buildings. WTCs 3,4,5,and 6 were right under the towers and were pulverized by debris, yet none of them collapsed. (Yet Building 7 did from "ragingfires" as we all know is impossible)

and AF85 I'm not even going to reply to your comment. The person who built the WTC would most likely be more experienced in this matter than you.

I'm not speculating here in any way shape or form. It's clear from the video that the planes did not pass through the towers like a 'pencil through mosquito netting' if they had we would have seen large pieces of the plane pass through, instead they were shredded and most of the plane lodged in the tower and, in the process, transferred its kinetic energy.

This isn't speculation, this isn't the application of other examples to the scenario, it's basic observation. Unless you can come up with a way for the plane to pass through and yet lodge in the towers at the same time.

If the head of a company which makes bullet proof vests tells you that a particular model can resist being shot by a 9mm parabellum and I show you a video of a .380 ACP passing through the vest almost unhindered you wouldn't wear the vest and volunteer to be shot by an pistol chambered in .380 because of the assurances of an expert (at least I wouldn't, I don't know, perhaps you would).

It's interesting that you treat the word of someone with any experience who supports you as gospel, even when there's damming, self evident evidence to the contrary (little or no interpretation required) and yet you'll instantly dismiss the word of anyone who disagrees with you, saying they have some ulterior motive, no matter how experienced they are.

Look at this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw
The fires in the building were not even hot enough to melt the aluminum from the plane, much less steel from the towers.
God fire or explosives?

Firstly, they were hot enough to melt aluminum, however, guess what was pretty much right where the luminous material flowed from? That's right it's a UPS:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

Do not state that the Windzor building is not relevant because it is.

Source?
Also the Windsor building has a concrete core, different size, and different scenario.
Oh but wait, part of the building did collapse though!
Any thoughts on that?



The towers DID fall right into their own footprints they barely damged surrounding buildings. WTCs 3,4,5,and 6 were right under the towers and were pulverized by debris, yet none of them collapsed. (Yet Building 7 did from "ragingfires" as we all know is impossible)

You do not make sense.
You're saying it fell right in its footprints but yet it damaged surrounding buildings?
Um.....Fail.

Also lets stay on topic, if you want to talk about wtc7 make another thread.

And im still waiting on a source where you claimed that the 707 creates more damage then the 767 because of it engines!

Stop dodging situations that i debunked you on and accept it.

Lack of evidence is NOT evidence.

Firstly, they were hot enough to melt aluminum, however, guess what was pretty much right where the luminous material flowed from? That's right it's a UPS:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

Wait I'm confused AF85 are you a 9/11 truther or not?

I just want to give my input on why the fire in the WTC could not have reached any temperature higher than 1200 degress F

1. Even NIST stated that very few of the steel beams they examined were exposed to temperatures higher than 300-500 F (I can get you the quote if you want)
2. After the plane crashed the jet fuel would have poured out and ignited, but burned off very quickly. It would set materials in the buildings on fire like wood and cloth. Wood can reach temp. of up to 1200F in open air, with sufficient fuel and sufficient time. But the towers had none of those three, therefore temperatures could not have reached higher than 1200F.
3. There was smoke. Smoke indicates that the fire was starved of oxygen, thus it could not have reached high temperatures
4. the smoke was black, thus indicating the fire was cool burning, as well as oxygen starved.
5. The fuel would have reached the core of the building and burned off almost immediately. The problem is that the fuel would not have ignited much at all in the core because all that was in the core of the building elevator shafts and maintenance rooms, meaning the core columns would not have heated up significantly.
6. A property of steel is that it never gets hotter than the source heating it. So how then do you explain the molten metal in that video and beneath the building for weeks after the collapse? Explosives now does not sound so crazy...

Wait I'm confused AF85 are you a 9/11 truther or not?

I just want to give my input on why the fire in the WTC could not have reached any temperature higher than 1200 degress F

1. Even NIST stated that very few of the steel beams they examined were exposed to temperatures higher than 300-500 F (I can get you the quote if you want)
2. After the plane crashed the jet fuel would have poured out and ignited, but burned off very quickly. It would set materials in the buildings on fire like wood and cloth. Wood can reach temp. of up to 1200F in open air, with sufficient fuel and sufficient time. But the towers had none of those three, therefore temperatures could not have reached higher than 1200F.
3. There was smoke. Smoke indicates that the fire was starved of oxygen, thus it could not have reached high temperatures
4. the smoke was black, thus indicating the fire was cool burning, as well as oxygen starved.
5. The fuel would have reached the core of the building and burned off almost immediately. The problem is that the fuel would not have ignited much at all in the core because all that was in the core of the building elevator shafts and maintenance rooms, meaning the core columns would not have heated up significantly.
6. A property of steel is that it never gets hotter than the source heating it. So how then do you explain the molten metal in that video and beneath the building for weeks after the collapse? Explosives now does not sound so crazy...

I'm going to ignore your appeal to ridicule.

1.Parts of the fire may have reached higher temperatures, that doesn't matter, what matters is that there was a huge room where the luminous unidentified material flowed from full of batteries storing enourmous amounts of energy (short out a UPS that size and you'll see some pretty impressive sparks)

2.The towers were huge, this wasn't a bonfire in a back yard, air could quite easily get in, thanks to the huge hole punched by the aircraft and the numerous smaller holes caused by broken windows (not to mention the chimneys that are more commonly called elevator shafts, there's a reason you don't use them in a fire). Also, there wasn't just wood in the building, there were plenty of plastics as well, which burn rather hot.

3.Smoke means some parts of the fire were starved of oxygen, doesn't mean the whole building had to be, this is still irellevant (as far as the luminous material is concerned) because there was the small matter of a giant UPS in the building with plenty of its own energy.

4.See 3

5. Again, the elevator shafts would have acted like chimneys, sucking the hottest air towards the centre of the building and fanning the flames.

6.A property of steel is that it will burn in air (or more accurately, smoulder, it's not quite burning). Though I doubt you have the facilities to heat up a large piece of steel you can even more easily see this in action by holding a flame to a piece of steel wool, because the surface area is greater the temperature the steel needs to reach to start oxidising of its own accord is lower (even a simple cigarette lighter will suffice). If you're feeling particularly brave/stupid you can attach the steel wool to some cable and twirl it round your head, exposing it to more oxygen and producing enormous (and dangerous) sparks. In fact the steel wool will burn so hot that if you put it on a piece of glass you'll get little bits of iron oxide melting their way into the surface of the glass.
There's also no evidence of explosives. Have you ever seen a demolition? There are loads of sequential bangs (approaching a dozen) before the building falls and then when the building does fall it falls from the ground up, not with a piece from the top smashing through the rest of the building.

As for the 'molten metal', if you look at the photos, some of the firefighters are in or on the 'molten metal' it's actually a flashlight being used and the image is overexposed in that area. If, however, you are talking about the dull red hot pieces of metal pulled from the rubble, that's from the steel smouldering.

Question Authority, perhaps you're more persistent than I but I gave up trying to convince these people long ago. Ultimately, people believe what they want to believe.

Go back to sleep now people, every thing is all right; Uncle Sam will protect you.

WHATS YOU PRIZE!?!?!?!?
ITS A BRAND NEW FAIL!!


quote of the century.

people believe what they want to believe.

i believe in evidence
question authority does not have proper evidence to support his claim.
so there is nothing to back it up.
sorry i didnt get suckered from loosechange
Lack of evidence is NOT evidence

First of all a 707 may be lighter, but it can travel faster (carrying more kinetic energy), and it has four engines (instead of the two on the 747 and 757) which would cause much more damage than the 747 (think shotgun vs. bullet)

Im still waiting for the evidence to support this "2 more engines = More damage" claim.:rolleyes:

I am a big WTC controlled demolition believer and have argued it way too many times. Have you guys discussed the free-fall physics of the WTC's? Theres also a video on youtube showing how newstations placed planes in place of actual missiles that were fired at the towers. Remember seeing the nose of the plane go straight through the entire tower intact?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqEpuTGc98s

Heres a link to the vid. Has many parts but describes everything very well.

I am a big WTC controlled demolition believer and have argued it way too many times. Have you guys discussed the free-fall physics of the WTC's? Theres also a video on youtube showing how newstations placed planes in place of actual missiles that were fired at the towers. Remember seeing the nose of the plane go straight through the entire tower intact?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqEpuTGc98s

Heres a link to the vid. Has many parts but describes everything very well.

The free fall theory has already been debunked new arrival.
:rolleyes:
If you wana play with the big boys you need to post sources not silly homemade youtube videos because that is not evidence.
Actually post evidence that will support your claim
Actual documented information.
If not, GTFO and not waste our time.

The big boys? Thats a pretty big claim. Well I thought I read through this thread but I must have missed why the free-fall physics were debunked. Could you explain please?

Also, can you explain to me why these hijackers are not dead from the 'plane crash'?
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

How about Larry Silversteins terrorism clause for his insurance taken out weeks before the 'attack'. Giving him twice the amount of money. Also considering he had taken out a 99 year lease on the WTC that made him the only person able to build on the area and with the insurance money it also made him the only person who had the money to do it by himself.

https://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/shadowgroup-l/Week-of-Mon-20041213/000874.html

Site says some stupid thing about security. Don't go there if you don't want to I can post the whole thing.

Have you guys discussed the buildings being covered in asbestos and the owners insurance not able to cover it?
The missing billion dollars worth of gold bullion from the towers?
The obvious reason to invade Iraq due to terrorist ties?

The big boys? Thats a pretty big claim. Well I thought I read through this thread but I must have missed why the free-fall physics were debunked. Could you explain please?

NewArrival pretty sums it up for the big boys claim
That theory has been debunked in the 911 thread
but obviously your new so ill help you out.....
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html
but lets stay on topic here if you want to talk about freefall make another thread.
This is about the pancake theory

Also, can you explain to me why these hijackers are not dead from the 'plane crash'?
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

Again already has been debunked over confusion over names and identities
make different thread to talk about this topic.


How about Larry Silversteins terrorism clause for his insurance taken out weeks before the 'attack'. Giving him twice the amount of money. Also considering he had taken out a 99 year lease on the WTC that made him the only person able to build on the area and with the insurance money it also made him the only person who had the money to do it by himself.

https://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/shadowgroup-l/Week-of-Mon-20041213/000874.html

Site says some stupid thing about security. Don't go there if you don't want to I can post the whole thing.

