I'm just curious.

No, I dont.... but I also think the official Kennedy assasination story is BS and Oliver Stone probably wasn't far off the mark.

In the words of Judge Judy...if it doesn't make sense it probably isn't true!


I believe Bin Laden had alot to do with it, but I also think it was more or less allowed to happen for reasons yet unknown.

I think pretty much along the same line as Rover. Osama was involved, but it was allowed to happen.

WTS Tinfoil Hats only 1000pp each!

For those who say no, I'm curious what you base your answers on. Even the title of the thread seems to presume that the 9/11 story is false (Does anyone still believe...).

For those who say no, I'm curious what you base your answers on. Even the title of the thread seems to presume that the 9/11 story is false (Does anyone still believe...).


I base my answers on this:

Probabilities!

I say the planes took down the buildings, but it is more of an "they were the triggers"

The first building goes down just as perfectly as if it was an engineered take down, ok, I can live with that.

The second building goes down in exactly the same way...it's getting a bit harder to live with.

Now, WTC 7 goes down and that is a perfectly orchestrated take down...now I find it really hard to believe.

The chances of those three buildings collapsing perfectly on themselves and causing almost NO collateral damage....well...the odds are better for winning The Powerball Lottery.

It just doesn't make sense.

On 9/11 I had two nieces who directly witnessed the whole thing as they lived roughly one block away from the towers...

My oldest brother along with my daughter witnessed it from across the Hudson river.

A very close friend of mine not only witnessed it from across the hudson river but also video taped it and still has the tape.

Hey Rover, your commanders allowed the Marine barracks to be hit too.

Same lunacy.

I'm not one to suggest or buy into conspiracy theory. However, the official story having happened in the physical universe in which we reside seems like the most far fetched theory of them all.

I have no idea where to even begin understanding such psychological things, but there are several that come together for this type of reaction to an event like that.

Just as we now have a "I would never do that" reaction to Abu Ghraib, I suspect we have a similar reaction to tragic events and accepting the reality of the world in which we live.

Hey Rover, your commanders allowed the Marine barracks to be hit too.

Same lunacy.


You know what, you are correct. The guards were each issued five rounds of ammunition that was kept in what is known as a "stripper clip". They were not allowed to remove that ammunition from it's box without permission from battalion HQ.

You see when that truck circled that lot before driving through the barricade and through the front doors of the terminal no one could do anything but wave their arms. Why?

Because the commanders at the highest level IE: commander in chief Reagan had approved and sanctioned the rules of engagement to allow it to happen and like the good Marines they were, those guys followed their orders and didn't even remove the ammo from its box because they did not receive permission to do so.


So in fact you are correct, due to the rules of engagement set by the "commanders" it was allowed to happen.

Thanks for clearing it up.

The first building goes down just as perfectly as if it was an engineered take down, ok, I can live with that.

The second building goes down in exactly the same way...it's getting a bit harder to live with.

2 identical buildings, hit in the same manner, collapse in the same way? That's not a conspiracy, that's just engineering.

Now, WTC 7 goes down and that is a perfectly orchestrated take down...now I find it really hard to believe.

Perhaps similar techniques were used on that building? I seem to recall reading somewhere that skycrapers above a certain height are engineered to collapse in such a way that they fall inward, not over.

As to the rest, remember, people are imperfect witnesses. Adrenaline, stress, and horror can all affect the recollection of any event.

I would, however be interested in seeing that tape.

Skyscrapers don't fall over like a tree. I LOL'ed in the theater when I saw that apartment building leaning over against the other one in Cloverfield.

Rediculous.

WTC 7 is a good one to bring up.

You've got Larry Silverstein on tape saying they made the decision to "pull" building 7, because it had been damaged. "Pull" being a industry term for demolishing a building with explosives.

Next, we see WTC 7 come down in a perfect, controlled demolition.

Controlled demolitions of large buildings take days or weeks to plan and execute. Even if they had it pre-planned for some morbid contingency plan, they shouldn't have had explosives on hand at a moment's notice. They shouldn't have had demolitions people on hand to set it up. Even if they had the explosives and contractor, what contractor would send people inside the building to plant the charges if it were so damaged that it needed to be "pulled"? Especially in light of the morning's earlier events.

I was just at ground zero a couple of weeks ago. To see that old, fragile church undamaged right beside the hole, while WTC 7 allegedly suffered critical damage farther away... Critical damage to only one side that somehow made it come down in the center just like a controlled demolition, mind you.

I just don't see how anyone could believe that story. The official story of that day seems to me like the most fantastic conspiracy theory of them all.

Skyscrapers don't fall over like a tree. I LOL'ed in the theater when I saw that apartment building leaning over against the other one in Cloverfield.
It was made by the Idiocracy guys, like this one!

fiNrzmbdC1Q

WTC7 is the one major aspect to all this that makes me question the official story.

