9/11 Conspiracies(threads merged)

[unriggable]

Alright, enough, we get it already. Blah, blah, blah ... controlled demolition ... temperature of burning jet fuel ... explosions ... free-fall faster than terminal velocity. Let me know if I missed anything.

You know what, just for fun, lets say you're right. Lets assume that the buildings did undergo a controlled demolition, the sounds in fact were bombs, ect. Even if this was the case, why does the government have to be responsible for it? Perhaps terrorists planted bombs to do the actual damage, but used the planes to cause doubt and suspicion to spread through people such as yourself and cause the people to doubt the government. This would then lead them to speak out against the government and cause unrest, ultimately leading to a weaker government that takes less action in foreign policy and regulation of the nation.

Isn't the crazed international conspiracy just as likely to come from the opposite side of the argument?

lol...yeah imagine hundreds of arabs going inside the towers to set it up.....unnoticed! Now THAT is nutty!


And it still wouldn't explain why our air force stood down!

Since when are all terrorists Arab?

And since when do planes have an emergency 'hijack' button?

Oh yeah. 2002.

[static_ice]

Soundout, I actually somewhat liked you until you posted this.

Poor guy trying to fit in.

[jay_a2j]

Which is the greater loss? The passengers aboard plane 1 ? Or 1,500 in tower 1? Do the math. After the 1st plane hit tower 1 the US should of AT LEAST tried to get some fighters up in the air to try and guide, tail, chaperon or destroy the other 3 hi-jacked planes but they sat on the ground instead.

A.) I doubt they had much of an idea where the planes were exactly.
B.) Chaperoning the planes wouldn't have worked, these terrorists were suiciders. So the only option would have been shooting them down, which meant shooting down a huge plane above a big city where it would most certainly cause lots of casualties.

They had them on radar, they knew exactly where they were even BEFORE they got to the city. You may be right, the only option may have been to shoot them down, but they weren't "over the city" the entire time. Why spend time making up excuses for our government instead of addressing the sheer stupidity of their actions (or inactions)?

Yeah, I'm sure the hijacked planes show up as purple on radar so they are nice and identifiable. Seriously, there had to be at least 50 planes in the New York area during the attacks, you can't follow all of them.

Soundout, I actually somewhat liked you until you posted this.

Hello, newjack, well lets start by stating when an airline goes off course it is picked up immediately on radar, they knew there were at least 4 hijacked planes....(because they went off course and no radio communication was made) So after plane 1 went off course and struck tower one....why no fighters sent up to intercept plane 2 which hit tower 2 OVER AN HOUR LATER!?


kids these days

[jay_a2j]

Alright, enough, we get it already. Blah, blah, blah ... controlled demolition ... temperature of burning jet fuel ... explosions ... free-fall faster than terminal velocity. Let me know if I missed anything.

You know what, just for fun, lets say you're right. Lets assume that the buildings did undergo a controlled demolition, the sounds in fact were bombs, ect. Even if this was the case, why does the government have to be responsible for it? Perhaps terrorists planted bombs to do the actual damage, but used the planes to cause doubt and suspicion to spread through people such as yourself and cause the people to doubt the government. This would then lead them to speak out against the government and cause unrest, ultimately leading to a weaker government that takes less action in foreign policy and regulation of the nation.

Isn't the crazed international conspiracy just as likely to come from the opposite side of the argument?

lol...yeah imagine hundreds of arabs going inside the towers to set it up.....unnoticed! Now THAT is nutty!


And it still wouldn't explain why our air force stood down!

Since when are all terrorists Arab?

On 911 all Muslims weren't terrorists but all the terrorists THAT day, on THOSE planes, were Muslim.

[Neutrino]

On 911 all Muslims weren't terrorists but all the terrorists THAT day, on THOSE planes, were Muslim.

Why would the planners restrict themselves to only Arabs, though? Thousands of officeworkers are a lot less noticible than thousands of people in headdresses.

[Backglass]

Hello, newjack, well lets start by stating when an airline goes off course it is picked up immediately on radar, they knew there were at least 4 hijacked planes....

Of course they knew something was up...this is not in question.

So after plane 1 went off course and struck tower one....why no fighters sent up to intercept plane 2 which hit tower 2 OVER AN HOUR LATER!?

Oh...let's see. Because EVERY hi-jacking in history prior had ended with a LANDING? It had never been done before jay...we cannot see the future (unlike you. ) They did not know, as obvious as it is now, if this was an intentional act or not. It was the dawn of a new era.

Would you have had the balls to shoot down a US passenger plane full of American families? No frickin' way, and neither did anyone else. A president ordering fighters to SHOOT DOWN a civilian jet liner? That's hollywood. Before that day the concept was unfathomable. Hind site is 20/20.

kids these days

Exactly. Ignorance of youth. Unfortunately, you can no longer use that excuse.

[Neutrino]

Hello, newjack, well lets start by stating when an airline goes off course it is picked up immediately on radar, they knew there were at least 4 hijacked planes....(because they went off course and no radio communication was made) So after plane 1 went off course and struck tower one....why no fighters sent up to intercept plane 2 which hit tower 2 OVER AN HOUR LATER!?


kids these days

Did the military assume control before the second plane hit, or was it still civilian control tower staff? If the latter... there's your answer. These people come to work expecting a boring day, not having to decide whether to shoot down civilian planes or not. I doubt they could make such a hard decision, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, in the space of an hour.

Hell, even if the military had assumed control by then, the officers in charge would be no more willing to make a decision than the civilians would have been. Asking for orders up the chain 'o command would have been the standard response. The military isn't spectacularly efficient. It could have easily taken longer than an hour for comprehensible orders to filter back down.

[SolidLuigi]

Backglass:

To answer your question about me, I'm 25, graduated high school with honors and attended Rochester Institute of Technology for 3 years. Left decided the major wasn't right for me, worked the past few years as a Land Surveyor and now a Chef. Putting a portfolio together to apply for another college for this fall. I've always leaned more conservative, and I've never devoted myself to one party(I think this is one of the reasons of my questioning, why is a party that claims to be for small gov, and less spending, spending so much and building the gov to huge sizes?!). 2000 I voted for Bush, 2004 I did also, I felt he was more reliable than Kerry. Up until about 2006, I held the "no cover up" standpoint on 9/11, and just dismissed any claims of cover-up or anything suspicious without looking into it. Being an intellectual though, my conscience started to get to me, because as an intellectual, I have to look at claims and evidence on both sides to be fully informed. If I just take what I WANT to hear, and accept that without looking through any other viewpoints, I am being ignorant. My approval rating for Bush and the war in Iraq has gone down just as much as the rest of the country, so over the past year I've been looking at everything I decided not to look at. I've seen both sides because I've been on both sides as I just explained. I'm not saying I know everything, cause I don't, I'm just presenting questionable points I've seen or heard. And really, accusing me of being young and stupid because I'm questioning things and trying to find out whats going on, isn't that more childish? I haven't thrown an insult once, because I'm not out to bash people, I'm just telling people what I've seen and heard and why I'm not 100% convinced that it was a handful of hijackers.