Have you guys discussed the buildings being covered in asbestos and the owners insurance not able to cover it?
The missing billion dollars worth of gold bullion from the towers?
The obvious reason to invade Iraq due to terrorist ties?


:rolleyes:and again make another thread to talk about larry silverstein and the jews theory
lets stay on topic here

Okay, dodge everything....

Pancake theory... Towers fell too fast to have floors slowing it down. Lack of stack of floors at ground zero or middle section still standing.

Honestly watch the news again it looks like superman is flying through the damn building blowing the floors up.

Just because I am a NewArrival doesn't mean anything either. I should take you as an expert of every subject on the forums then? I've been reading totse threads for years. When I was young never had the want to register then there was no registering and I decided to check it the other day and it was up.

Okay, dodge everything....

woahh hold up
the only thing that i "dodged" is the silverstien topic because i could go all day on that but it has nothing to do with the pancake theory so make another thread.
everything i debunked in this thread has been dodged

I found out a tactic truthers use is spewing out multiple topics to basically "stun" the viewer from concentrating on one thing.
so like i said, stay on topic.


Pancake theory... Towers fell too fast to have floors slowing it down. Lack of stack of floors at ground zero or middle section still standing.

Source please


Honestly watch the news again it looks like superman is flying through the damn building blowing the floors up.

What are you trying to say?
Do you believe.....
demolitions where placed in jet?
it was a missile?
it twas teh jews?

Just because I am a NewArrival doesn't mean anything either. I should take you as an expert of every subject on the forums then? I've been reading totse threads for years. When I was young never had the want to register then there was no registering and I decided to check it the other day and it was up.

Welcome to the part of Hazing nooby
you're gonna get treated this way no matter what
if you have a problem........
gtfo then

I don't know who you're trying to fool Casper but free fall theory has NOT been debunked in the slightest. Again if the towers would have fallen in a Pancake collapse it should have taken a little over 1 and a half minutes, gaining speed as each floor collided into the next. But no, instead it fell strait down with uniform speed in 10-12 seconds. Even if it fell in 25 seconds it would make no difference because it is still a fraction of what it should have fallen in.

to AF85
1. Um actually I think that matters very much. If the fires barely reached over 300-500F in the WTCs then I think that we can safely assume fires did NOT bring down the WTCs.
2. Air could quite easily get in on the outside maybe, but sure as hell not in the inside of the towers. Elevator shafts are pretty airtight and even if air did get in, it would be no where near enough to feed that kind of fire. (Elevators have EFS mode for fire fighters who use them to fight the fires)

3. Again I don't know why you are saying these facts are irrelevant because they are very relevant. The WTCs were Class A buildings, top of the line, and I think they would have taken precautions to make sure that the huge UPS would cause little or no trouble during a fire (there have been multiple fires in the WTCs before, with lower safety precautions and standards than on 9/11, they still did not collapse)

4.Haha you just debunked yourself there claiming there was no molten metal.
Steven Jones BYU and Los Alamos Laboratories manged to get some of the debris from the WTC before it was illegally shipped a way. He found Sulfur traces that is residue from Thermate, a demolition material (I know how you will try to argue this. It was from plaster wall or some shit like that in the building, but it could have just as easily come from Thermate), if you look at the videos you see white smoke pouring out of the towers. Again indicative of Thermate (Aluminum in Thermate ignited gives white smoke). He found small iron rich spheres that can only happen when metal is molten (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/dust.jpg). Steel beams have evidence of being sliced. http://www.piratenews.org/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg (I know how you try and debunk the steel beams also. They were NOT cut after the collapse, because that is not a clean, precise cut, and there is solidified molten metal on the beam.) NASA image of site showing molten metal http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.gif

Also some eyewitness accounts
Fire fighters –“You would get down below and you would see molten steel, molten steel, running down the channels,”—
Ken Holding (Department of Design and Construction) –“It was still so hot that molten metal dripped from the walls,”— (Because light drips right?)

Obviously they could not have demolished a building the normal way genius. But they did demolish it from the bottom up. Here is some proof.

- Witness –“It sounded like 1000 little fire crackers, like the finale of the 4th of July”-- CBS News –“We just witnessed some kind of follow up secondary explosion,”—
CNN –“It almost looks like one of those planned implosion,”—“As if a Demolition team had set it off, almost like when you see those demolitions of the old buildings,”—
Teresa Veliz, working on the 47th floor of the North Tower when it was hit –“I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons,”--
ABC –“If you wish to bring anyone who’s ever seen a building being demolished on purpose knows that you have to get on the under infrastructure of the building,”— CBS – “If you wish to make a building like that fold in upon itself, you would need to have explosives laid on the ground, to make it fold in upon itself,”—
CNN –“ The way the structure is collapsing it is not accidental, it was the result of something that was planned, it is not accidental that the first tower just collapsed and the second tower just happened to collapse in exactly the same way. But how they accomplished this we don’t know,”—Yet, when the official explanation of a fire was released, all these media outlets were clamoring to defend it.

Pyroclastic clouds barreled down streets. They occur after two events, volcanic eruptions and controlled demolitions. So Vesuvious under the towers, or controlled demolition? A simple collapse would not cause pyroclastic clouds to be launched down the street.

Simplest answers are always the best.

Look on Youtube plenty of video evidence.
A seismograph station even recorded explosions before collapse

And to Warped Mindless. I am not trying to convince them, I know I will nor change their narrow-mindedness. I'm just trying to prove that these theories can stand up under heavy scrutiny.

You can't change peoples views on things they don't want to believe. I guess you have to have some sort of compassion instead of trying to act like an internet 'hardass' like most around here do. I wouldn't believe for one second that a plane and fires dropped a skyscraper. Especially in an hour which is just ridiculous. The only reason I ever did believe that was because I was very young when it happened and believed the news and everyone around me. The truth will be accepted eventually, its how all things happen. First they are denied, 'debunked', believed by a few and finally believed by all. Think about Einsteins relativity theory, that was denied by a lot of people but years later it was proven and now accepted by everyone.

(I know how you try and debunk the steel beams also. They were NOT cut after the collapse, because that is not a clean, precise cut, and there is solidified molten metal on the beam.) NASA image of site showing molten metal http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.gif


Why the hell should the cut be clean? It's not like they were constructing anything, the aim was to remove the debris as efficiently as possible so that people could get on with their lives. That's why they used thermic lances:
http://i35.tinypic.com/24e8ejd.jpg
check out the cut on the other side of the beam, exactly the same as those seen in your photos. Lol.

1. Read the whole post, there were other things beside wood in the towers (some of them more flammable and/or able to burn at higher temperatures).
2. If the elevator shafts were air tight then the lifts wouldn't have been able to move at the great speeds they did in the WTC while it was standing. There is a mode for fire fighters and the reason this mode exists and the elevators don't simply work by default when there is a fire is exactly because a fire fighter is able to assess whether using the lifts poses a risk.

3. They're irrelevant because I've just given you a clear source for luminous material so the temperature of the fire (at least in this regard) doesn't matter.

4. Saying it could have just as easily come from thermite is useless, there's a massive source of sulphur (in wall plaster) while the amount of sulphur in 'thermate' is minuscule and is oxidised to sulphur dioxide by the intense heat. You may as well claim it came from great vats of sulphuric acid the evil government used to dissolve the steel supports or that unicorns were used to pull down the supports and unicorn horn contains sulphur.

So, you accept that iron is able to heat itself through oxidation?

Just because someone says it sounds like something, that does not make it true. Check out this video:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7732545.stm
Does this mean the British Government is covering up their assassinations by calling them car crashes? Of course not.

As for the 'pyroclastic clouds', how could mere paper:
http://i36.tinypic.com/281sa3c.jpg
have survived a red hot cloud of gas? Or did the evil government put asbestos based paper everywhere to fool me?

The truth will be accepted eventually, its how all things happen. First they are denied, 'debunked', believed by a few and finally believed by all.

I've heard that from animal rights nuts, conspriacy theory nuts and several other groups and to you I say flat earth, moon landing conspiracy, JFK conspiracy and end of the world. The degree to which a theory is mocked is no indicator of its correctness.

You can't change peoples views on things they don't want to believe. I guess you have to have some sort of compassion instead of trying to act like an internet 'hardass' like most around here do. I wouldn't believe for one second that a plane and fires dropped a skyscraper. Especially in an hour which is just ridiculous. The only reason I ever did believe that was because I was very young when it happened and believed the news and everyone around me. The truth will be accepted eventually, its how all things happen. First they are denied, 'debunked', believed by a few and finally believed by all. Think about Einsteins relativity theory, that was denied by a lot of people but years later it was proven and now accepted by everyone.

Thank you, this is exactly what I mean. They brainwashed us, made us think that the enemy was far away when really it's the ones standing behind us.

Exactly the official fairy tale is complete bullshit. Again I say it's not the questions themselves, it's that there's so goddam many of them. Everywhere you turn things don't add up in the slightest.

Not only that but also the Gulf of Tonkin Incident is a proven historical example.

It launched us into one of the longest, most brutal wars we've ever had, and it later (in 1999, 35 years later) turned out to be a complete fabrication!! 58,000 Americans and 1,500,000 Vietnamese died for absolutely nothing (actually I won't say that they died for the banker's interests, but we won't get into that). We didn't even win the war...

There are plenty of others like the Nazi’s Operation Himmler where they bombed their own institutions and blamed the Poles. Or the Russian KGB bombing its own country to put Vladimir Putin into power and justify war with Chechnya, or the Indonesian government allegedly having a role in the Bali Bombings, the Turkish bombing their own to justify retaliation on a rebel group. This ‘false flag terrorism’ has happened time and time again who is to say we would not do the same. Indeed many prominent U.S. officials have already stated that this ‘false flag terrorism’ may be used to give an excuse to wage war.

(in 1999, 35 years later)

Correction A CIA operative said this in 1999. The actual truth was not officially revealed until 2005, 41 years later. Time tells all...

There are plenty of others like the Nazi’s Operation Himmler

Two things here, firstly Godwin's! and secondly (I'm guessing you didn't know this) Heinrich Himmler isn't president of the United States (sorry to disappoint you).

to AF85

They would have cut the beams as efficiently as possible, therefore as smoothly and cleanly as possible.