People need to stop riding on Willie Nelsons bus. The second hand smoke is bad.

Please to not wear so much tinfoil pulled oh so tightly around your ears.

Anyone off the conspiracy bus long enough to remember Osama's band tried an earlier attack using hot burning fertilizer trucks in the basement?

The assumption that Osama's crew couldn't engineer this doesn't take into account how many engineers come from the ME...

Or the work that made Osama's dad rich....huge mega construction company no??

So your explanation of WTC 7 would be that Osama's crew prepared the demolition ahead of time and then forced Larry Silverstein to order it? Parts of the official story sound far more like conspiracy theory than anything I've ever heard.

Blindly accepting that story as the pretext for nearly a decade of war, invasion of privacy, loss of freedom, and economic downturn is something I'm no longer willing to do.

No, my stance is Osama's planners were smart enough to realize how hot of a flame they needed to induce to melt the infrastructure.

Even if you believe that jet fuel burns hot enough to lead to the collapse of WTC 1/2, there was no jet fuel in WTC 7. Nothing hit it other than the same debris that hit every other building in the area. Not to mention, WTC 6 was between WTC 1/2 and WTC 7, shielding it from any direct damage due to the collapses.

Are you seriously suggesting that ancillary debris was able to knock down WTC 7, in the same manner as a controlled demolition, but barely scratched a 90 year old church that was right next to the towers? A building that housed offices for the CIA, DoD, IRC, and SEC was so flimsy that a stiff breeze could knock it over?

Come on. Osama's cohorts might have been smart, but they didn't transcend the fundamental laws of the universe that day.

No, my stance is Osama's planners were smart enough to realize how hot of a flame they needed to induce to melt the infrastructure.

They very well might have. But crashing a 737 isn't a controlled detonation. I understand that they probably chose the flights they did because they were full of jet fuel, which is essentially kerosene, let me ask this...would you think kerosene burning could melt steel? Does that make sense?

It's the same as the JFK assasination, the official story makes no sense.

it wasnt just kerosene but all the office furniture among other stuff burning in there and I have seen articles, discovery channel shows that prove that it was hot enough in there to melt steel.

Interesting site and reading:

http://wtc7.net/collapsecause.html

My extreme disgust and distrust of Bush and Cheney keeps me from really looking deeply into the 9/11 events, because I know I would be looking at them from a biased perspective and seeking (at least on a subconscious level) to reinforce my opinion that we are cursed atm with despicable leaders in this country.

Interesting site and reading:

http://wtc7.net/collapsecause.html

Now that is some informative stuff that will give folks pause to think.

My extreme disgust and distrust of Bush and Cheney keeps me from really looking deeply into the 9/11 events, because I know I would be looking at them from a biased perspective and seeking (at least on a subconscious level) to reinforce my opinion that we are cursed atm with despicable leaders in this country.
It's no better for me. I voted for Bush both times, and am actually beginning to regret it (which is saying something, if you remember my posts in years past).

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

The World Trade Center
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers — and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later — initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.


Widespread Damage
Claim: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel — and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.


"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


Puffs Of Dust
Claim: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
Violent Collapse: Pancaking floors — not controlled demolition — expel debris and smoke out South Tower windows. (Photograph by AP/Wide World Photos)

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."


Seismic Spikes
Claim: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

Fine Lines: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below). (Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University: Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer)
FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.


WTC 7 Collapse
Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Hell Sanchek big props to creating some topics worth discussing. I personally think the terrorists won the lottery on 9/11 and everything worked in their favor. I don't for a second believe our government would take down the towers. They could have done many differen't things to piss off Americans and gain support rather than killing 3,000 Americans.

WTC7 is the one major aspect to all this that makes me question the official story.

This is the exact same way I feel.

I believe there is a family relationship between Popular Mechanics and Michael Chertikoff our esteemed Fatherland....er....Homeland Security Director

Aye, it's easier to believe Bush can execute the world's greatest conspiracy involving likely thousands of secret agents... and then keep it all secret for 7 years. Yeah, that makes much more sense to me.

To be honest, I'm not very interested in WTC 1/2. There are inconsistencies there, but WTC 7 and the Pentagon are much more irregular.

Now, this is the Secretary of State's answer to WTC 7:

On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Nevermind the fact that the United States Secretary of State is now apparently just parroting whatever Silverstein has them say. Nevermind the fact that a diesel fire burning for 7 days wouldn't take down that building, much less one burning for 7 hours. Even if you suspend disbelief and accept the story you're supposed to, they can't even seem to agree on that story:

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says.

It's one of those things where the more "evidence" is brought to defend the official story, the more inconsistencies arise. Not terribly convincing, in my eyes.

Having seen the area myself, this part of the official story just confounds me:

WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris...

To get a better idea of how shielded WTC 7 was from damage, see attachment.