A lot of answers to your replies where you demand sources can be found in the Zeitgeist movie, everything in the movie has sources. Pictures of the molten metal, the fact about steel skyscrapers not falling to nothing but dust due to fire. They are made with steel because of its high resistance to fire. Also a lot of the information about what happened to the debris. I didn't blindly follow the movie either because it has sources to all these claims. *Also there is an interesting section on why the fighter jets that jay has been talkin about didn't respond as fast as they always had before then. *

About the towers falling straight down, most of the damage from the planes and fire were very high up on the buildings, in my mind about 75%-80% up? I don't see how the top 25%-20% of the building could crumble and fall onto the 80% thats still structurally sound and have it just fall straight down with little or no resistance. In fact they fall straight through the path where they had maximum resistance, which in the realm of physics is an aberration.

The man who found the thermate traces is a Physics professor at BYU.

If I have to elaborate on building 7. It was never hit by a plane, it suffered minimal structural damage near the roof and in the southwest or southeast(cant remember which) corner near the bottom floors. there were only a few fires inside the building. Out of no where it, the 3rd building now, perfectly falls straight down at fast speed, it even has the center column buckle that most controlled demolitions have. now if it fell naturally, It would have taken a lot longer than it did due to the small amount of damage and small fires, and also it most likely would have fallen in the direction of the small amount that was missing in the corner, because there was less resistance in that direction. Many eyewitnesses recall clearly hearing sounds of explosions right when it was coming down. The best part, BUILDING 7 ISN'T MENTIONED AT ALL IN THE 9/11 COMISSION. like it didn't even exist. This is what I'm talking about, it doesn't definitively point to the gov doing it, but it looks a lot like they are hiding something.

Bush and Cheney weren't suspects, but they were involved by default because they are running the country while this happens wether they had a hand in it or not. They were the Pres and VP. With many other nations claiming that they warned America of a very imminent threat right before 9/11, and no action being taken, yeah I think the 9/11 comission might have some questions for those two.

The part about how controlled demos happen, yes I know how they work. I've seen a few shows on it because I think it'd be a pretty sweet job hehe. A lot of that work can be skipped over though. The stripping of the building to bare foundation is done in controlled demos mostly to prevent all that dust and debris and damage to surrounding properties. No need to do that in 9/11 from a terrorist point of view the more damage and chaos the better, from an inside job point of view, it wont look as real obviously, plus if you are already committing an act like this whats the point of worrying about that. There are many reports of frequent unusual security checks going on leading up to 9/11.

Basically as I've stated many times, I don't claim to know exactly what happened, but theres so much that leans towards cover up, and then 9/11 is used as a launchpad for a war that, after all the madness from 9/11 settled, people don't approve of because they are thinking logically again. I know I'm never going to convince you of what I believe, my first post in the thread I was just stating my opinion and what I've come to know of the situation. But I've always loved debates so I had to jump back in on it with a few more posts haha.

Please for the sake of seeing both sides, watch the Zeitgeist movie http://zeitgeistmovie.com/ It's free to watch.It was referred to me by actually believe it or not, someone older than me, and a very smart man in his own right. I was never one for documentaries and conspiracy movies becauseI believe alot of them have their own agenda. This movie is presented calmy, based on sources, and is well thought out. They don't persecute people based on their political standings, as in its not anti-rep or anti-dem. Lastly it has a great message in the movie. Basically it says that, if we continue to let governments take away our liberties and rights, and separate us from eachother, we will ultimately lose all our rights. It is a full 2 hours but the first chapter, although interesting, is on religion so you can skip it if you'd like as it doesn't have much to do with their 9/11 section. The second chapter is all about 9/11. The third chapter is probably the most interesting part of the movie to me, it is about the Federal Reserve and how much power they have since they control the value of the dollar. Very interesting and scary stuff there. In that chapter they show a pattern of how most of the major wars America has been in, it's been result of a terrorist or surprise attack on innocent civilians or neutral soldiers, and the need for an enemy to persecute afterwards. Even if you watch it and don't believe any of it, you can see how a lot of it does make you wonder and also it will be a positive because then you will have even more knowledge of what the other side is thinking and can make even better arguments. It's win/win. No knowledge is bad knowledge. Now I gotta go to bed cause I have to get up in 5 hours, this was a lot longer than I planned haha. Peace

[Neutrino]

About the towers falling straight down, most of the damage from the planes and fire were very high up on the buildings, in my mind about 75%-80% up? I don't see how the top 25%-20% of the building could crumble and fall onto the 80% thats still structurally sound and have it just fall straight down with little or no resistance. In fact they fall straight through the path where they had maximum resistance, which in the realm of physics is an aberration.

But it wasn't 20% falling onto 80%, it was 20% falling onto the supports for a single floor. Which buckled. And then it was 20% plus the mass of that floor against the supports for the next floor. Etc, etc, all the way down.

The reason the buildings fell straight down was because there was no force impelling them to fall in any other direction. Wind would have been nothing to a million ton building. What, then, could have possibly caused the buildings to fall sideways? There were no other forces acting on the buildings besides gravity.
These buildings were not like trees. A tree doesn't mass enough to crush itself while collapsing, so it falls sideways under the pressure of wind.

If I have to elaborate on building 7. It was never hit by a plane, it suffered minimal structural damage near the roof and in the southwest or southeast(cant remember which) corner near the bottom floors. there were only a few fires inside the building. Out of no where it, the 3rd building now, perfectly falls straight down at fast speed, it even has the center column buckle that most controlled demolitions have. now if it fell naturally, It would have taken a lot longer than it did due to the small amount of damage and small fires, and also it most likely would have fallen in the direction of the small amount that was missing in the corner, because there was less resistance in that direction. Many eyewitnesses recall clearly hearing sounds of explosions right when it was coming down. The best part, BUILDING 7 ISN'T MENTIONED AT ALL IN THE 9/11 COMISSION. like it didn't even exist. This is what I'm talking about, it doesn't definitively point to the gov doing it, but it looks a lot like they are hiding something.