I do not get that picture what is it trying to prove?

1. But they didn't. Again I cite NIST which itself stated that few parts of the materials they examined reached temperatures exceeding 300-500F. There were other things and I have said that. But the vast majority of the material burning was paper products and cloth, which could not have burned at the temperatures indicated.
2. Yes they would of. I can imagine you can travel in a vacuum than in air (can you travel faster in the troposphere or thermosphere?). Less air, airtight = faster time.
3. Haha and I have given you a clear source for the luminous material. Again they were Class A buildings and almost everything modern was up to par with safety. Also even if somehow it did "explode" it would have only heated up a small pocket, not enough to initiate the collapse of a sky-scraper :rolleyes:
4. Haha I've noticed you abandoned the argument that there was no molten metal at the WTCs. Again it could have come from Thermate just as easily as plaster. This is just one aspect of the evidence.

And I think Aliens from Pluto joined together with the race of Rosie O' Donnell like creatures from the center of the Earth and controlled the Unicorn's minds to make them bring down the WTC :rolleyes: (It's not the Unicorn horn either, it's their kneecaps)

Maybe, but not to this degree, and not in this case.

And how do you know? Were you part of it? Were you a witness? (For clarification I'm not saying it is, I'm simply trying to say that maybe you should not blindly accept what the men behind the curtain tell you)

Because the paper had to have come from the WTCs right? It could have come from anywhere and it was at the very end of the cloud, the least dangerous part. Plenty of paper did not survive the red hot cloud of gas.


--"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."-- Arthur Schopenhauer

Two things here, firstly Godwin's! and secondly (I'm guessing you didn't know this) Heinrich Himmler isn't president of the United States (sorry to disappoint you).

I'm simply referring to one of the most evil, repressive, secretive, racist, fascist governments in the World's history, much like what our own is becoming.

And he might as well be, heard of Presscott Bush and Wirt Walker? (Bush's have a long line of skull and bones membership I might add)

to: QuEsTiOn AuThOrItY

1. Paper and cloth burns at a much higher temperature than 260 degrees centigrade. If I remember correctly, wood (and therefore paper) will burn at a little over 1900 centigrade.

2. You misunderstand. The lift shafts were not a vacuum, however, if they were air tight (with the doors shut) then the lift would have to force air past the thin space around it as it moved, with proper ventilation (as most lift shafts have) the air just has to be forced out at one and and sucked in at the other, in addition to the air that moves around the lift. Even if you drill a small hole in the plunger it's still easier to compress a syringe with the hole at the end unplugged.

3. I'm not saying the UPS brought down the WTC, I'm just saying it gives a source for the luminous material (it was just above where it was observed to flow from).

4. There was no molten metal in the rubble. If you are close enough to observe molten iron running down a wall then you would be severely burnt by the radiant heat, even in a fire fighter's suit. Perhaps he saw sparks or hot cinders from the oxidising iron or perhaps the quote has been cut up, provide a source so I don't have to speculate.

Why? Hot iron slowly oxidises, heating itself. Did this suddenly not happen at ground zero due to some anomaly?

All you've got is people giving similies, as I have shown, just because someone says it's like an explosion that does not mean it is.

What do you suggest? Did other buildings around the WTC suddenly start throwing paper into the street for fun? The paper was carried in the dust, propelled by all the energy of tons of concrete and steel falling. There were no melted windscreens, and the tree in the background still has its leaves on. Or were the leaves put there afterwards (or sprayed with retardant) by the evil government?

Firstly, notice Mr Schopenhauer said 'all truth', not 'all things that are .... become truth', secondly, this is a ridiculous assertion, many modern scientific theories are not ridiculed in the slightest, merely examined. Or are these some how less true? Again, the degree to which a theory is ridiculed is no indicator of its validity.

Source?
Also the Windsor building has a concrete core, different size, and different scenario.
Oh but wait, part of the building did collapse though!
Any thoughts on that?





You do not make sense.
You're saying it fell right in its footprints but yet it damaged surrounding buildings?
Um.....Fail.

Also lets stay on topic, if you want to talk about wtc7 make another thread.

And im still waiting on a source where you claimed that the 707 creates more damage then the 767 because of it engines!

Stop dodging situations that i debunked you on and accept it.



Ahh forgot about you Casper sorry :(

I already explained why Windzor was important. Same building materials and fire. If this http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/windsor4.jpeg http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/windsor7.jpg did not collapse I would not expect this http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper202/stills/8304b314.jpg to

It did fall into it's own footprint. The vast majority of debris did not travel very far, rather go strait down. This building imploded perfectly, with little damage to buildings outside of the immediate vicinity, only controlled demolition can bring about such perfection.

Ah what I hate about debunkers. They ask you to call on precedents when they damn well know there are none....

WTF?!?! you haven't debunked anyone... '

Lack of evidence is NOT evidence.

Umm that's what I should be saying to you mate. The whole "official bullshit" is based on speculation, not hard evidence.

Presscott Bush also was a banker i believe who helped the nazis launder their money in american banks. The Bush family is just trying to create a NWO and be the ones running it. Bush Sr. actually used the term NWO during his presidency.

Anyone want to talk about the Lusitania? Anyone going on that ship was warned that it was during wartime and could be sunk. So what did America do? Loaded it up with missiles and other contraband. Giving the U.S. a reason to join WWI.

A lot of our presidents look for a reason to go to war. Whether it is the fact that no president has ever not been reelected during a time of war or the potential benefits of CASH FLOW that is generated during war times. That is the real reason the WTC's were demolished. There was more than enough money in it to pay everyone off or scare them. Which brings us to the long war in Iraq.

Benazir Bhutto who is a pakistani politician said that Osama Bin Laden has been dead for a very long time and was murdered. That still leaves the question of why we are in Iraq. We killed Saddam for the sole reason to make americans feel safer. When the real reason was because he tried to make plans to assassinate bush sr.

Here is a link to her speech about bin laden:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

Here is a video of the thermite pouring out of the South Tower:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qitq-a9DXBU&feature=related

The fires in the WTC were not hot enough to melt the steel and yes there was molten steel at ground zero 5-6 weeks after its demolition. The firefighters could only be on the wreckage for a few minutes due to their boots melting. The steels integrity could have been compromised but your saying that the core of the building that was made to withstand hurricane force winds just crumbled? Anyone ever tell you about the Empire State Building being hit by a b-52 bomber? There was fires and it did not fall. Search youtube for the voice recording of the firefighter saying that there was TWO isolated pockets of fire in the towers and could be knocked down with a few lines.

A link to the firefighters stating it was a controlled demolition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow

Haloaddict:
We're still in Iraq because we rather badly crippled the government. I'm not saying the invasion was right, I'm just saying that pulling out completely at this point would be very bad for the innocent citizens.

To be honest, if they're trying to create a NWO they're doing pretty badly, they've had 16 years between them of presidency, plus the 8 years they had while Clinton was president to prepare.

AF85

1. No. Wood (therefore paper) burns at 1200F in open air, with a constant fuel supply. The WTCs had neither. I am saying this is the temperature that wood burning can reach, but not the temperature it did reach in the buildings.

2. I know they're not in a vacuum I was just illustrating a point. No the elevator is not perfectly situated against the walls of the shaft as to not allow air through. What do you think the roar is? Air being forced aside, and past, the elevator as it moves. I'm saying once the fires used the limited amount of oxygen in the shafts there would not be enough coming in from outside to sustain a large fire.

But as I said before, there was almost nothing to burn in the core of the building, only elevator shafts and maintenance rooms. No fuel = no fire, simple enough.

3. First aluminum does not burn that bright (this is molten aluminum http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/alumpics/molten.jpg and molten steel -->http://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/articles/images/news_estep_website_4869.jpg) and again high safety standards, most likely some sparks did not melt the steel.

4. Haha it did not say the distance they were away from the metal (humans can see quite far you know...). JESUS are you ignoring NASA's and NIST's reports of molten metal too?!?! They're ("officially") on your side!!

I also think Ken Holding (and the fire fighters) are experienced enough to recognize sparks from molten metal
when he sees them...

have you ever been to NYC? I grew up there (going back on Tuesday W00T) and believe me there is paper everywhere. Ever been inside an office building? Yup, believe it or not, there is paper everywhere in there also.

Trees are tough and I don't think I've seen the pictures you have. Also windshields are made of very tough glass => high melting point!

Oh and you think you know the truth right?

"A lie gets halfway round the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on"--Winston Churchill

Haloaddict:
We're still in Iraq because we rather badly crippled the government. I'm not saying the invasion was right, I'm just saying that pulling out completely at this point would be very bad for the innocent citizens.

To be honest, if they're trying to create a NWO they're doing pretty badly, they've had 16 years between them of presidency, plus the 8 years they had while Clinton was president to prepare.

Which also gives them an excuse to remain in the Middle East....

The NWO will start by dismantling the current government brick by brick and slowly causing chaos, war, and confusion, thus when this happens they have an excuse to step in and right things for "the good of the people".

They've had a longer time to prepare than that and if I do say so myself they're doing a damn good job of it...

1. The fires had (at some points) plenty of air, there was the not so small matter of the gaping hole carved by the aircraft and the numerous smaller holes caused by damage to the building as a result of the aircraft.

2.The noise is the sound of the cables and the elevator moving on its bearings (there is usually some sort of track to steady it). Did you not pay attention during any sort of fire safety talk or something? The one thing you never do is enter an elevator during a fire because it acts as a chimney, pulling hot air towards and up it.

Again, the hot air from the fire would have been sucked from the outside of the building, towards the elevator shafts and up them. The air would have heated the surrounding supports as it went, like a giant furnace.

3. Didn't say the UPS melted aluminium, just about any metal shorting out those batteries would have produced sparks.

4. Why? Do fire fighters in NYC usually see molten metal?

So the paper would have been placed in and on top of the dust by the surrounding offices after the pyroclastic flow?:
http://i36.tinypic.com/281sa3c.jpg

I know, it took the sceptics a while to play catch up, I guess we underestimated the stupidity of some people.

Haloaddict:
Forgot to mention, it was a b-25 that crashed into the empire state building, a tiny aircraft, and the fire was quickly extinguished.