Aye, it's easier to believe Bush can execute the world's greatest conspiracy involving likely thousands of secret agents... and then keep it all secret for 7 years. Yeah, that makes much more sense to me.
That's just a strawman, to be able to label any independent thought as conspiracy theory. Question the official story and you're not an American!

No one here has suggested any theory as to what may have happened; only pointing out what could not have happened. There's a huge difference.

That's just a strawman, to be able to label any independent thought as conspiracy theory. Question the official story and you're not an American!

No one here has suggested any theory as to what may have happened; only pointing out what could not have happened. There's a huge difference.Not so much a strawman, I was about to post the same thing - because I think it's true. For it to be a conspiracy you have to assume our government is capable of that. Should we list the idiocies that happened when trying to move aid in after Hurricane Katrina? Hell, we can't even manage to successfully torture people in secret, let along cover up a major attack on our own soil. The official story is probably pretty close to the truth, minus what simply isn't known and what has been spun by the media. A group of terrorists got very lucky and executed a well thought out attack.

You're confusing theory with fact. Proposing an alternate theory isn't necessary in order to disprove another. Thinking otherwise just muddies the issues with irrelevant variables.

However, if you honestly think that parts of our government don't operate in that way, check out Operation Northwoods for an example of how the CIA operated decades ago. Read the document itself (it's only 15 pages or so).

That's just one declassified example. Don't be naive.

You're confusing theory with fact. Proposing an alternate theory isn't necessary in order to disprove another. Thinking otherwise just muddies the issues with irrelevant variables.

However, if you honestly think that parts of our government don't operate in that way, check out Operation Northwoods for an example of how the CIA operated decades ago. Read the document itself (it's only 15 pages or so).

That's just one declassified example. Don't be naive.Maybe I'm just fixated on our current administration, who seems to screw up needing to tie their shoes. I think I've become bitter with 9/11 alternate theories after dealing with the nonsense of Loose Change circulating the internet for so long. Even if it was an inside job or some such, why lie about the methods? The simplest way to fool people into believing it was an airplane hitting a building is to have an airplane hit a building.

Cost/Benefit doesnt add up Sanchek.

I don't see the motivation for any of this. To enable a invasion of Iraq? And who would have done it? The CIA has been anti- Iraq invasion from the get go. Thats why they formed that special committee to reshape the intel the CIA was delivering.

And the Bush team was able to plan/organize/execute this mindbogglingly covert plan in about 1 years time?

Nah. Occam's Razor cuts too sharply here.

It may be well possible to find physics anomalies in a event this large and unique, but nothing else fits. Motivation, Method or Opportunity.

Next tell how all the Jews were called on 9/10 and told to stay home.

As well you wouldn't need to set explosives and take down the twin towers to piss off the Americans. Simply slamming those planes into the buildings did enough....

If what you say was true then one would think Osama would spin the entire thing on the American government, which he really hates more than the people themselves..correct? And repeatedly deny doing the attack, spinning the people against the government. Which he hasn't done one bit.

If what you say was true then one would think Osama would spin the entire thing on the American government, which he really hates more than the people themselves..correct? And repeatedly deny doing the attack, spinning the people against the government. Which he hasn't done one bit.
Osama directly denied having any involvement, in a video aired on 9/16/2001. It wasn't until four days before the 2004 election until the video was released where he accepted responsibility.

Maybe I'm just fixated on our current administration, who seems to screw up needing to tie their shoes. I think I've become bitter with 9/11 alternate theories after dealing with the nonsense of Loose Change circulating the internet for so long. Even if it was an inside job or some such, why lie about the methods? The simplest way to fool people into believing it was an airplane hitting a building is to have an airplane hit a building.

Again, you're confusing yourself (and others) when you try to consider the potential validity of all of these theories at the same time that you consider the validity of the official one. If you were to consider the official story with even a fraction of the (healthy) skepticism that you consider alternate ones with, it would be impossible for you to believe the entire thing for a minute.

Personally, I'm completely uninterested in the conspiracy theories. They just get in the way of any rational thinking, by setting up ridiculous strawmen.

Osama directly denied having any involvement, in a video aired on 9/16/2001. It wasn't until four days before the 2004 election until the video was released where he accepted responsibility.I believe we've recovered video of OBL meeting with one or more of the hijackers as a last blessing of sorts.

Yea but I bet he was simply making small talk..you know, "how's your flying lessons going?"

I believe we've recovered video of OBL meeting with one or more of the hijackers as a last blessing of sorts.
Did they ever even get their story straight on who those 19 guys actually were? A lot of the people in that original list of 19 were either still alive after or already dead on 9/11.

That's not to say there weren't actually 19 hijackers, who stole the identities of these other people. Of course, that's highly irregular for Islamic suicide terror, since they believe there's honor in what they're doing.