Why would the government blow building 7 up if it would look so unnatural? The casualties in that single building would have been nothing compared to the Towers themselves.
Basically what I mean is why didn't the government do it better? Why not, instead of wiring the buildings with explosives, keep throwing planes at them until they did collapse? Or have a small army of "terrorists" take the buildings, then detonate them before the US could mobilize to recapture them? These are intelligent people. They know there will be technical differences between a building destroyed by a plane and one destroyed by explosives. Why not actually destroy it with explosives, so all the details will fit?

The part about how controlled demos happen, yes I know how they work. I've seen a few shows on it because I think it'd be a pretty sweet job hehe. A lot of that work can be skipped over though. The stripping of the building to bare foundation is done in controlled demos mostly to prevent all that dust and debris and damage to surrounding properties. No need to do that in 9/11 from a terrorist point of view the more damage and chaos the better, from an inside job point of view, it wont look as real obviously, plus if you are already committing an act like this whats the point of worrying about that. There are many reports of frequent unusual security checks going on leading up to 9/11.

Even without all the extra work involved in stripping the buildings, the challenge of wiring the TT would have been huge. Hundreds of workers at the minimum, accessing vital structural supports on all floors with large amounts of equipment. I think this goes a long way past "frequent unusual security checks", don't you?

And what of the workers themselves? Exposing the conspiracy would net themselves instant fame and millions of dollars. And if they die spontaneously, then they will be well and truly proved correct. Don't tell me it won't happen, either. People have shot celebrities at point blank range for nothing more than the mild fame of being a celebrity murderer. These people will be doing it for infinitely more.
What about everyone else involved, however incidently? There must be tens of thousands of people involved in covering up something this big. And not one of them possesses a conscience?


P.S. No more videos. Everyone willing to argue 9/11 has had more than enough of them during the Xtra era. Treat it as a general idiosyncrasy and write out your evidence with links to webpages, please.

[heavycola]

About the towers falling straight down, most of the damage from the planes and fire were very high up on the buildings, in my mind about 75%-80% up? I don't see how the top 25%-20% of the building could crumble and fall onto the 80% thats still structurally sound and have it just fall straight down with little or no resistance. In fact they fall straight through the path where they had maximum resistance, which in the realm of physics is an aberration.

But it wasn't 20% falling onto 80%, it was 20% falling onto the supports for a single floor. Which buckled. And then it was 20% plus the mass of that floor against the supports for the next floor. Etc, etc, all the way down.

The reason the buildings fell straight down was because there was no force impelling them to fall in any other direction. Wind would have been nothing to a million ton building. What, then, could have possibly caused the buildings to fall sideways? There were no other forces acting on the buildings besides gravity.
These buildings were not like trees. A tree doesn't mass enough to crush itself while collapsing, so it falls sideways under the pressure of wind.

If I have to elaborate on building 7. It was never hit by a plane, it suffered minimal structural damage near the roof and in the southwest or southeast(cant remember which) corner near the bottom floors. there were only a few fires inside the building. Out of no where it, the 3rd building now, perfectly falls straight down at fast speed, it even has the center column buckle that most controlled demolitions have. now if it fell naturally, It would have taken a lot longer than it did due to the small amount of damage and small fires, and also it most likely would have fallen in the direction of the small amount that was missing in the corner, because there was less resistance in that direction. Many eyewitnesses recall clearly hearing sounds of explosions right when it was coming down. The best part, BUILDING 7 ISN'T MENTIONED AT ALL IN THE 9/11 COMISSION. like it didn't even exist. This is what I'm talking about, it doesn't definitively point to the gov doing it, but it looks a lot like they are hiding something.

Why would the government blow building 7 up if it would look so unnatural? The casualties in that single building would have been nothing compared to the Towers themselves.
Basically what I mean is why didn't the government do it better? Why not, instead of wiring the buildings with explosives, keep throwing planes at them until they did collapse? Or have a small army of "terrorists" take the buildings, then detonate them before the US could mobilize to recapture them? These are intelligent people. They know there will be technical differences between a building destroyed by a plane and one destroyed by explosives. Why not actually destroy it with explosives, so all the details will fit?

The part about how controlled demos happen, yes I know how they work. I've seen a few shows on it because I think it'd be a pretty sweet job hehe. A lot of that work can be skipped over though. The stripping of the building to bare foundation is done in controlled demos mostly to prevent all that dust and debris and damage to surrounding properties. No need to do that in 9/11 from a terrorist point of view the more damage and chaos the better, from an inside job point of view, it wont look as real obviously, plus if you are already committing an act like this whats the point of worrying about that. There are many reports of frequent unusual security checks going on leading up to 9/11.

Even without all the extra work involved in stripping the buildings, the challenge of wiring the TT would have been huge. Hundreds of workers at the minimum, accessing vital structural supports on all floors with large amounts of equipment. I think this goes a long way past "frequent unusual security checks", don't you?

And what of the workers themselves? Exposing the conspiracy would net themselves instant fame and millions of dollars. And if they die spontaneously, then they will be well and truly proved correct. Don't tell me it won't happen, either. People have shot celebrities at point blank range for nothing more than the mild fame of being a celebrity murderer. These people will be doing it for infinitely more.
What about everyone else involved, however incidently? There must be tens of thousands of people involved in covering up something this big. And not one of them possesses a conscience?


P.S. No more videos. Everyone willing to argue 9/11 has had more than enough of them during the Xtra era. Treat it as a general idiosyncrasy and write out your evidence with links to webpages, please.

The voice of reason. Good post.

[muy_thaiguy]

About the towers falling straight down, most of the damage from the planes and fire were very high up on the buildings, in my mind about 75%-80% up? I don't see how the top 25%-20% of the building could crumble and fall onto the 80% thats still structurally sound and have it just fall straight down with little or no resistance. In fact they fall straight through the path where they had maximum resistance, which in the realm of physics is an aberration.

But it wasn't 20% falling onto 80%, it was 20% falling onto the supports for a single floor. Which buckled. And then it was 20% plus the mass of that floor against the supports for the next floor. Etc, etc, all the way down.

The reason the buildings fell straight down was because there was no force impelling them to fall in any other direction. Wind would have been nothing to a million ton building. What, then, could have possibly caused the buildings to fall sideways? There were no other forces acting on the buildings besides gravity.
These buildings were not like trees. A tree doesn't mass enough to crush itself while collapsing, so it falls sideways under the pressure of wind.