1. At the beginning, but they quickly used that air and drastically weakened in strength.

2. The massive roar is also the air whooshing past. Again elevator shafts are pretty damn air tight, and would shut off something to help quell the fire in the event of an emergency. I would imagine that the WTCs would have a fair number of safety precautions to prevent things like these from happening, why do you think no other steel framed structure in history has collapse from fire? Luck or safety precautions?

3. Then what the hell did melt the aluminum? I still do not get where you're going with this.

4. I would imagine they've seen sparks and can tell the difference between this http://www.themeat.org/gallery2/d/2981-2/electricity+in+the+air.jpg (the sparks) and this http://safetypassinc.com/dg/plain/default/aspect/heavy industry molten metal.jpg

I would also imagine they're not complete idiots...

Again you're not addressing the NASA images and NIST reports....

5. No the windows in buildings were blown out (another indication of controlled demolition) so things got a little....drafty.....to say the least. Also the enormous amount of wind generated from the collapse would blow out windows and sweet up the light paper.

Ahaha you want me to get you list of respectable men and women who think 9/11 was a sham? Most of them better credentials and more respectable than you (no offense)

QuEsTiOn AuThOrItY:
1. What air did they quickly use? There were holes in the building. New air was drawn in by the chimney effect.

2. Or the that a large aircraft didn't crash into it. There aren't systems in place that seal the elevator shaft in the event of a fire, again, that's why you don't use the elevator in the event of a fire (at least I wouldn't, perhaps you would, maybe that's another conspiracy, set in place years ago for just this event)

3.I'm not saying anything melted any aluminium, I'm just saying that the luminous material probably was caused by the UPS.

4. You're mistaken, I don't mean electrical arcs, I mean hot sparks, like this:
http://i34.tinypic.com/23wtmr7.jpg
And that's done by quite a low voltage.

5. But the 'pyroclastic flow' happened at the same time as the collapse, if your theory is to be believed the paper would have had to have been deposited afterwards. Don't you think that a plane crashing into the building or the building falling down might have had something to do with the windows breaking?

Not really, there are lists of people that think that the world was created in 7 days only a few thousand years ago, amongst them many academics, doesn't make it true.

1. The air in the elevator shaft. I don't buy the chimney effect, even if small amounts of air were drawn in it would not sustain a fire with enough intensity to down a building (again this http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/windsor7.jpg vs this http://www.debunking911.com/WTC_on_fire9.jpg. If all 32 floors of Windsor didn't collapse from that in over 24 hours, you think those small fires in the WTC could bring it down in 1 1/2 hours?!?!)

2. There are, however, safety precautions in place to prevent fire from spreading. Sprinklers and fire-proofing being chief among them. I can't imagine that those could not have helped quell the small fires.

3. I seriously doubt that, sparks do not look like molten metal. That IS molten steel from the building. Also notice in the picture how the sparks do not travel very far. The material from the window was molten and fell about 15 feet I would imagine.

4. I don't know where you are going with the paper thing. I never said the paper was planted. There is plenty of paper in the world, and even more than that in NYC. Are you saying that paper has to laid down, it can't be blown in order to be in the middle of the street?

Religion is abstract, this is science, it's no basis for comparison.

I also want to call upon this photo http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/docs/wtc5_fire_floors.jpg This is Building 5. As you can see 1/3 of it is an honest to God inferno. It was beneath the towers when they fell and was hit with tons of debris. Strangely enough it did not collapse.

The third fucking World Trade Center building, that the general public doesnt know about, is enough information that it was truly an Inside Job
Fuck the us government

1. I think that demonstrates the chimney effect quite nicely, the fire is clearly visible on the lower floors but you have smoke rising out above it. On the Windsor building you have flames and smoke coming from all floors. Again, the Windsor building wasn't hit by an aircraft, quite a lot of it still collapsed and it was a concrete construction.

2. These were taken out by the small matter of a rather large aircraft smashing into the building and the sheer speed at which the fire started overwhelmed any remaining functioning systems.

3.Actually, the sparks are molten metal. That's what the sparks given off in arc welding are, this is just on a larger scale because in arc welding you don't want to violently melt the piece you're working on, while in this case you have all the conductors associated with those batteries are ruined.

4.If there's paper in the street then either there was no 'pyroclastic flow' (this is just one piece of evidence, you also have to account for all the people caught in the dust cloud that weren't burnt to a crisp) or the paper was put there after the 'pyroclastic flow'.

Same principal, a list of people who believe in something does not make it any more valid.

Again, building 5 was not hit by an aircraft, no plane tore its way through the internal supports of building 5, some debris hit it from above.

1. There is smoke coming out because smoke rises and there may have been fires not visible from the outside. There are flames and smoke from every floor because every floor was on fire. You are also forgetting that there was very little material to burn in the WTC core. It was only maintenance rooms and elevator shafts (no fuel=no fire). Again the building was protected against aircraft. Even if it was not the exact aircraft there would still be many protections against aircraft of all kinds.

John Skilling (WTC structural engineer) told the Seattle Times after the 1993 bombing that if a plane struck the building there would be a horrendous fire but the building would still stand

The Windsor was made out of the same materials

cite wikipedia "It was a very solid building, with a central core of reinforced concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing."

def of reinforced concrete "Reinforced concrete is concrete in which reinforcement bars ("rebars") or fibers have been incorporated to strengthen a material that would otherwise be brittle. In industrialised countries, nearly all concrete used in construction is reinforced concrete.

Again Class A building, very high quality materials, same materials as the Windsor, and in all scenarios the WTC should have remained standing

2. Again Class A building. Very high safety standards. The WTCs were struck by fire twice before 9/11, they burned for longer and the towers did not collapse. Again the plane was protected against large aircraft and all of the engineers have stated it would hold up even after a plane hit.

Also, - In the 1993 WTC bombings 1,500 pounds of explosives were detonated in the basement of the Towers. The support beams were unscathed and the building stood as it always stood. It just goes to show how well built these towers were and how they could withstand just about anything thrown at them.

I also cite NIST, - NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) investigates disasters like this and reports back to the government. NIST hired Under-Writers Laboratory to recreate the disaster. They found out right away that these same size recreations of WTC did NOT collapse under fire. NIST --"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th,"—If you don’t feel like reading, it states that the same size reconstructions of the WTC do not collapse from fire, thereby disproving the official ‘pancake theory’.

3. The sparks, or molten metal, still cool very rapidly. That was molten steel in that video nothing else.

4. They were at the end of the pyroclastic flow. Obviously if you were standing right in front of ground zero you would be fucked (R.I.P all those who died in the state sponsored terrorism). Again the paper was at the very edge of the flow.

A list of people who do not does not make it any less valid.

The plane barely hit the core if you look at the videos. They hit diagonally and the fire ball burst out of the adjacent side, not the opposite one.

Building 5 is still important it was gutted by fire and pummeled by tons of debris, more damage than either of the twin towers, and yet it still stands.

To Cheeze Whiz:

That is a whole other thread we won't even get into that.

BBC reported the collapse 10 mins before it happened
CNN almost a full hour

Just the fact that the vast majority of the American public doesn't know how many buildings were hit should be proof enough.

1. You think the WTC was concrete? I get it now. The majority of the load in the WTC was taken by steel supports, which lose 90% of their strength at the temperatures reached in the fires. Concrete on the other hand is still rather strong at those temperatures.

The designers of the Titanic said it was unsinkable.

2. Explosive in the wrong (or right for the innocent people) place won't do much to the supports, a plane carries a surprising amount of kinetic energy and almost all of that energy was transferred rather efficiently into the supports. The already damaged supports finally gave in when they lost their stregnth in the fire, it was a double whammy.

Read the sentence you copied, they say a large gravity load, as in a sustained load downwards, not a dynamic lateral load.

3. Really, 'molten steel and nothing else'?:
http://www.jepsculpture.com/bronze.shtml
I guess you should tell those people that they're casting with steel and not bronze.

4.Yes, from the falling debris. Why are there no records of horribly burnt bodies from this 'pyroclastic flow'? I'd also like you to consider the amount of whatever substance you're thinking of required to heat enough air to generate a 'pyroclastic flow' of that measure, if it's hard for you, give me a ballpark figure of the radius you're thinking of and the substance (be it thermite, TNT, gelignite or something else).

The damage caused a bit of debris hitting the top of a building is minuscule compared to the damage caused by an aircraft hitting it.

One final thing I would like answered is, why, in your theory did the towers need to fall? Why go to all that trouble, it's not like two planes crashing into the towers would have been any less effective.

1. Oh, so now steel loses 90% of its structural strength at 300-500F? That certainly explains a lot....even if the fires would have been 2000F the concrete would have taken enough of the load to make the collapse longer, maybe 3 minutes or more, instead of the mere 10-12 seconds it collapsed in.....

Again, I state the temperatures would have been very low in the core of the building because there was simply not enough to burn.

NO FUEL = NO FIRE

And people once thought the world was flat.....

2. It was a truck full of explosives in a parking garage....and even it barely scathed the towers...

Maybe into some of the supports, but watch the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0JH1nI3oQY
it barely hit the core of the building.
Also none of the plane burst out of the other side of the tower signifying that the plane did not cut the majority of the beams. If it had cut strait through the beams, parts of the plane would have burst through the other side.

Right that's what it means, it's effectively disproving Pancake Theory. The "sustained load downwards" are the floors above it. The tests show that the sustained load downwards (the floors pancaking down) does not cause the structure underneath to give way, which is the whole theory behind the collapse. NIST effectively contradicted themselves....

3. Wait, so now you're trying to tell me that the towers were built with bronze? I don't see the point you are trying to make...

The two metals in the building were aluminum and steel. I have told you why the metal could not have been aluminum, therefore the metal dripping from the towers was the only other one in the building. Steel.

4. You either got out or you died from the flow. The people who didn't get out were crushed under the debris before the flow got to them. If you were under the debris your body would not get burned.

It was not just heat, it was explosives combined with the building falling would have pushed the air and debris out.

Minuscule? Building 5 was right under the tower. It was crushed by millions of tons of debris along with buildings 3,4, and 6. So tell me, if millions of tons of concrete and steel raining on a building(s) along with massive infernos, did not bring a building down, how could a plane weighing only 200 tons and a few scattered, cool burning fires bring down a miracle of modern engineering?