Regardless, it's hard to swallow them releasing pictures of dead people and innocent people still living. Even harder to swallow them using the pictures of those unrelated people as intel to connect OBL with the attacks, since he couldn't have really met with them and they weren't even involved to begin with.

Not like we cared at the time though, right? They all look the same. Go America!

Next tell how all the Jews were called on 9/10 and told to stay home.

And the Bush team was able to plan/organize/execute this mindbogglingly covert plan in about 1 years time?
Again, I'm uninterested in strawman conspiracy theories. It's quite telling how people who argue for strictly the official story almost always resort to that sort of false comparison. I'm reminded of trying to convince people here in the South that Intelligent Design just might not be how we got here.

It's like saying time travel is impossible, because Back to the Future was just a movie. It's a very fundamental logical fallacy (and most of you doing it are smart enough to know that).

I did read about the large number of convenient coincidences, like the Jewish businesses moving out the week before and basically everyone in the top levels of government being told not to fly that morning, but it would be impossible to prove much there either way. I'm absolutely willing to call things like that coincidence, hence my not bringing them up when I talked about building 7.

Cost/Benefit doesnt add up Sanchek.

I don't see the motivation for any of this. To enable a invasion of Iraq? And who would have done it? The CIA has been anti- Iraq invasion from the get go. Thats why they formed that special committee to reshape the intel the CIA was delivering.

So, what you're saying is no one stood to benefit from our spending billions (and probably trillions before it's all paid) on the various war activities that occurred as a direct result of 9/11? Not to mention the largest executive power-grab so far in our lifetime?

A lot of money and power was transferred from the many to the few, as a direct result of that day. You don't see the motivation? I can't think of a stronger motivation for those who benefited.

Nah. Occam's Razor cuts too sharply here.
If you look at American history in the last decade, things like this are all too common.

It just gets worse and worse, as more documents are declassified. Allowing Pearl Harbor to happen, so we could join the war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident being mostly staged. Basically everything involving Cuba in the 60's being a farce, because everyone from the CIA to the Joint Chiefs wanted to invade Cuba so badly. Iran Contra. The fact that we trained, funded, and installed both OBL and Hussein ourselves.

This list just goes on and on. Check out "Operation Dirty Trick" (what a name). Nothing is sacred to these people.

If you honestly take a slice at 9/11, bearing in mind the real history of our country since the military-industrial complex took hold, Occam's Razor cuts the official story to shreds.

You forgot the fake Apollo moon landings.

So our government has been bullshitting us on this level for almost 100 years eh? 9/11 is just a continuation of this?

Well, if this is true, then we deserve to be snowed all this time. Obviously the majority feels that its OK and perhaps even par for the course that their elected officials not only do not have their best interests at heart, but wantingly choose to allow innocents to die.

If the majority allows this...then you have reaped what you have sowed through indifference. Otherwise this sort of allegation is 100% foundation for revolution, which has not happened. Perhaps because there is no solid basis other than bored people swapping outrageous theories on the interweb while bored at work.

Again, you're confusing yourself (and others) when you try to consider the potential validity of all of these theories at the same time that you consider the validity of the official one. If you were to consider the official story with even a fraction of the (healthy) skepticism that you consider alternate ones with, it would be impossible for you to believe the entire thing for a minute.

Personally, I'm completely uninterested in the conspiracy theories. They just get in the way of any rational thinking, by setting up ridiculous strawmen.I definately don't believe the entire story that goes along with the official line, but I think there is some truth in there. Between things our government legitimately doesn't know and the spin placed on the story by both the feds and the media, it's hard to know what the actual truth is. The Vanity Fair article a year or so back with the released NORAD tapes demonstrated that Bush and Co were lying about several of the details regarding 9/11, including their own actions that day. But the base story of middle eastern hijackers slamming planes into our buildings - that I believe.

You forgot the fake Apollo moon landings.
<insert joke about WMDs here>

Entirely different league that one. International conspiracy of jewish neo cons that even managed to dupe Saddam.

Has anyone heard that the bomb sniffing dogs that were in the WTC buildings had been removed from them approx two weeks before 9/11? Is this a fact?

Why is it so difficult to believe that our government officials could be part of an incident?

It's well known that people in our government manipulated situations, planned and layed the groundwork for various coups in other countries, Iran, South Vietnam etc... that have made billions in profits for our largest corporations.

It's well known and proven that our government will flat out lie about incidents to take us to a war, that has made billions in profits for our largest corporations, the Tonkin Gulf incident. Why could they have not done that with Iraq?

People in our government have been directly involved with manipulating elections in other countries, with removing leaders of other countries through asassination, with creating incidents that have been the driving force that have caused military invasions....why could they not do it to us?

Everytime things like that have been done, very large US businesses have benefitted, certain officials of our government have had either previous close ties or end up being closely associated to those businesses as advisors, consultants, or blatantly as CEO's etc... Why is it so hard for some to see the reality.