If I have to elaborate on building 7. It was never hit by a plane, it suffered minimal structural damage near the roof and in the southwest or southeast(cant remember which) corner near the bottom floors. there were only a few fires inside the building. Out of no where it, the 3rd building now, perfectly falls straight down at fast speed, it even has the center column buckle that most controlled demolitions have. now if it fell naturally, It would have taken a lot longer than it did due to the small amount of damage and small fires, and also it most likely would have fallen in the direction of the small amount that was missing in the corner, because there was less resistance in that direction. Many eyewitnesses recall clearly hearing sounds of explosions right when it was coming down. The best part, BUILDING 7 ISN'T MENTIONED AT ALL IN THE 9/11 COMISSION. like it didn't even exist. This is what I'm talking about, it doesn't definitively point to the gov doing it, but it looks a lot like they are hiding something.

Why would the government blow building 7 up if it would look so unnatural? The casualties in that single building would have been nothing compared to the Towers themselves.
Basically what I mean is why didn't the government do it better? Why not, instead of wiring the buildings with explosives, keep throwing planes at them until they did collapse? Or have a small army of "terrorists" take the buildings, then detonate them before the US could mobilize to recapture them? These are intelligent people. They know there will be technical differences between a building destroyed by a plane and one destroyed by explosives. Why not actually destroy it with explosives, so all the details will fit?

The part about how controlled demos happen, yes I know how they work. I've seen a few shows on it because I think it'd be a pretty sweet job hehe. A lot of that work can be skipped over though. The stripping of the building to bare foundation is done in controlled demos mostly to prevent all that dust and debris and damage to surrounding properties. No need to do that in 9/11 from a terrorist point of view the more damage and chaos the better, from an inside job point of view, it wont look as real obviously, plus if you are already committing an act like this whats the point of worrying about that. There are many reports of frequent unusual security checks going on leading up to 9/11.

Even without all the extra work involved in stripping the buildings, the challenge of wiring the TT would have been huge. Hundreds of workers at the minimum, accessing vital structural supports on all floors with large amounts of equipment. I think this goes a long way past "frequent unusual security checks", don't you?

And what of the workers themselves? Exposing the conspiracy would net themselves instant fame and millions of dollars. And if they die spontaneously, then they will be well and truly proved correct. Don't tell me it won't happen, either. People have shot celebrities at point blank range for nothing more than the mild fame of being a celebrity murderer. These people will be doing it for infinitely more.
What about everyone else involved, however incidently? There must be tens of thousands of people involved in covering up something this big. And not one of them possesses a conscience?


P.S. No more videos. Everyone willing to argue 9/11 has had more than enough of them during the Xtra era. Treat it as a general idiosyncrasy and write out your evidence with links to webpages, please.

The voice of reason. Good post.

What a waste of a huge quote...

[Backglass]

And what of the workers themselves? Exposing the conspiracy would net themselves instant fame and millions of dollars. And if they die spontaneously, then they will be well and truly proved correct. Don't tell me it won't happen, either. People have shot celebrities at point blank range for nothing more than the mild fame of being a celebrity murderer. These people will be doing it for infinitely more.
What about everyone else involved, however incidently? There must be tens of thousands of people involved in covering up something this big. And not one of them possesses a conscience?

SPOT ON. This is always the question that the theorists can never answer. Who are these thousands of mindless drones doing the dirty work and killing their fellow Americans? Are the frickin' robots? The theorists always speak of "the government" like it's some shadowy living entity. Our "government" is made of of people just like me & you...people with kids & families. And it's bi-partisan! Don't you think that the dems would LOVE to catch Bush in a conspiracy? Or are they in on it too?

Our government can't keep the goings on in a "secret" prison a secret...YET the biggest disaster and coverup in human history is air tight? It's laughable...especially considering the complete idiot running the show.

[Snorri1234]

Or are they in on it too?

From what I understand...yes. They're all part of the Skulls-society or whatever and also catholic satanists.

Our government can't keep the goings on in a "secret" prison a secret...YET the biggest disaster and coverup in human history is air tight?

Except for some college kid and his friends though. They totally exposed them.

[DaGip]

About the towers falling straight down, most of the damage from the planes and fire were very high up on the buildings, in my mind about 75%-80% up? I don't see how the top 25%-20% of the building could crumble and fall onto the 80% thats still structurally sound and have it just fall straight down with little or no resistance. In fact they fall straight through the path where they had maximum resistance, which in the realm of physics is an aberration.

But it wasn't 20% falling onto 80%, it was 20% falling onto the supports for a single floor. Which buckled. And then it was 20% plus the mass of that floor against the supports for the next floor. Etc, etc, all the way down.

The reason the buildings fell straight down was because there was no force impelling them to fall in any other direction. Wind would have been nothing to a million ton building. What, then, could have possibly caused the buildings to fall sideways? There were no other forces acting on the buildings besides gravity.
These buildings were not like trees. A tree doesn't mass enough to crush itself while collapsing, so it falls sideways under the pressure of wind.

If I have to elaborate on building 7. It was never hit by a plane, it suffered minimal structural damage near the roof and in the southwest or southeast(cant remember which) corner near the bottom floors. there were only a few fires inside the building. Out of no where it, the 3rd building now, perfectly falls straight down at fast speed, it even has the center column buckle that most controlled demolitions have. now if it fell naturally, It would have taken a lot longer than it did due to the small amount of damage and small fires, and also it most likely would have fallen in the direction of the small amount that was missing in the corner, because there was less resistance in that direction. Many eyewitnesses recall clearly hearing sounds of explosions right when it was coming down. The best part, BUILDING 7 ISN'T MENTIONED AT ALL IN THE 9/11 COMISSION. like it didn't even exist. This is what I'm talking about, it doesn't definitively point to the gov doing it, but it looks a lot like they are hiding something.

Why would the government blow building 7 up if it would look so unnatural? The casualties in that single building would have been nothing compared to the Towers themselves.
Basically what I mean is why didn't the government do it better? Why not, instead of wiring the buildings with explosives, keep throwing planes at them until they did collapse? Or have a small army of "terrorists" take the buildings, then detonate them before the US could mobilize to recapture them? These are intelligent people. They know there will be technical differences between a building destroyed by a plane and one destroyed by explosives. Why not actually destroy it with explosives, so all the details will fit?

The part about how controlled demos happen, yes I know how they work. I've seen a few shows on it because I think it'd be a pretty sweet job hehe. A lot of that work can be skipped over though. The stripping of the building to bare foundation is done in controlled demos mostly to prevent all that dust and debris and damage to surrounding properties. No need to do that in 9/11 from a terrorist point of view the more damage and chaos the better, from an inside job point of view, it wont look as real obviously, plus if you are already committing an act like this whats the point of worrying about that. There are many reports of frequent unusual security checks going on leading up to 9/11.