Ohh yes the shock value of the towers falling was probably the single most important event in launching the U.S. into war. Two jets are fine and dandy, maybe get us a little pissed off, but the embodiment of the trade and enormousness of New York City collapsing? That just makes me a little bit mad.

They would have had to make the towers fall very soon after the planes hit to avoid the softening the blows of the planes to the American ego. The planes were a punch in the face, but the towers being completely and utterly destroyed is just kicking us while we are down (opposed to letting us recuperate and take another hit), and guess what happens then? We want revenge! We were angry! We needed to get the "damn Mooolims" for ramming planes into buildings and making them impossibly collapse.

It was not until America cooled down that we started to question. To give you an idea of how angry we were, the Democrats and Republicans were never more united then in their decision to invade the Middle East. Sure there were a few who though rationally, but they were a very very small majority. The towers collapsing were more a blow to American Pride than anything else.

(END rant)

Does that answer your question?

here are some more buildings http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/docs/interstate_fire_lg.gifhttp://www.net4truthusa.com/Photos/ParqueCentralFire.gifhttp://11syyskuu.net/terrorismi/Doha.jpghttp://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/images/1102521819558_b.jpg

1. No, at 800 degrees centigrade (the temperature of a wood fire) it loses about 90% of its strength. Again, the elevator shafts would have acted as chimneys, pulling the hot air towards them, you can say you don't believe this all you want but every bit of fire safety training that covers the issue tells you not to use the elevator in a fire because it acts as a chimney, the only reason a mode for fire fighters exists is because their training allows them to asses the situation.

Hot air only cools down if it's exposed to cold surfaces or cold air, what you'd have here is air being drawn in from outside, feeding the flames and then the hot air generated by the fire being pulled towards the centre of the building and up the elevator shafts, heating everything around it.

But again, we're not talking about a simple building fire, we're talking about vast, dynamic lateral loading and damage caused to the building by the impact of a large aircraft followed by a fire.

2. As it entered the building the plane would have been refracted partially but most of it didn't need to hit the columns to damage them, as you can see, almost all of the plane stayed in the building, meaning that almost all of its kinetic energy was transferred to the supports.

They are referring to an undamaged building, if you think that a plane smashing into it counts as anything remotely like undamaged then you truly are dense.

3.The point I'm making is that you cannot say it is one metal or another simply from a grainy video. Those sparks could have been copper from the connections between the batteries (we're not talking thin wires here, in a UPS of that size you'd have thousands of thick copper bars connecting the batteries). In fact copper would make more sense because molten iron turns black after falling through air.

4. There were a few people pulled from the wreckage, how were they not incinerated?

So why is there no debris on the roof?

So all of those buildings were hit by planes?

1. The fire would not have reached 1200F. It can only reach that temperature in the best if circumstances, open air and constant fuel source (not to mention longer than 1 1/2 hours to reach peak temp)

And again there was nothing to burn in the core of the building, it would not have mattered anyway.

Again the official theory is that the floors fell on one another creating the "Pancake collapse". And again the organization that the U.S. government hired to prove this could not, in fact they proved the very opposite of that!

And again a plane the towers were protected against. Again every single one of the buildingd=s s=designers stated it would not collapse under the plane there would ony be local damage. Again the fires were few, scattered, cool burning, and very weak. Not near enough to bring down the top of the line WTC.

2. No all the kinetic energy was taken by the supports and the lightweight aluminum alloy would not have damged the much heavier steel to a large extent. You can tell the plane did not have enourmous amounts of kinetic energy because it did not burst through the other side of the building.

did I say the building was undamaged? No, I did not. I said that it was impossible for this kind of damage to bring down a building like the WTCs. Also I've stuck with this argument thus far because we have not been throwing around insults like "You're an idiot, tin-foil hat wearing, schizophrenic, conspiracy theorist" so let's try not to call each other stupid or ignorant it destroys the conversation really....

I can most definintely say from the evidence presented it is not aluminum or bronze.

Just a question, where was the UPS generator in the building, because unless it was in that exact room I doubt it would have carried "sparks"
through other rooms.

4. First being under the debris would have given them a certain amount of protection. While the cloud may not have been very hot, it is still indictive of a controlled demolition.

The angle of the camera most likely, it may have been cleared off to prevent further damage, but it was right under the towers and reports say it was hit with debris.

Was building 7 hit by a plane?
Each of those buildings sustained heavy heavy damage, the equivalent of a plane and more, and all of them sustained many times more damage than WTC7 and yet they did not collapse.

But did I answer your last question why it was important to make the towers fall or do you need more?

1. So, are you saying that the huge holes in the towers somehow sealed themselves up, limiting airflow or do you have some other theory as to how the fires, despite the gaping holes in the building had limited airflow? Do tell.

Are you saying that, despite everything you were taught in fire safety, lift shafts do not, in fact, act as chimneys?

The whole 'pencil through mesh' idea the designers had is debunked by the video, we don't see any significant amount of either plane emerge from the other side, meaning they were wrong. The people that built the titanic labelled it unsinkable too. Their whole survivability assessment was based on only a portion of the kinetic energy of the plane being transferred to the building. In the event, it wasn't

2. It's called an inelastic collision, precisely because the plane is obliterated its kinetic energy is transferred to the building, the only strong connection between the floors it hits and the ground is the supports, that's why these take that huge, dynamic load.

OK, fine. They are referring to an undamaged building therefore you cannot use the quote as evidence, all you can say is that it's your opinion that this level of damage is not enough to cause a collapse in conjunction with a fire.

Please share what you base that on, also, one is molten copper, one is molten iron, state which is which and explain how you can tell:
http://i37.tinypic.com/hs8705.jpg

The UPS was just above the flow:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
this also hurts your molten steel theory because the luminous material does not damage the building exterior.

4. If it gave protection (to protect against a pyroclastic flow you have to be in an airtight chamber) then they would have suffocated. If the cloud is 'not very hot' then it is not a pyroclastic flow.

Obviously the scale is smaller here and the chimney doesn't contain the vast amounts of plaster that the WTC did (that's what most of the dust was) but still, this is a way of demolishing chimneys by fire developed by the late Fred Dibnah:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=945T56ZxFkE
if you skip to 5:30 you see a very similar billowing cloud of dust from just the bricks and mortar, as I said, there's less of it because the scale is smaller (also the chimney, being hollow, is lighter) and there's no plaster.

No, but building 7 had quite a large chunk taken out of it at the side.

You told me enough but I don't agree with your speculation. One other thing, in your theory, how did 'they' know where to put the explosives? Surely they had no way of predicting where the plane would hit and, also, how did the explosives and the necessary control circuits survive the impact and the fires?

It is my firm belief that the Secret Service installed high/tech explosives and destructive chemicals throughout each of the three towers only days before their demise. They caught wind of the plot to fly the planes into the towers and the Pentagon, and with their administration (at the time) having the most horrible public approval rating one could get [remember that a special committee was sent to Iraq just previous to the disaster to investigate the administration's claim of weapons of mass destruction, and the investigative committee came back saying those claims were pure nonsense], and so they decided to let it go ahead instead of preventing it.

They knew that they could rally the people right up on their side if they only had a spectacular event to get behind. But then they got to thinking that even 10-15 burned out floors on two major towers and a hole in the Pentagon wouldn't quite be enough to pull it off, even still, so they decided to take the given and make it into a grand-prize-turkey fair. They shut the towers down while they planted high-tech explosives and chemicals throughout, then allowed the employees back in, knowing full well most of them would die shortly. Then they shut down all military airspace activity in the vicinity. They also threw the mock exercises in there just to confuse the channel procedures. Monitoring the situation closely from their Command Center, they then orchestrated the media by feeding them propaganda and outright lies, knowing full well the public would be outraged and would run to the administration for guidance and assistance.

Shortly after the propaganda campaign, they whisked away every single piece of evidence of their mass-murder before it could be examined by anyone but themselves, and right under the watchful gazes of the entire world, quickly melting down, selling off, or disposing of any and all tell-tale materials. And everything worked absolutely perfect for them. Even though the evidence of criminal activity was as obvious as one could make it, the sheeple mostly followed right in line, the war they've been after for many years is now raging - just as they wanted it, and our world creeps closer and closer to the Armageddon we all know for a fact is coming soon.

-Spectral, in this whole theory, how did they know exactly what floors the planes would crash into? I don't think that even the terrorists that committed this atrocity planned that. Also, how did they get so much explosives in without anyone noticing? I don't know if you've seen a building prepped for demolition, there are wires and charges everywhere, it looks like a messy server farm. Hiding all that wiring would have required a phenomenal number of skilled workmen, all of whom would have had to remain silent, any ideas how that was accomplished?

-Spectral, in this whole theory, how did they know exactly what floors the planes would crash into? I don't think that even the terrorists that committed this atrocity planned that. Also, how did they get so much explosives in without anyone noticing? I don't know if you've seen a building prepped for demolition, there are wires and charges everywhere, it looks like a messy server farm. Hiding all that wiring would have required a phenomenal number of skilled workmen, all of whom would have had to remain silent, any ideas how that was accomplished?

There IS only one conclusion. The feds already have plastic explosives and high-tech chemical bombs planted in every single major structure across America, such devices that were installed covertly over the years, and during development of new structures, such as bridges, dams, skyscrapers, airports and underground terminals. In the event of civil war or severe political upheaval, this kind of preparation would be invaluable in ferreting out opposing bases of operation and easy routes of resistance.

If they blow up a dam, they cut off a water source. If they blow up an airport and its runways, they cut off supply routes. If they blow up a skyscraper, they shut down an enemy command center which had a unique vantage point. It makes perfect sense that the feds would rig every single major structure right across the nation. But on 9/11, they obviously shut the towers down momentarily to make some slight adjustments to their already installed explosives and chemical bombs.

It didn't really matter where the planes hit, as the efficient placement of the devices assured the towers would fall in a manner similar to that of structural failure due to heavy impact and prolonged exposure to fire; the only thing the feds forgot is that steel will not melt at just any temperature, and you MUST generate enough heat required to melt it. All evidence gathered from this tragedy indicates there would have had to be at least three times the heat actually generated during the incident, even accounting for external factors to increase the expected heat.

Even though 99% of the evidence was whisked away to be destroyed within days of the incident, there were steel girders from WTC1 and 2 which have been observed by several persons of scientific background to have been melted in an 180 degree arch-shape, and having absolutely no cracking on the edges - something which is impossible without the required amount of heat - heat which was never even close to have been generated by the jet fuel or burning materials that day.