Most likely it is a form of denial that we were duped or that this blatant evil exists and leads us.

You guys all need to watch the movie "bug". You're all starting to make me think your the main character in that movie.

i know its not the greatest source, but check youtube fro the conspiracy videos, some are just stupid some make you really think.

building 7 is the thing that makes me wonder...also the inward collapse of the buildings 1 and 2. It takes engineers weeks to plan a demolition to fall in on itself like that.

But the base story of middle eastern hijackers slamming planes into our buildings - that I believe.
Does it bother you that at least several of those guys, including at least one of the pilots weren't even on the planes on 9/11?

Well, if this is true, then we deserve to be snowed all this time. Obviously the majority feels that its OK and perhaps even par for the course that their elected officials not only do not have their best interests at heart, but wantingly choose to allow innocents to die.

If the majority allows this...then you have reaped what you have sowed through indifference.
I definitely agree with this.

As a society we probably don't even deserve what eroding freedoms we do have left. Through laziness and apathy, we have handed it all away without even understanding the consequences of our inaction and ignorance.

I guess its not totally impossible for something like that to happen. Think about how many terrorist plots have turned out that technical (zero..nothing comes to mind)? It was a really thought out attack with many brillant, I'll be it evil, people involved.

If, and it's a big IF that the official story doesnt hold true. It's a conspiricy that involves much more than Bush. hell Bush is just the puppet of a play he doesnt even fully understand.
This would have had to come from the major players in PNAC(google it) one of wich happens to a man named Prick Cheney as well as the corprate leadership of the MIC companies. Haliburton comes to mind. so does Blackwater. both of whom have seen profits thats only be described as obsene post 9-11.
You would also have to include the ruling caste of Saudi Arabia. one of whos most prominient and wealthy familys happens to be named Bin Laden(things that make you go hmmm) alot of effort and slieght of hand has gone into keeping the Saudi angle under the rug. ever wonder why?
If 15 of the 19 highjackers had been Iraqi would we have invaded Saudi Arabia?

I went to American University, a school that draws somewhere between 25 and 50 percent international students to its undergraduate program in Washington DC. The night of 9/11 an unnamed government agency locked the university down (the city was already closed down pretty much with tanks at most street corners) and took a few Saudi students to a local airport and out of the country. It made big news in our campus paper (the Eagle) and on my radio show but I never heard it discussed off campus. That was the one thing about the whole mess that always confused me. You'd think relatives of suspects would have been detained or questioned, not deported (and they never returned back to school).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Criticism_of_conspiracy_theories

[edit] Testing the validity of conspiracy theories
Perhaps the most contentious aspect of a conspiracy theory is the problem of settling a particular theory's truth to the satisfaction of both its proponents and its opponents. Particular accusations of conspiracy vary widely in their plausibility, but some common standards for assessing their likely truth value may be applied in each case:

Occam's razor - is the alternative story more, or less, probable than the mainstream story?
Methodology - are the "proofs" offered for the argument well constructed, i.e., using sound methodology? Is there any clear standard to determine what evidence would prove or disprove the theory?
Whistleblowers - how many people—and what kind—have to be loyal conspirators?
Falsifiability - Is there any research demonstrating that specific claims of the theory are false?
Some of these tests can have a downside as well. For instance, overeager application of "Occam's razor" can lead to acceptance of oversimplified views of history. Likewise, research that does disprove specific claims of a theory can lead to rejection of other claims which may be true.

The US academic Noam Chomsky contrasts conspiracy theory as more or less the opposite of institutional analysis, which focuses mostly on the public, long-term behaviour of publicly known institutions, as recorded in, e.g. scholarly documents or mainstream media reports, rather than secretive coalitions of individuals.[15][16]


After reading the above, and faithfully applying the techniques to this conspiracy theory, if you still believe that the U.S. Government (or some other "All Powerful Entity") managed to covertly plant explosives in 3 buildings (that well over 16,000 people worked in collectively), slam 2 remotely controlled airplanes into 2 of the buildings, (A feat not even the best remote pilots have the best of chances in accomplishing, why do you think most missiles are computer programmed?), detonate the explosives while all the cameras in the world were trained on these buildings, (Wouldn't someone with a modicum of expertise in the field recognize a controlled implosion by watching?), killing 2,603 people on the site, all the while keeping the whole operation a secret, (how many whistleblowers would be able to keep silent about such an operation?) you might need to check into a mental health facility.

It's good to be skeptical about some of the aspects of the story. However the core elements are probably true: that fundamental Islamic terrorists hijacked 4 airplanes, were able to ram 3 of them into buildings, causing a huge amount of damage, and killing a lot of Americans.

It wasn't an complete success (Remember Flight 97?) and wasn't the first time they had tried (Remember the truck bomb in the early 90's?).