Even without all the extra work involved in stripping the buildings, the challenge of wiring the TT would have been huge. Hundreds of workers at the minimum, accessing vital structural supports on all floors with large amounts of equipment. I think this goes a long way past "frequent unusual security checks", don't you?

And what of the workers themselves? Exposing the conspiracy would net themselves instant fame and millions of dollars. And if they die spontaneously, then they will be well and truly proved correct. Don't tell me it won't happen, either. People have shot celebrities at point blank range for nothing more than the mild fame of being a celebrity murderer. These people will be doing it for infinitely more.
What about everyone else involved, however incidently? There must be tens of thousands of people involved in covering up something this big. And not one of them possesses a conscience?


P.S. No more videos. Everyone willing to argue 9/11 has had more than enough of them during the Xtra era. Treat it as a general idiosyncrasy and write out your evidence with links to webpages, please.

Neutrino, to be fair...you didn't give any evidence yourself. You just stated stuff that you want me and everyone else to take at face value. Plus, the response for this particular post was meant for Backglass.

[Frigidus]

About the towers falling straight down, most of the damage from the planes and fire were very high up on the buildings, in my mind about 75%-80% up? I don't see how the top 25%-20% of the building could crumble and fall onto the 80% thats still structurally sound and have it just fall straight down with little or no resistance. In fact they fall straight through the path where they had maximum resistance, which in the realm of physics is an aberration.

But it wasn't 20% falling onto 80%, it was 20% falling onto the supports for a single floor. Which buckled. And then it was 20% plus the mass of that floor against the supports for the next floor. Etc, etc, all the way down.

The reason the buildings fell straight down was because there was no force impelling them to fall in any other direction. Wind would have been nothing to a million ton building. What, then, could have possibly caused the buildings to fall sideways? There were no other forces acting on the buildings besides gravity.
These buildings were not like trees. A tree doesn't mass enough to crush itself while collapsing, so it falls sideways under the pressure of wind.

If I have to elaborate on building 7. It was never hit by a plane, it suffered minimal structural damage near the roof and in the southwest or southeast(cant remember which) corner near the bottom floors. there were only a few fires inside the building. Out of no where it, the 3rd building now, perfectly falls straight down at fast speed, it even has the center column buckle that most controlled demolitions have. now if it fell naturally, It would have taken a lot longer than it did due to the small amount of damage and small fires, and also it most likely would have fallen in the direction of the small amount that was missing in the corner, because there was less resistance in that direction. Many eyewitnesses recall clearly hearing sounds of explosions right when it was coming down. The best part, BUILDING 7 ISN'T MENTIONED AT ALL IN THE 9/11 COMISSION. like it didn't even exist. This is what I'm talking about, it doesn't definitively point to the gov doing it, but it looks a lot like they are hiding something.

Why would the government blow building 7 up if it would look so unnatural? The casualties in that single building would have been nothing compared to the Towers themselves.
Basically what I mean is why didn't the government do it better? Why not, instead of wiring the buildings with explosives, keep throwing planes at them until they did collapse? Or have a small army of "terrorists" take the buildings, then detonate them before the US could mobilize to recapture them? These are intelligent people. They know there will be technical differences between a building destroyed by a plane and one destroyed by explosives. Why not actually destroy it with explosives, so all the details will fit?

The part about how controlled demos happen, yes I know how they work. I've seen a few shows on it because I think it'd be a pretty sweet job hehe. A lot of that work can be skipped over though. The stripping of the building to bare foundation is done in controlled demos mostly to prevent all that dust and debris and damage to surrounding properties. No need to do that in 9/11 from a terrorist point of view the more damage and chaos the better, from an inside job point of view, it wont look as real obviously, plus if you are already committing an act like this whats the point of worrying about that. There are many reports of frequent unusual security checks going on leading up to 9/11.

Even without all the extra work involved in stripping the buildings, the challenge of wiring the TT would have been huge. Hundreds of workers at the minimum, accessing vital structural supports on all floors with large amounts of equipment. I think this goes a long way past "frequent unusual security checks", don't you?

And what of the workers themselves? Exposing the conspiracy would net themselves instant fame and millions of dollars. And if they die spontaneously, then they will be well and truly proved correct. Don't tell me it won't happen, either. People have shot celebrities at point blank range for nothing more than the mild fame of being a celebrity murderer. These people will be doing it for infinitely more.
What about everyone else involved, however incidently? There must be tens of thousands of people involved in covering up something this big. And not one of them possesses a conscience?


P.S. No more videos. Everyone willing to argue 9/11 has had more than enough of them during the Xtra era. Treat it as a general idiosyncrasy and write out your evidence with links to webpages, please.

Neutrino, to be fair...you didn't give any evidence yourself. You just stated stuff that you want me and everyone else to take at face value. Plus, the response for this particular post was meant for Backglass.

This is true, but the point he's trying to make is that all conspiracy arguments entirely remove the human factor from the equation. While there is an oppurtunity and a (dubious) motive for the US government, do they have the means to keep a conspiracy this far reaching quiet? How is it that there hasn't been a single leak from the inside? In fact, the only people who are arguing the point are far removed from the supposed inner circle. How can we explain this?

[DaGip]

About the towers falling straight down, most of the damage from the planes and fire were very high up on the buildings, in my mind about 75%-80% up? I don't see how the top 25%-20% of the building could crumble and fall onto the 80% thats still structurally sound and have it just fall straight down with little or no resistance. In fact they fall straight through the path where they had maximum resistance, which in the realm of physics is an aberration.

But it wasn't 20% falling onto 80%, it was 20% falling onto the supports for a single floor. Which buckled. And then it was 20% plus the mass of that floor against the supports for the next floor. Etc, etc, all the way down.

The reason the buildings fell straight down was because there was no force impelling them to fall in any other direction. Wind would have been nothing to a million ton building. What, then, could have possibly caused the buildings to fall sideways? There were no other forces acting on the buildings besides gravity.
These buildings were not like trees. A tree doesn't mass enough to crush itself while collapsing, so it falls sideways under the pressure of wind.