Wait a minute -spectral, what happened to 'only days before their demise'? I usually know when I'm being trolled but frankly I'm only about 60% sure here. Either way, that's quite an imagination you have there.

Wait a minute -spectral, what happened to 'only days before their demise'? I usually know when I'm being trolled but frankly I'm only about 60% sure here. Either way, that's quite an imagination you have there.As I said, the explosive devices were already in there, but they shut the towers down for the first time since their construction just days before their collapse.

As I said, the explosive devices were already in there, but they shut the towers down for the first time since their construction just days before their collapse.
No, you said:
It is my firm belief that the Secret Service installed high/tech explosives and destructive chemicals throughout each of the three towers only days before their demise.

edit: could someone please tell me, is spectral trolling me? It's kind of hard to tell.

Take a good look at these photos of I-beams and other pieces of key-evidence which were whisked away just hours after the disaster. If a steel beam is not heated to almost a liquefied form when it bends, you will get hairline cracks all along the outside of the beam. Not so in this case. The beam is smooth as you could get, meaning this beam was super-heated beyond any of the temperatures that could naturally be generated by a fuel-burning fire. Not to mention the 9/11 "meteorite", which is concrete and tempered steel which have been fused together at incredible temperature (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbMu2w7fSG8&feature=related). Again, the temperature it takes to melt concrete is considerably more than what was available inside the disaster site. Just these simple observations alone, on their own merit, are enough to establish explosives and chemical bombs were in fact used. Keep in mind that these fires did not burn very long at at all, and so there was hardly enough time for oxidization to occur, and even if it did, we would not get the smoothly and dramatically bent I-beams we ended up getting, as they would have been just slighly deformed due to oxidization (http://www.debunking911.com/alabamatruck1.jpg) - not bent right around on themselves (http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/apics/steel11_hires_c.jpg) like we see in these photos. We would also not be seeing pieces of almost white-hot (http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/2169/moltensteelenclose5mt.jpg) metal being extracted from the scene weeks after the collapse. Not to mention the obvious thermite cuts (http://www.european911citizensjury.com/9-11%20-%20Evidence%20of%20thermite-cut%20columns-d-indicated.jpg) found throughout the structures. (http://www.thepowerhour.com/images/9-11_thermite1.jpg)

Even outside, there were engine blocks found literally fused into a solid block of metal (http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/FusedEngine.jpg). Do you really think jet fuel, burning for a matter of mere minutes could have accomplished this task? Hardly!

http://z.hubpages.com/u/215208_f520.jpghttp://algoxy.com/psych/images/pre.cut.salvage.box.column.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/meteorite.jpghttp://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/wt10.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/DSCN0941_hires.jpghttp://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/core4.jpg

Hang on, I thought you said they were brought down with explosives. The shaped charges used in demolitions don't do anything like either of those phenomena, a shaped charge leaves a rather messy hole with conical bent edges. A thermic lance on the other hand does produce a cut like those seen at ground level, just like the one being used in this photo:
http://i35.tinypic.com/24e8ejd.jpg
This, by comparison, is what a shaped charge does:
http://www.nolandmines.com/Mines/blustrikeclean.jpg

It's pretty clear that those beams were bent from a combination of the heat of the fire (which burnt for quite a while) and the immense pressure. It's pretty hard to comprehend just how much force tens of thousands of tons of rubble can exert.

Incidentally, what is a 'chemical bomb'? Aren't all non-nuclear bombs just chemical reactions happening in a sealed container?

Great. Another deliberate idiot who reads only what they want to read, leaving the rest suspiciously untouched. Just what I needed.

Surely if your theory is so watertight it should stand up to a little bit of scrutiny by a 'deliberate idiot'. If someone who you think is so stupid can debunk it then maybe it's time you did a rethink.

I've also got some bad news for you, thermite can't cut vertical surfaces and it's not precise enough to produce anything close to a straight line.

You also didn't say what the difference between a chemical bomb and a plastic explosive is (or do you mean a shaped charge?).

1. Airflow was fine and free on the outside of the building (obviously), but not on the inside.

Did I say that? I said it would not matter, there could NOT have been large fires in the core because there was nothing to burn.

Again I think they know more about what they're talking about than you. None of the plane emerging from the other side is proof that the steel beams held up. If the plane had all of this "kinetic energy" it would have sliced through the colums and burst through the other side.

all of the kinetic energy was absorbed by the thousand ton steel beams which could surely take light weight aluminum slamming into them, even at 500mph

2. Was the lower part of the building damaged? No, it was not, and the tests NIST did proved that the undamged floors would and could take the weight of the floors above them! And if you actually think that the lowers floors were damaged in any way that again is proof of explosives.

3. Ahh but no I asked where it was located in the building. Those were NOT sparks that was molten metal. And H=how exactly can you tell what floor the molten metal is coming from in the video? I cannot see the whole tower, therefore there is no basis for comparison.

4. I have not heard about anyone escaping alive from under the towers. I have heard about the people who survived the collapse inside the towers, but none that survived the tons of debris falling on them.

Pyro=hot gas, clastic=small pieces of material, the first one doesn't matter as much (although it was hot), it's the clastic part that really proves everything. It proves that the rublle was blown outward by some outside force.

Uh I don't see your point. At least the Windsor was built with the same materials, this was built with bricks and mortar.

I didn't see that. Check out pictures of the Deutch Bank and Millemnium Hotel and other buildings near the twoers, beams flew into their sides and they had fires, yet they did not collapse.

They would only have had to put them in the bottom of the building. They knew the plane would hit high. Detonators are simplle, also even if the plane did destroy some they had all of the others.

No buddy this http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/wt10.jpg is from the WTC. Now you know as damn well as I do fire does NOT do that. If you watch the movie 9/11 mysteries they actuall have interviews with construction workers on site who say there is no way that fire did that.

Also tons of these http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_meteorite.jpg (concrete fused with iron) were found at the WTC. Again the movie has interviews with various engineers who, not knowing what this was, said there was no way fire did that.

Also it was not just shaped charges, they could not have brought down the building normally they would have had to use explosives in conjunction with other substances, like thermite (Thermate)

1. You don't need large fires near the core to heat it because the hot air from the fires was drawn towards the centre of the building, like a Roman hypocaust but on a much more deadly scale.

You said it yourself, the plane is soft however it does have a huge mass (well over 100 metric tons) and all that energy forced through beams which are also holding the building up is devastating.

2. Well, then it's just as well that the building didn't collapse from the bottom up, otherwise you might have a conspiracy on your hands.

3. Read the article again:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
It shows labelled pictures, demonstrating that the UPS was one floor above the flow and, crucially, in an area that was damaged. Now, please indicate which you think is the copper and which you think is the iron and explain why (I just really want to know by what method you can differentiate between these two molten metals, in the pictures there is actually a way of telling but the grainy video you presented does not provide a high enough resolution to tell):
http://i37.tinypic.com/hs8705.jpg


4.The point of the video is that it shows how a brick building, collapsing with no explosives involved produces a cloud of dust that is very similar in nature to the cloud of dust you labelled a pyroclastic flow.

Fire and pressure does do that, just ask any blacksmith.

Again, massive amounts of pressure do things that might seem weird but are in fact quite mundane.

Thermite has never been used in demolition because it really isn't suited to cut vertical surfaces.

i believe in evidence
question authority does not have proper evidence to support his claim.
so there is nothing to back it up.
sorry i didnt get suckered from loosechange
Lack of evidence is NOT evidence

Okay then explain building number 7

1. Oh yes you do. I seriously doubt that a few scattered, cool burning fires could generate enough heat to weaken steel. Again I cite NIST's report that few samples they measured had fires burning hotter than 300-500F!! No matter how many theories there are in the pancake collapse of the building they all rely on temperatures around 1600-2000F, which did not occur.

Also hot air would not sufficiently weaken the I-beams enough to initiate a collapse.

2. It started at the bottom. I can get you testimonies from fire-fighters, people in and outside of the building, along with News Stations, and videos. I'm positive you've seen them before right? Witnesses describe things like "1000 fire-crackers" going off directly before the collapse. Also seismic stations registered explosions before the collapse, and two stations even registered small explosions before the planes even hit!!

3. The one on the left is copper, and the one on the right is iron

This picture is misleading because the one on the right looks like it is being poured outside and the picture is very close. In other circumstances it would be much brighter.

So what is the way of telling? Even if it's not steel how can you tell it's copper? The molten material could have as easily come from explosives as it could have from a generator. I doubt the latter for several reasons. First everyone always assumes worst case scenario, where everything fails simultaneously and in the worst way possible. I would imagine that the generators would have some sort of safety measure to prevent the shorting, also I still see no indication of how they can tell which floor it's coming from, nor if the UPS room was in the center or outside of the building.

4. Again bricks and mortar vs. steel and concrete? I have no doubt that the extreme pressure of the buildings falling at free fall speed contributed to pushing dust and debris out, but I also think that explosives help push that flow.

It has been, albeit not very often, but it has come a long way. They have devices that attach to the beam diagonally and cut it, I would also imagine that the government has higher technology than the commercial demolisher.

But again how do you explain the bent I-beams and concrete fused with steel?

4.

1. http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper202/stills/8304b314.jpg
It takes more than 'a few scattered fires' to generate that much smoke.

You don't need direct flames to heat something, just hot air, that's how a blast furnace works.

2.Sorry, the video evidence is against you on that one, the section above the impact powers through the rest of the tower, it doesn't simply fall into the ground.

3. OK, that was a bit unfair, it's only possible to tell because I told you one was iron and one was copper (I'm guessing you did a google image search for 'molten iron' and then one for 'molten copper'). The way you can tell is twofold, firstly the guy raking the copper is too close for it to be iron and secondly the surface of the flowing iron is the wrong colour and shape for copper, copper forms a more rounded surface and the shade of coolest copper isn't the dark red we see in the photo.

My point is that even with decent photos and ideal circumstances it's hard to tell (but a giveaway that it's not iron or anything with a melting point that high is the lack of damage to the facing around the origin of the luminous material).

Explosives don't generate molten anything, they work by punching holes in objects by sheer brute force, failing batteries, on the other hand, do.