Sometimes the simplist explanation is the best. To believe the conspiracy theories, takes more suspension of belief than watching a Harry Potter movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Criticism_of_conspiracy_theories



After reading the above, and faithfully applying the techniques to this conspiracy theory, if you still believe that the U.S. Government (or some other "All Powerful Entity") managed to covertly plant explosives in 3 buildings (that well over 16,000 people worked in collectively), slam 2 remotely controlled airplanes into 2 of the buildings, (A feat not even the best remote pilots have the best of chances in accomplishing, why do you think most missiles are computer programmed?), detonate the explosives while all the cameras in the world were trained on these buildings, (Wouldn't someone with a modicum of expertise in the field recognize a controlled implosion by watching?), killing 2,603 people on the site, all the while keeping the whole operation a secret, (how many whistleblowers would be able to keep silent about such an operation?) you might need to check into a mental health facility.

It's good to be skeptical about some of the aspects of the story. However the core elements are probably true: that fundamental Islamic terrorists hijacked 4 airplanes, were able to ram 3 of them into buildings, causing a huge amount of damage, and killing a lot of Americans.

It wasn't an complete success (Remember Flight 97?) and wasn't the first time they had tried (Remember the truck bomb in the early 90's?).

Sometimes the simplist explanation is the best. To believe the conspiracy theories, takes more suspension of belief than watching a Harry Potter movie.


I don't think anyone here has said they believe the planes were remotely piloted, however beyond that, when you talk about most missiles being computer programmed and the that even the best remote pilots couldn't score like that I disagree.

Most large ICBM's are gyro guided. However you are correct with cruise missiles. But lets look at some recent kills in Pakistan by drone aircraft firing optically guided missiles, they hit houses that were alot smaller than one of the WTC buildings.

Could explosives be planted without people noticing? Sure, why not? I wouldn't think that if there was they would not have had boxes displaying ACME TNT on them or spools with ACME det chord on them.

Usually covert ops are a bit more ummmm.... covert.

Sixee, there are a lot of credible people out there calling foul. For instance, this just popped up on Reddit this morning:

http://www.communitycurrency.org/robin.html

While all of the information is classified secret, of course there won't be directly involved whistle blowers. That's a good way to get a one way ticket to Guantanamo these days.

Even in the face of that, there are top government officials around the world questioning this thing. If you think it's only conspiracy theory nuts, take a look here: http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Regardless, don't fall into the trap of trying to prove the official story true by disproving a strawman conspiracy theory. One crazy, fringe theory being wrong doesn't make the fantastical official story right.

The US academic Noam Chomsky contrasts conspiracy theory as more or less the opposite of institutional analysis, which focuses mostly on the public, long-term behaviour of publicly known institutions, as recorded in, e.g. scholarly documents or mainstream media reports, rather than secretive coalitions of individuals.
False: http://stj911.org/critiques/official.html

To me, it would seem, that all you would need is 1 floor collapsing onto another, to start a "domino effect", and cause any of the buildings to catastrophically fail.

If you can stomach to watch the video of the towers collapsing, you see that the buildings give way right where the planes hit. The rest of it is the building falling in on itself. Controlled demolitions start at the ground level, and the building falls in on itself, not 3/4 of the way up.

As for WTC 7, if the diesel fuel was located in the basement, this would explain why it looks more like a controlled demolition, if that fuel caught fire.

Also in the previously attached thumbnail, you can see that it was within the debris field of the north tower, and would have sustained a lot of damage.

As for WTC 7, if the diesel fuel was located in the basement, this would explain why it looks more like a controlled demolition, if that fuel caught fire.

Also in the previously attached thumbnail, you can see that it was within the debris field of the north tower, and would have sustained a lot of damage.
WTC7 didn't sustain heavy damage. It was closer to the North tower than anyone would want to be, but WTC 6 shielded it from direct damage. If you look closer at the diagram, the hatched area is where tower debris physically landed.

Take a look at the attached photo of WTC 7 burning. Does that look like a building damaged from the exterior to the point that it's going to collapse in the next few hours on its own?

Also keep in mind that diesel doesn't burn remotely hot enough to take down a steel building. Credible concerns have been raised about whether or not jet fuel could have burned hot enough to take the towers down, yet we're willing to accept diesel taking the smaller one down?

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.




San, I'm going to grant you something. It's easier to bring these buildings down than I would like to believe. With that admission, someone who knows the architecture and load bearing joints of one of these buildings could probably bring WTC7 down with little to no work involved.

But that goes both ways, with all the debris and raging fires inside, it could have brought the building down as well. Didn't Guiliani have his emergency crisis center set up in WTC7 ? Wouldn't they have those huge diesel generators in place for such emergencies. Frankly I think it's almost funny the irony involved if in fact that was what caused WTC7 to finally be brought down.