If I have to elaborate on building 7. It was never hit by a plane, it suffered minimal structural damage near the roof and in the southwest or southeast(cant remember which) corner near the bottom floors. there were only a few fires inside the building. Out of no where it, the 3rd building now, perfectly falls straight down at fast speed, it even has the center column buckle that most controlled demolitions have. now if it fell naturally, It would have taken a lot longer than it did due to the small amount of damage and small fires, and also it most likely would have fallen in the direction of the small amount that was missing in the corner, because there was less resistance in that direction. Many eyewitnesses recall clearly hearing sounds of explosions right when it was coming down. The best part, BUILDING 7 ISN'T MENTIONED AT ALL IN THE 9/11 COMISSION. like it didn't even exist. This is what I'm talking about, it doesn't definitively point to the gov doing it, but it looks a lot like they are hiding something.

Why would the government blow building 7 up if it would look so unnatural? The casualties in that single building would have been nothing compared to the Towers themselves.
Basically what I mean is why didn't the government do it better? Why not, instead of wiring the buildings with explosives, keep throwing planes at them until they did collapse? Or have a small army of "terrorists" take the buildings, then detonate them before the US could mobilize to recapture them? These are intelligent people. They know there will be technical differences between a building destroyed by a plane and one destroyed by explosives. Why not actually destroy it with explosives, so all the details will fit?

The part about how controlled demos happen, yes I know how they work. I've seen a few shows on it because I think it'd be a pretty sweet job hehe. A lot of that work can be skipped over though. The stripping of the building to bare foundation is done in controlled demos mostly to prevent all that dust and debris and damage to surrounding properties. No need to do that in 9/11 from a terrorist point of view the more damage and chaos the better, from an inside job point of view, it wont look as real obviously, plus if you are already committing an act like this whats the point of worrying about that. There are many reports of frequent unusual security checks going on leading up to 9/11.

Even without all the extra work involved in stripping the buildings, the challenge of wiring the TT would have been huge. Hundreds of workers at the minimum, accessing vital structural supports on all floors with large amounts of equipment. I think this goes a long way past "frequent unusual security checks", don't you?

And what of the workers themselves? Exposing the conspiracy would net themselves instant fame and millions of dollars. And if they die spontaneously, then they will be well and truly proved correct. Don't tell me it won't happen, either. People have shot celebrities at point blank range for nothing more than the mild fame of being a celebrity murderer. These people will be doing it for infinitely more.
What about everyone else involved, however incidently? There must be tens of thousands of people involved in covering up something this big. And not one of them possesses a conscience?


P.S. No more videos. Everyone willing to argue 9/11 has had more than enough of them during the Xtra era. Treat it as a general idiosyncrasy and write out your evidence with links to webpages, please.

Neutrino, to be fair...you didn't give any evidence yourself. You just stated stuff that you want me and everyone else to take at face value. Plus, the response for this particular post was meant for Backglass.

This is true, but the point he's trying to make is that all conspiracy arguments entirely remove the human factor from the equation. While there is an oppurtunity and a (dubious) motive for the US government, do they have the means to keep a conspiracy this far reaching quiet? How is it that there hasn't been a single leak from the inside? In fact, the only people who are arguing the point are far removed from the supposed inner circle. How can we explain this?

Mind Control Ray Gun!

[SolidLuigi]

First of all, Neutrino, thank you for an intelligent reply. This is what I am talking about, you bring up a lot of good points, of course my argument isn't perfect. Also, as I stated before, I am not exactly saying "The Govt did 9/11" I'm just not accepting what we were told as the full truth. To me there is too much questionable stuff to believe it 100%. Believe me I allow room for coincidence and benefit of the doubt, but any odds-maker will tell you that as coincidences keep piling up, the odds of them truly being "coincidences" get worse.

About the falling tower, I guess we just have to agree to disagree. What I was getting at with the maximum resistance issue, is that unless all 4 corners of the building buckled at the same time in the initial fall, the section would lean towards the side or corner that buckled first, thats basic physics. When that section leans to the side and starts to fall it can either go straight down where the rest of the tower is resisting it, or it can continue to go towards the side were nothing is giving resistance except for the air, just as if you cut a wedge out of one side of a tree, it would lean towards the missing wedge, less resistance. Now it wouldn't topple to the side and off the main section after 1 floor because the size of the height of a floor to the height of the initial section above the impact point is too small, but I would figure all that weight coming down on say the right side of the tower would cause that section on the next floor down to buckle before the left section of the floor, this would repeat until it was enough to make the top section topple. This is just my view with my knowledge of basic physics. Now it is possible that it did all buckle evenly at once and fall straight, but to me, since the plane didnt cut clear across the floor perfectly and (I am assuming here) the fires inside were in different intensities in different areas of the floor, the probability that all sides buckled at the same exact time is a lot less than one section buckling before another. In my view it's hard to believe that 3 skyscrapers, 2 that were attacked by such erratic instruments as planes(when I say erratic, I mean, they weren't designed to be missles, so you know it will do damage, but you don't know exactly what damage exactly it will cause), all fell perfectly straight, into their footprint with minimal(minimal to what could have happened if it toppled) damage to nearby buildings, and when they fell they were reduced to complete and utter rubble. It is a highly unlikely scenario for a building to fall like that on its own. Look at images of war-torn areas, like parts of Europe after WWII, most buildings that had been subjected to shelling and uncontrolled fires, still had burnt out sections still standing. Also look at the Oklahoma City Bombing, A huge section of that building was totally demolished and the rest of the building stood firm. Once again is this definitive proof? No, but to me it makes the towers falling in the way they did, less believable.

See the problem with speculative debating is that since nothing is proven, (investigations have only yielded theories since the buildings are completely decimated, they have little to go on, can't blame em for only having theories.) is that to counter your question of "why didn't the government do it better? Why not, instead of wiring the buildings with explosives, keep throwing planes at them until they did collapse?" I could just easily say "They thought it would be believable enough with a couple planes and explosives, which obviously it was cause a alot of people believe them. also probably easier since they are only relying on 2 planes to make it and then have the explosions take care of the rest, instead of having to make sure plane after plane comes in etc..." But that would be only if I were sure the govt had a hand in it, which I am not. What I'm getting at is with speculative debate, saying "Why did someone do this?" a reply could be as open ended as "Why didn't they do that?", I can't read minds so I can't effectively explain why or why not anybody did anything, humans are irrational, there is no law to the human mind as there is a law to physics. My main gripe with 7 is the way it fell and the "coincidence" that is also totally absent from the 9/11 commission.