The UPS failure could have been systemic, one battery shorting could have caused failure of the insulators, causing adjacent batteries to short.

4. Not just steel and concrete, you're forgetting the vast amounts of plaster in the WTC, something that generates far more dust far more easily than bricks and mortar.

Could you cite an instance where it's been used for demolition? I was under the impression that Thermite was a lousy cutter on vertical surfaces. The only video I've ever seen that claimed to be of thermite being used for demolition was in a conspiracy video I saw where it was in fact a shaped charge (which produces a very different cut, much more ragged and with the edges bent in one direction, the hint was the shape of it and the rubber band used to affix it to the beam).

The bent I beams and 'fused' concrete were the result of tens of thousands of tons of building/rubble pressing down on them (although the 'fused' concrete might instead be a piece of reinforced concrete that's been mangled and rusted because a lot of the steel in it is clearly rebar).

I was showing what a pancake collapse would look like, even though they are made of different materials they should have looked relatively similar. Instead it was turned into dust.

Also there are no photos of a building like the WTC because it has never happened before. No steel framed building in modern history has pancaked, or even collapsed, from fire.

-February 23rd, 1991. Meridian Plaza, a 37-story sky-scraper in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours across eight floors. It did not collapse.
-May 4th, 1988 a 62-story sky-scraper in Los Angeles burned for 3 hours and spread over 3 floors. It did not collapse.
-February 12th, 2005, The Windzor Building in Madrid, a 32-story sky-scraper burned for 24 hours, completely eradicating the upper 10-stories of the building. Although the top 10 floors fell, the building did not collapse.
-October 17th, 2004 a 56-story skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela, built in 1976, burned for over 17 hours and spread across 26 floors. It did not collapse.

The WTC's have even had fires before.

. February 13th, 1975 a fire broke out between the 9th and 14th floors of the North Tower. It did not collapse. At this time there were no sprinklers in the towers. The sprinkler systems would come in handy May 19th, 1975 when 7 fires struck the World Trade Centers. The South Tower had fires between the 25th and 36th floors, and the North tower had a fire on the 11th floor. They did not collapse.

And yet on Sept. 11th the towers burned for barely an hour and half and lo and behold they collapsed completely and perfectly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg

Lets see here, who am I going to trust, Purdue's top 5 nationally ranked engineering team, or you?

1. Nope, you can have small fires and lots of smoke (actually you can have no fires and lots of smoke)
just a small example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4p4sg9V25g

The tower was not some giant blast furnace, heat rises so it would have gone up and out of the buildings. Again the fires were NOT hot, and the air would only be as hot as the fire.

2. No there is video of secondary explosions, along with eyewitness accounts, they all describe the explosions coming from under the buildings. They weakened the support columns at the bottom first, and then proceeded to blow the building from the top down.

3. The point is thermite generates molten metal, it is responsible for this http://9eleven.info/moltenstreamthermate.jpg http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb181/slimpimpinstb/WTC20Molten20Steel20Photos20Fact-1.jpg http://www.911readingroom.org/jones/images/Molten%20metal-Sillechia.JPG these hotspots taken by NASA http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.gif

not to mention this http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/911mysteries/caps/meteorite_s.jpg http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/image/horseshoe_r1_c2.jpg (see 9/11 Mysteries) and this http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/wt10.jpg are you telling me a few fires and a generator are responsible for that? Pressure does NOT do that to steel and concrete. Only an enormous amount of heat AND pressure can do that. Those pictures are not steel rebar, they are parts of the steel I-beam

Also the towers were reduced to dust, instead of very large pieces, also you would expect the columns at the bottom of the building to stand because absolutely nothing happened to them. But no, they were leveled also.

The basement was also found to have been blown a foot and half inward .

Thermite cuts diagonally, search on google for it I've seen 1 or 2,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904 (Steven Jones)

To Gator Warrior:

Who am I going to believe, you? Or the people who actually built the thing?

1. Yes, heat rises, however with floors in the way the heat spread out until it reached the elevators, there the chimney effect started and in turn that pulled more hot air towards the centre. I didn't say the towers were a blast furnace (the air in them is actively pumped), my point is that things don't have to be in the flames to be heated by the fire. Also, the way the smoke rises shows that it is still hot when it emerges from the building and that it is hot enough to rise for quite a way after it has left.

And the fires were pretty hot, with all that air being sucked in they would have burned as well as, if not better than, a fire in the open air.

2.Please provide a video. I think I know what you mean but I don't want to second guess you.

3.Look at the facing around the luminous material in that first picture. Why isn't it glowing? It's touching what you claim to be molten iron, it should be glowing red hot. Also, look at how far some pieces are from the main stream, I'd go so far as to say this might not even be molten copper, it actually looks like cinders tumbling out.

Without a scale the NASA picture is meaningless, sure some parts of the rubble would be hotter than others but how hot are they?

Fires and the weight of hundreds of thousands of tonnes of rubble.

It's hard to get a sense of perspective to understand the size of a lot of the pieces, this should help:
http://i38.tinypic.com/11v2qg1.jpg


I've searched and I can't find any videos that show thermite being used for cutting (just a lot of people ranting about it). Would you mind (assuming that video shows thermite being used for cutting) telling me where to look? My connection to GV is rather slow. Thanks.

It doesn't matter who perpetrated the WTC attacks/bombing/conspiracy/whateverthefuckyouthinkitis...it happened, we're at war, and it is the final war. Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.

1. Smoke rises even if it isn't hot, haven't you ever lit a fire? Again the air would not have been hotter than the source heating it, and the fires did not get higher than 300-500F (cite NIST)

Also the heat would have escaped through the elevator shafts and large holes, it would not have been drawn in.

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcg8hMEmTVE (here's a bunch of witness reports compiled)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJJ7X3CBwTY(this one is a real doozy, the camera shakes violently before the actual collapse)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6AHm6ZKhj4(MSNBC talks about explosions and secondary devices)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU_i4cu1mEI&feature=related (fire-fighter describing molten steel)

half a million others just search youtube...

3. It's in open air, it was molten no longer. There are no clear photos of the molten iron because it was underground. But I think I am correct in assuming that to get the iron like that it takes well over 500, or even 1000, degreesF

Here is link discussing the temperatures in the photo and it cites the links it used
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

4. Again unless the rubble and fire was focused and confined into one small area there is no way in hell it would fuse iron with concrete that takes enormous amounts of heat and pressure which were not possible in the "official lie" of 9/11

Oh I'm sure a lot of the rubble was large in relation to us, but large in relation to a pancake collapse(this http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc301/unclesam10/911%20Pictures/pancake.jpg
and these http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/25_pancake_quake051009.jpg, http://nisee.berkeley.edu/thumbnail/EERC_2005_1129/IMG0017.jpg vs. http://www.911truth.dk/first/img/wtcRubble1.jpg

(read this VERYYYY good http://www.911truth.dk/first/en/kp_towers.htm, sums up everything)

I'm sorry this is the only one I could find http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-tXQULhaM0 (coincidentally all of the other videos are of the WTC :rolleyes:)
It's not the Thermite that is at fault, it's the devices. I'm sure with the governments unlimited resources they could easily find a super efficient way of using Thermate.

Hexadecimal stfu no one wants to hear your religious bullshit

1. As you said. NIST only measured in a few areas. Do you understand the chimney effect? If you have a vertical tube or passage and you introduce hot air at the bottom the hot air will rise up the tube, creating lower pressure at the bottom, drawing more air in, if there's a fire then the air drawn in will be hot and so it will also rise up, again, drawing more hot air in, and so on. It's true, that's how the heat escaped, but on the way it was able to heat the already damaged columns to the point of failure.

2.

OK, What we have here is the effects of the plane hitting, and the fact that sound (or at least vibrations) travel faster through steel than air. So the first 'explosion' is the shockwave from the impact travelling down the supports, then the second 'explosion' is the sound of the impact travelling through the air. Again, just because someone says it sounds like an explosion that does not mean it was (remember the BBC video I posted). The glass in the lobby being 'blown out' is because glass isn't as flexible as steel.

Anyone who's operated a video camera and isn't scrabbling for evidence can tell you what the shake is, it's the camera operator touching the camera to zoom in (the wobble is quite large because it's obviously being shot at quite a high zoom, as evidenced by the apparent flatness of the two towers)

Malformed ID

Is it possible to get some more video to put this in context? It's not even clear if he's talking about the WTC (even though you can see he's an NYC firefighter).

3.But before it was in the air it would have been touchin the back of that, surely it would have heated it up. Now I've seen that photo I'm not convinced it's any metal, it looks more like cinders.

It's the hot iron from the fires oxidising.

4.Look at the crane in the picture of ground zero, this is clearly well into the cleanup wheras the other two photos I can see are after the initial collapse, obviously those pieces won't have been damaged as heavily because nothing fell on them.

Sorry, in that video the thermite is being used to melt a guy point and if you read the description even cutting something where the thermite only has to flow downwards didn't work. If the Government has 'unlimited resources' then surely they could have used their super secret death ray to bring down the towers.

1. You only have to measure the temperature in one area to find out the temperature for a large area. Do you have to measure every meter in the ocean to find the temperature in a 50 mile radius? No, one space will be enough. NIST certainly took enough samples to see that the fires never reached higher than 500F. Even if there were hot spots they would not, could not, bring down a building in a perfectly symmetrical way, and at free fall speed, there's just no way.

There you said it yourself. The heat would have escaped through the chimney effect. You would have to have enormous amounts of heat to weaken the steel. The hot air in the towers would be constantly changing and fluctuating, it would not be accumulating and building up enough to bring down a sky-scraper (certainly not in an hour and a half)

2. The first most important question is where the vibrations came from. They were not from the top of the tower because they were heard and felt at ground level coming through the basement (I can get you some quotes from people in the building if you wish).

Also the glass was blown out before the towers started to collapse. In fact before all of the fire fighters even left the building. If I remember correctly no plane ever hit the lobby.

When all the people who heard and felt it (pedestrians, reporters, fire-fighters, and policemen alike, along with audio and video evidence) said it was an explosion, I am inclined to believe that it was.

The video camera did not zoom during the taping, the videographer did not touch it.

Here's a bunch of fire-fighters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zyjY05wzao&feature=related

3. I'm just showing you the pictures that are out there. NASA confirmed molten metal (along with the fire-fighters and other witnesses) that should be proof enough.