Their "scooped out" theory is based on one photo by the NYPD, taken a bad angle:

http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth911/truth911/swcornerdamage.jpg

Other photos show how badly that perspective represents the actual damage: http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth914/FigD_01.jpg

Comparison:

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/comparedamage1.jpg

At least even they point out that their own theory is just that. No one producing the official theory has any specific proof. The steel from the buildings was trucked away and melted down for "recycling" immediately, preventing even the NIST and FEMA from doing any sort of credible investigation.

Debris and raging fires may have been able to bring WTC7 down, certainly, but in the manner of a controlled demolition? The odds of the building collapsing so cleanly due to uncontrolled variables randomly applied seem vanishingly small.

Just cruising around, I found the following:
http://www.azobuild.com/details.asp?ArticleID=3621

All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400ºC, by 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength. This is usually considered to be the failure temperature for structural steel. However, in practice this is a very conservative assumption; low loads, the insulating effects of concrete slabs, the restraining effects of connections etc. mean that real failure temperatures can be as high as 750ºC or even higher for partially exposed members.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Structural_ design

The perimeter structure was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces, which consisted of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The perimeter columns had a square cross section, 14 inches (36 cm) on a side, and were constructed of welded steel plate.[48] The thickness of the plates and grade of structural steel varied over the height of the tower, ranging from 36,000 to 100,000 pounds per square inch[49] (260 to 670 MPa). The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors.

So, with this information, hitting the towers higher, made more sense, than detonating a bomb in the basement.

Insofar as WTC7's collapse, would a fire fighter's first hand observations be considered as unbiased?

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o?clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o?clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.



Sorry guys, the facts support the conclusion of buildings failing after extraordinary circumstances. By all accounts, the fact that the buildings stood for as long as they did, is a testiment to how well they were designed
and constructed.

Sorry guys, the facts support the conclusion of buildings failing after extraordinary circumstances. By all accounts, the fact that the buildings stood for as long as they did, is a testiment to how well they were designed
and constructed.

Sixee has spoken, and so shall it be.

Insofar as WTC7's collapse, would a fire fighter's first hand observations be considered as unbiased?
There are literally dozens of firefighters that offer first hand observations of all three collapses, sure that they were controlled demolitions. First hand observations of traumatic events are usually next to worthless.

Sorry guys, the facts support the conclusion of buildings failing after extraordinary circumstances. By all accounts, the fact that the buildings stood for as long as they did, is a testiment to how well they were designed
and constructed.
If WTC 7 fell due to fire, it's more a testament to it being one of the three worst constructed steel buildings in the world to ever burn (the other two being right next door).

There are literally dozens of firefighters that offer first hand observations of all three collapses, sure that they were controlled demolitions. First hand observations of traumatic events are usually next to worthless.

I would agree with you if it was not for the following part of his statement:

Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodolite

The transit refers to a specialized type of theodolite that was developed in the early 19th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century). It featured a telescope that could "flop over" ("transit the scope") to allow easy back-sighting and doubling of angles for error reduction.

As for WTC7, the pictures show damage to the building as well as a fire that burned for several hours. While no high rise buildings had ever been brought down due to fire, in the past, had any fires been allowed to burn for so long?

If WTC 7 fell due to fire, it's more a testament to it being one of the three worst constructed steel buildings in the world to ever burn (the other two being right next door).

I would agree if it was not for the fact the first two buildings were hit by airplanes, not just fires that started. It was the combination of the impacts, as well as the fires that caused the collapses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Fire_and_aircra ft_potentials


Like all modern skyscrapers, the WTC towers were designed to survive major fires. Though fireproofing had been incorporated in the original construction, more was added after a fire in 1975 that spread to six floors before being extinguished.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#_note-FEMA) Early tests conducted on steel beams from the WTC show they generally met or were stronger than design requirements.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#_note-2)
"No building code in the United States has specific design requirements for impact of aircraft," writes NIST, "and thus, buildings are not specifically designed to withstand the impact of fuel-laden commercial aircraft."[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#_note-3) But the WTC's engineers had also considered the consequences of aircraft impact. (Leslie Robertson[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#_note-Robertson) and John Skilling[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#_note-Nader) offer slightly different accounts of these considerations). FEMA described the modeled aircraft as weighing 263,000 lb (119 metric tons) with a flight speed of 180 mph (290 km/h). This implies a slower and smaller plane than those involved in the actual impacts of 9/11.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#_note-FEMA)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Impacts_of_airl iners

A Boeing 767-200 is 48.5 m (160 ft) long and has a wingspan of 48 m (156 ft), with a capacity of up to 62.2 (-200) or 91 (-200ER) m³ of jet fuel (16,700 or 24,000 US gallons).[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#_note-Jane.27s) The planes hit the towers at very high speeds. Flight 11 was traveling roughly 700 km/h (440 mph) when it crashed into the 1 WTC, the north tower; flight 175 hit 2 WTC, the south tower, at about 870 km/h (540 mph).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#_note-NIST-chapter1) In addition to severing a number of load-bearing columns, the resulting explosions in each tower ignited 38 m³ (10,000 gallons)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#_note-FEMA) of jet fuel and immediately spread the fire to several different floors while consuming paper, furniture, carpeting, computers, books, walls, framing, and other items in all the affected floors.

So it wasn't just the fuel, it was all of the other consumables (that have a higher burning temprature) along with severe structural damage of a massive airliner slamming into the buildings at 400+ MPH, as well as the steel having its fireproofing removed from the impact.

I would agree if it was not for the fact the first two buildings were hit by airplanes, not just fires that started. It was the combination of the impacts, as well as the fires that caused the collapses.
Yes. For days, in some cases. At least as many hours in many other cases.

This post makes good points about the general attitudes toward 9/11 in our country: http://www.joseabreu.com/2008/03/is-it-crazy-to-doubt-government.html

The tactics employed by the US mainstream media are despicable. They denounce questions as "conspiracy theories" in the same manner that the ruling elite denounced dissent as "heresy" during the middle ages. A 'conspiracy theory' is not the equivalent of investigating a crime. 9/11 was a crime. Investigating UFO's and concluding that they are extraterrestrial phenomena which is being covered up by the government IS a conspiracy theory. Investigating a crime is NOT a 'conspiracy theory' in the same sense. It is our duty as citizens of a constitutional republic to perform jury duty.

More and more, reputable parties around the world are beginning to seriously question the legitimacy of our government's claims about 9/11. Not conspiracy theorists, but mainstream media and government officials, most recently including a Japanese MP.

We're just about the only ones left who unquestioningly believe this thing.

Perhaps the legitimacy is under question, due to the "whoring out" of the event?

Every time something needs to be done in the considerations of "National/Homeland security" 9/11 is dressed up, and paraded around like some sort of 7 year old beauty pagent contestant.

I think it demeans the memory of the people that did lose thier lives on that day, each time the event is used to legitimize something totally inappropriate.

We shouldn't forget what happened that day, but in the same vein, we shouldn't use it to justify anything and everything.

I suppose it's too effective for them to pass up.

I mean, I'd bet the majority of people still think the Japanese caught us off guard and defenseless at Pearl Harbor too.

Hmmm, I know the warning signs of the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor were overlooked, but I don't think it was "allowed" as has been stated in the past.

Healthy skeptcism is a good thing. Too much, however, leaves you jumping at every shadow.

I think Watergate has permeated the public conscience, to the point that everything the government does is questionable.

Let's try this question on for size: Why was the "conspiracy" of Pearl Harbor more successful than the "conspiracy" of the 9/11 attacks?

After the documents from that era were released via Freedom of Information Act, there's not really much question about the broad strokes of Pearl Harbor. We knew they were on a bee-line for Hawaii, had intercepted details of their specific plan to hit Pearl Harbor, and didn't even put Pearl Harbor on alert.

FDR and/or people in his administration wanted to join the war, found their excuse, and let it happen.

Let's try this question on for size: Why was the "conspiracy" of Pearl Harbor more successful than the "conspiracy" of the 9/11 attacks?

I suppose that remains to be seen. There are certainly a lot of parallels between the two events, but many differences as well.

There was no selection for "I dont know". I might as well toss a coin in the air to pick yes or no. I will say if there was a conspiracy behind it of any kind it would not surprise me. Folks with power and money are not usually completely dumb and are quite smart and I would not put anything past them to get what they want.

btw...I did not vote because I have no idea...lol

After the documents from that era were released via Freedom of Information Act, there's not really much question about the broad strokes of Pearl Harbor. We knew they were on a bee-line for Hawaii, had intercepted details of their specific plan to hit Pearl Harbor, and didn't even put Pearl Harbor on alert.

FDR and/or people in his administration wanted to join the war, found their excuse, and let it happen.



I suppose that remains to be seen. There are certainly a lot of parallels between the two events, but many differences as well.

One of the differences between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is that the so-called people who overlooked the warning signs were dismissed and for 9/11 the people who pointed out the warning signs were dismissed.

Thread revival...I would guess some might have seen this...its the final cut version (2nd Edition)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX37SM&NR=1

I am sure whatever made it happen had to do with greed or power. Families are broken up over money.....so why would this not happen? :(
Power is the top drug of choice for the human race....the effects though can destroy even the user though. *sigh*

FDR and/or people in his administration wanted to join the war, found their excuse, and let it happen.



I think that happens alot for things they do. I believe our politicians are quite smart and have complete capability of doing very covert events and use media to mold our opinions. Our government only lets us know exactly what they want us to know. Media is not ours. Like any crime...look to see who gained because of this...it will probably answer who did it. To admit we have been taken no one wants to admit. It is easier just believe them. Who wants to think that folks can do that...I sure don't.