According to what you believe, no controlled demolition ever occurred and still the buildings fell straight and uniformly with only the damage inflicted by the plane and fires, correct? Then, by that thinking, a "full" controlled demolition wouldn't be needed to bring down the towers. Machinery and work wouldn't be needed on every single floor as you say, because by your thinking, all these floors collapsed with no structural interference anyways. Therefore, only minimal additional explosions, which a lot smaller team could do in a lot less time, could be added to push it along enough to make sure it collapses. Since in your belief the damage of the plane was enough to collapse it, then you would agree that in another belief, the damage of the plane + any amount of damage elsewhere, large or small would be enough to also bring down the towers. I'm not trying to disprove you in a sneaky, sly way. I'm just showing how, to every argument, there is a counter-argument thats just as viable. That's why debates go on forever and the 2 sides never accept the other, haha. But yet I still love to debate, about anything too haha.

You are right that a weak point of my argument is how no one has come out and admit to being part of it, but I never said my argument was 100% perfect.

When it all comes down to it, I believe one thing, you believe another, debates are fun but never fruitful, we can counter each others claims until the cow comes home and neither will have budged. I just wanted to get my viewpoints out there.

Please view both sides of any argument, its the only responsible way to come to a decision on anything, with that in mind, here are some interesting articles:

Article that compiles a large list of credible eyewitnesses. credible as in they were there the time of the attack, Firefighters, workers, Officers. In an earlier post Backglass supported one of his own arguments by saying he has actually been to the 9/11 land fill and asked me if I have. Well these people were all there during the attack and they all believe we are being lied to, many are heroes, long time reputable members of fire and police departments.are you willing to call them idiots? or crackpots? What I'm saying is, you can believe what you believe, and I respect your belief in that I don't use insults because again, you nor I know the entire truth so at the same time, you should respect me for believing what I believe because you can't just dismiss everyone as an idiot, especially eyewitnesses like these. The 9/11 commission stonewalled and completely ignored these people, isn't it an investigators responsibility to see both sides?

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/a ... /73028.htm


Interesting article about fake evidence trail, a paper suicide note from the hijackers survives the plane crash in Pennsylvania that supposedly was such a large and violent explosion the whole plane was vaporized? Paper is less flammable than metal now? Evidence planting maybe...

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/a ... /27506.htm

This is a very interesting site, it is a compiled list of people with some sort of qualification that gives them a basis for an argument on 9/11. (well everyone besides the 110+ Entertainment and Media Professionals. I don't see how just because someone can act well in a movie means they know more about architecture and how buildings fall than you or I do haha). I admit I don't know anything above basic physics and architecture, on these lists are all accredited engineers, architects, professors in structural dynamics etc. people who know a thing or two about how buildings react. Again, are you willing to call them idiotic or stupid? :

http://patriotsquestion911.com/



Lastly(sorry, its so long again, haha) to Backglass again. The argument you stated that people refer to the government as if it is some entity, but really it is made up of people. I know this, I used it in an earlier argument myself, being in a government position doesn't automatically make you honest, truthful, nice and generous. people are people, power hungry and money hungry people will do what it takes to satiate their desires. Look at how many bad/evil people there are in this world, how many atrocities have been committed by people. And you don't need a army of evil to cause great harm. Hitler was evil, many of his first in command were too, but most of the german army and peoples were fooled by his propaganda and panache and followed him into war, all being inherently good people for the most part, but working for an evil person and his evil cause.

OK this might be my last post on the matter, I would probably be repeating earlier posts from here on out, also getting tired of these long posts, haha. You never know though, I might have to put my 2 cents in here or there haha. see ya.

[Jenos Ridan]

Just look at the friggin' evidence, would ya!
FREE NORSE!

Who was that directed toward?

[SolidLuigi]

P.S. No more videos. Everyone willing to argue 9/11 has had more than enough of them during the Xtra era. Treat it as a general idiosyncrasy and write out your evidence with links to webpages, please.

I sort of understand where you are coming from with this, there are so many stupid videos on the internet that are like "OMG LOOK AT THIS LITTLE TRIANGLE IN THIS ONE FRAME OVER HERE, THIS IS THE SIGN OF THE ILLUMINATI AND 9+11x2001+Bush's moms age etc.= 666 OMG OMG" or videos that just keep showing the same scene over and over a million times. But please, don't disregard the ability of visual media as a whole for presenting evidence, that is just irrational and irresponsible. I have a link to a video here, It is a presentation by Architect Richard Gage of the Architects and Engineers for 911 truth. He is speaking at the University of Manitoba. So here we are a reputable person at a University, it is not some 16 year old who thinks he sees the devils face in the smoke from the crash. Please look at this, to ignore this would be like a judge or juror ignoring a whole prosecution or defenses side of an argument in a trial. A friend has just sent this to me, I'm only 30 mins into it and many issues I have talked about have already been addressed. And since I haven't done as much research as Mr. Gage and I'm only posting to a forum and he's making a legit presentation to people, he has sources, names, evidence from reports and the like. Like I said I'm only 30 mins into it and he's already touched on issues I've brought up such as:

-the maximum resistance issue(has 1 sec frame intervals and a graph which clearly show the building is accelerating as it falls which means it is meeting no resistance, in order for there to be no resistance the steel columns must be cut)

-molten metal which is documented found by the clean up crews

-the TRUTH that no steel skyscraper has ever fallen due to fire(he names a bunch of skyscrapers that had more floors on fire and a lot longer burning time and no collapse, all are back in use now with only minor renovation, no structural renovation)

-the investigations were either weak or unyielding( the first investigation by FEMA only $600,000 was budgeted for it where as $40 million was budgeted for the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. The second investigation was 20 mil over 3 years by NIST. They went along with the THEORY of fire causing it to collapse, but admitting that if that happened it is a very low probability. Since all they have is a theory, the investigation is still open and they don't have a lot to work with since all the scrap was sold and destroyed as I said in an earlier post

this is just after 30 mins. I will watch the rest. I hope you will too. I'm not asking you to believe everything, but I'm trying to show you another side than your own. If you only look at one side of an argument, you aren't really making an informed decision. I'm offering an official presentation, not some guy in his basement with random theories. Since some of you have asked for evidence and sources, and since Mr. Gage is saying all the same things I did in earlier posts, and most importantly he did all the work of getting sources and evidence haha, I'll just refer you to his presentation. Now the ball is in your court, here is a logical argument, you can choose to just blow it off and not even watch it and not give a fair chance, or you can do your job as an American and look at all the arguments and discern for yourself what is true and what isn't. If you watch it and can refute the evidence, then good! you are even more emboldened and now have an even stronger argument.

here is the link http://911blogger.com/node/10025


P.S. yeah I did say the last one was probably the last post but I just came upon this vid and it backs up a lot of my claims so I wanted to put it up so people can judge for themselves, because I don't expect people to just believe what I say with nothing behind it.

[SolidLuigi]

Still watching the movie. Mr. Gage also presents reasons WHY(probable cause) someone or certain parties would have reason to bring down towers in this fashon. gotta check it out, he's treating it like a court case. it's so thorough.

Another good point he brings up. For the investigating parties to come up with the theory of fire and nothing else, they have to first base this fire theory of which has never brought down a steel skyscraper before on minimal evidence. Then they have to deny and ignore all the overwhelming evidence that points to controlled demolition that was present. This guy lays out all the evidence he refers to.

[SolidLuigi]

about the thermite/thermate, The BYU physicist I mentioned earlier found evidence of its use. The EPA and the New York City chief examiner also found the same. They all corroborate. The NIST investigation which the 9/11 commission is based on doesn't find it.

[Neutrino]

About the falling tower, I guess we just have to agree to disagree. What I was getting at with the maximum resistance issue, is that unless all 4 corners of the building buckled at the same time in the initial fall, the section would lean towards the side or corner that buckled first, thats basic physics. When that section leans to the side and starts to fall it can either go straight down where the rest of the tower is resisting it, or it can continue to go towards the side were nothing is giving resistance except for the air, just as if you cut a wedge out of one side of a tree, it would lean towards the missing wedge, less resistance. Now it wouldn't topple to the side and off the main section after 1 floor because the size of the height of a floor to the height of the initial section above the impact point is too small, but I would figure all that weight coming down on say the right side of the tower would cause that section on the next floor down to buckle before the left section of the floor, this would repeat until it was enough to make the top section topple. This is just my view with my knowledge of basic physics. Now it is possible that it did all buckle evenly at once and fall straight, but to me, since the plane didnt cut clear across the floor perfectly and (I am assuming here) the fires inside were in different intensities in different areas of the floor, the probability that all sides buckled at the same exact time is a lot less than one section buckling before another. In my view it's hard to believe that 3 skyscrapers, 2 that were attacked by such erratic instruments as planes(when I say erratic, I mean, they weren't designed to be missles, so you know it will do damage, but you don't know exactly what damage exactly it will cause), all fell perfectly straight, into their footprint with minimal(minimal to what could have happened if it toppled) damage to nearby buildings, and when they fell they were reduced to complete and utter rubble. It is a highly unlikely scenario for a building to fall like that on its own. Look at images of war-torn areas, like parts of Europe after WWII, most buildings that had been subjected to shelling and uncontrolled fires, still had burnt out sections still standing. Also look at the Oklahoma City Bombing, A huge section of that building was totally demolished and the rest of the building stood firm. Once again is this definitive proof? No, but to me it makes the towers falling in the way they did, less believable.

Even if the initial fall was uneven (which, admittedly, seems pretty likely) I find it hard to believe that subsequent floors would have exacerbated the effect, since each floor would have existed for such a short time after contact with the falling section. Since the lifetime of each floor would have been in the order of small fractions of a second each, none of them would exist for long enough to direct an appreciable amount of the momentum of the falling building sideways. Obviously there would have been a difference of several metres between the point closest to the ground and the one furthest away from it on the base of the falling section, but from the ground such a tilt would have been effectively invisible.
Another possibility (albeit a rather overspecific and therefore unlikely one) is that the side/vertex which gave way last buckled at a lower point than the one that detatched first. It is possible (though unlikely) that the extra depth of that side/corner lead to both the first and last detaching sides/verticies colliding with the next floor at roughly the same time. Ablation would have occured at approximatly the same rate for both sides, so they would remain effectively equal all the way down.
Actually, after the first few floors (which would have been weakened by the fire and therefore not have enough strength to deflect the falling section despite its small momentum) there would be so much debris preceding the solid section down that it would make no difference whether the solid section was inclined or not. The building section would never impact with a floor, but rather with the debris proceeding it, which would conform to its shape and render any tilt superflous.
Or, since one side proceeded the rest down, that side would have suffered excessive ablation, because it was taking most of the force of the impacts. Within a mere few floors it is quite possible for the edge to have ablated away, leaving the entire bottom face to impact with each consecutive floor at roughly the same time.
So many options...

As for the Oklahoma City Bombing: the building targeted there was rather short and squat. It is obviously longer than it is tall. This assists enormously when determining structural integrity; you only have so much foundation and there is far more pressure on each point in the foundation in a taller building. The Towers didn't have this advantage. Take a similar ratio'd chunk out of any building significantly taller than it is wide or long and watch the fireworks.

According to what you believe, no controlled demolition ever occurred and still the buildings fell straight and uniformly with only the damage inflicted by the plane and fires, correct? Then, by that thinking, a "full" controlled demolition wouldn't be needed to bring down the towers. Machinery and work wouldn't be needed on every single floor as you say, because by your thinking, all these floors collapsed with no structural interference anyways. Therefore, only minimal additional explosions, which a lot smaller team could do in a lot less time, could be added to push it along enough to make sure it collapses. Since in your belief the damage of the plane was enough to collapse it, then you would agree that in another belief, the damage of the plane + any amount of damage elsewhere, large or small would be enough to also bring down the towers. I'm not trying to disprove you in a sneaky, sly way. I'm just showing how, to every argument, there is a counter-argument thats just as viable. That's why debates go on forever and the 2 sides never accept the other, haha. But yet I still love to debate, about anything too haha.

Touche


Actually, Wikipedia says Thermate (the explosive you said was used) is a variation on Thermite. The Thermate page doesn't have much information, but the Thermite page includes the fact that it is ignited by high temperatures. Presumably Thermate is similar.
When the plane crashed into the towers, the initial fires wouold have detonated any Thermate present nearby. Once the incendary devices had been detonated, the building should have collapsed immediately. Instead, it remained standing for hours. It's possible it took this long for the flames to reach the Thermate, but this would have required phenominal accuracy on the pilots part.
Not a showstopper by any order, but certainly something to think about.

[SolidLuigi]

yeah, Mr. Gage tells the difference between thermite and thermate. He also has whistleblowers from the NIST and FDNY coming in his presentation, but major media buries those stories.

[jay_a2j]

SolidLuigi you have put the evidence before them as best I've seen. Still, they don't want to believe, still they grasp at straws. Looking at the evidence now, makes me ashamed I ever doubted it. I just didn't want to believe my own government would do such a thing.



Maybe next time, they will have an open mind.

[suggs]

9/11 was a disaster for Bush. Nuff said.