4. The crane doesn't mean everything, the debris is still in pieces.

Please, try to explain to me how a plane caused the whole tower to pulp itself. I still don't get that.

Here's a good linear cutting Thermite device video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M
Also check out the links next to it.
I'm sure the government could easily create that on a larger scale.

Haha I appreciate the alternative theory, but the secret death ray is still in the development stage.

Just to add the obvious in here, does anyone know what the odds of the first steel-structure skyscraper in history coming down at practically free-fall speed, combined with the exact same situation on a second tower, all due to fire alone, at the same time, would be?

Just to add the obvious in here, does anyone know what the odds of the first steel-structure skyscraper in history coming down at practically free-fall speed, combined with the exact same situation on a second tower, all due to fire alone, at the same time, would be?

Very small -SpectratL veryyyyyy small......

Not to mention the second tower hit came down before the first one

Its cool 14 structural engineers are publicly challenging the government's explanation on why the towers fell:


http://www.infowars.net/articles/april2008/100408Engineers.htm

Spectral, three points:
-They didn't fall due to fire alone, there was the small matter of the two rather large planes hitting them at speed
-Since when does near mean half?:
http://i37.tinypic.com/ax1dhj.jpg
If you look at this picture you can see bits of debris half way between the main collapse and the ground. Or is the government using its secret gravity enhancing weapon to make those fall faster?
-If makes sense that both towers would collapse, had the same construction and were subjected to similar damage.

On to QA:
1.Umn, water is a better conductor of heat than air and the oceans aren't on fire, even so a survey as thin as NIST's, scaled up to a 50 mile radius of ocean could easily miss plenty of thermal vents.

The heat wouldn't just have escaped, it would have been pulled towards the core of the building, heating on the way. When you're cooking on a gas stove you don't have a system to concentrate the hot air from the flame, the continuous stream of heat from the flame is sufficient.

2. Please do, however it wouldn't surprise me if people reported the vibrations as coming from the ground, after all, the would have been standing on the floor so it would have seemed that way.

The impact of the plane would have caused the tower to flex, enough to break glass, not to mention the huge compression wave that would have been produced by the sudden ignition of all that fuel.

Again:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7732545.stm
Multiple people said a car crash sounded like an explosion, does that mean the Government put explosives in the cars or does it just mean that crashes can sound like an explosion?

Umn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJJ7X3CBwTY
4:16, the camera shakes, 4:17 the camera starts to zoom. Pretty straightforward.

3.The maximum temperature recorded is 727 centigrade and according to you a few scant recordings is enough to represent the whole temperature so that means there couldn't be molten steel.

4. OK, the plane hits, damaging the supports, reducing the strength in that section, the fires burn and because the supports are already damaged the stregnth is reduced below a critical level, several hundred tonnes of building starts to move downwards, forcing its way through the rest of the tower, gathering momentum as it goes.

The reason the photos you showed of other pancake collapses don't show as much devastation is because the buildings are much smaller, meaning that there is less weight pressing down on the debris, still, the pieces at the bottom would be far less damaged.

But that doesn't generate a cut anything like what we see in the photos (however a thermic lance does and I've provided evidence of it being used during the cleanup).

Again the towers were protected against planes, the engineers and architects of the WTCs themselves said there would only be local damage no collapse.

The towers did not fall at free fall speed, but they fell around three seconds more. Free fall speed for the towers would have been around 9 seconds, the towers fell in 10-12, so I think it's safe to say they fell at free fall speed.

Again it does not matter that the planes hit the buildings, they should have fallen in about a minute and a half (I think the official calculation was 93 seconds), gaining speed as each floor impacted the next. But no. Instead the towers showed no signs of accelerating, instead they went strait into the collapse, falling in 1/13th the time it should have taken. That should be enough proof right there.

Nothing happened to the I-beams below the impact zone so they should not have simultaneously and perfectly failed to cause the towers to fall strait down into their own footprint.

1. Again that's my point, there may have been small hotspots of 1000F, but that would be in no way enough to bring down, even weaken, the towers. The vast majority if the fires were cool burning just as NIST said. Some beams may have been weakened in the hotspot areas more than the other areas, but that would not be enough to initiate a collapse.

With the heat stove, the fire is hotter than the air. Therefore the hot air in the WTC would be cooler than the fires (cooler than 300-500F)

2. Ok I wrote a whole paper for school on this I'll send it to you when I get back to my computer at home. It has all the quotes.

No it would not cause the windows in the lobby to break. The windows on the bottom half of the tower did not break, so why would the windows on the very bottom break?

The compression wave would have gone out, not down.

Does it mean it wasn't? They heard the explosions before the collapse, the "explosions" from the car crash were heard after the crash.

No from my watching the video the camera shakes twice after the zooming in.

3. They were not scant, they took multiple tests. I just said there may have been a very small number of hotspots.

There was molten steel I've showed you the evidence and eyewitness accounts from the people who were actually there

4. Again the plane would have only caused local damage and would not have even cut through the majority of the beams as the videos of the impacts show.

The supports would not have been damaged past a critical level because the fires were not hot, the fire-proofing would still be on the majority of the steel, oxygen would be scarce, there would not be very much fuel (especially in the core of the building), and the fires would be few and far between.

The towers if brought down in a pancake collapse as is the official lie, they would have looked similar to those, with floors upon floors, upon floors stacked on each other. But no. Instead the rubble is in bits and pieces from the impossible collapse.

Look at Steven Jones he can explain the Thermite better than I can, I'm not going to argue it anymore.

I don't give a fuck how well you think those buildings were built. I don't give a fuck if jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, or whatever the fuck else you're arguing. When I see a huge-ass fucking plane flying right into a tall, narrow building, it does not surprise me one bit that the building came down.

So what if it was supposedly "designed" to withstand an airplane collision? The Titanic was "designed" to withstand an impact with flotsam, but that bitch still went down anyway. Our automobiles are "designed" to never break down, but we all know that's not the case. Our justice system is "designed" to reform offenders, but most of them are in and out their whole lives. You can "design" something to whatever specifications you can dream of, but that doesn't mean shit once it's off paper and in reality.

And about the whole "pancake theory," I think it sounds plenty plausible. You (OP) state that if the pancake theory was true, all the floors of the building would be neatly stacked at the base. Now, I'm no Isaac Newton, but I'm pretty sure that when tons of debris falls hundreds of feet, the resulting mess is not going to be a neat pile of rubble. Get a stack of books, and drop them straight down over a stair rail, and see if those land in a neat stack too.

Seriously people, it's common fucking sense.

- Tom

I don't give a fuck how well you think those buildings were built. I don't give a fuck if jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, or whatever the fuck else you're arguing. When I see a huge-ass fucking plane flying right into a tall, narrow building, it does not surprise me one bit that the building came down.

So what if it was supposedly "designed" to withstand an airplane collision? The Titanic was "designed" to withstand an impact with flotsam, but that bitch still went down anyway. Our automobiles are "designed" to never break down, but we all know that's not the case. Our justice system is "designed" to reform offenders, but most of them are in and out their whole lives. You can "design" something to whatever specifications you can dream of, but that doesn't mean shit once it's off paper and in reality.

And about the whole "pancake theory," I think it sounds plenty plausible. You (OP) state that if the pancake theory was true, all the floors of the building would be neatly stacked at the base. Now, I'm no Isaac Newton, but I'm pretty sure that when tons of debris falls hundreds of feet, the resulting mess is not going to be a neat pile of rubble. Get a stack of books, and drop them straight down over a stair rail, and see if those land in a neat stack too.

Seriously people, it's common fucking sense.

- Tom

When I see two men coming out of a hotel room together, I don't give a fuck whether they could be brothers, sisters, teaming up for a next-day soccer game, or even just good friends, I know for a fact they messed around.

^ This is how ridiculous you sound, what with your final generalizations complete with foot-stamping. You don't care that jet-fuel cannot melt steel, but we do - simply because we prefer to prove the conspiracy, rather than just wish it all away with hopeful blanket statements.

When I see two men coming out of a hotel room together, I don't give a fuck whether they could be brothers, sisters, teaming up for a next-day soccer game, or even just good friends, I know for a fact they messed around.

^ This is how ridiculous you sound, what with your final generalizations complete with foot-stamping. You don't care that jet-fuel cannot melt steel, but we do - simply because we prefer to prove the conspiracy, rather than just wish it all away with hopeful blanket statements.

Either way, I'm pretty sure you don't need to actually melt the damn building to make it fall down.

- Tom

Either way, I'm pretty sure you don't need to actually melt the damn building to make it fall down.

- Tom

When cars crash 99% of the time it's not the car's fault, it's the drivers, same with all of the other bad comparisons you just made.

You need to have a sufficiently weakened a building for the building to collapse, which did not happen if you would read the comments before.

So please grown half a brain before responding and spare us from your mindless ranting.

You need to have a sufficiently weakened a building for the building to collapse, which did not happen if you would read the comments before.

Yes, the building was significantly weakened by the FUCKING AIRPLANE CRASHING INTO IT!

Regardless of how ignorant I am of your "evidence," I will never be convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. However, I appreciate the effort you've put into your research. Because of this, I will respect your opinion, and leave this God-forsaken thread alone.

- Tom

Yes, the building was significantly weakened by the FUCKING AIRPLANE CRASHING INTO IT!

Regardless of how ignorant I am of your "evidence," I will never be convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. However, I appreciate the effort you've put into your research. Because of this, I will respect your opinion, and leave this God-forsaken thread alone.

- Tom

Again, read the thread. Throw a rock into a window, does it mean the whole window will shatter completely into a million tiny pieces and fall perfectly out of its frame? No, it doesn't.

Well I thank you for that, at least you're respectful, but I would advise you to do some research of your own.

listep.wordpress.com would be a good place to start

I thought there'd be pancakes.:confused:

I was showing what a pancake collapse would look like, even though they are made of different materials they should have looked relatively similar.


Key word is should

Again, read the thread. Throw a rock into a window, does it mean the whole window will shatter completely into a million tiny pieces and fall perfectly out of its frame? No, it doesn't.

Well I thank you for that, at least you're respectful, but I would advise you to do some research of your own.

listep.wordpress.com would be a good place to start

The windows that I've thrown rocks through have. :confused::confused::confused: