Slashdot Mirror

Then lets play the same game and see if we can get this trending

http://www.debunking911.com/

Heh. The thing that always kills me about that allegation is that he says they decided to pull it.

Implying that they could have decided not to. Further implying they had a contingency plan to leave it standing.

Try this link instead to see exactly how damaged Building 7 was before it fell.

Here's everything you could want to know about WTC7:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Don't bother to actually read it, though. You'll just dismiss it anyway.

You're a nutter, and here's why. Keep in mind, I believed the same thing for a bit, let me show you a different way of thinking about it that makes far more sense.

First, the NIST and Popular Mechanics together have done a lot of coverage and explanation, there are links in the article and at the bottom for more reading. Take this information, buy the nearest structural engineer an expensive dinner, and let him/her explain, without interruption, why it is a valid conclusion.

The short version: jet fuel burns really hot, explosives powerful enough to bring the buildings down would have been heard, the fires alone were enough to cause progressive structural problems even without physical damage. Many myths are debunked here. In particular, This page explains the free-fall speed simply, to my satisfaction.

Now, that leaves use with the PNAC, identity theft, and Visa. I don't know about the Visa program, and nothing you've said makes me want to filter through any more nonsense. If you are a hijacker, it makes sense to go under an assumed identity if you've also been caught or monitored or basically would raise any red flags. The fact that you called it identity theft instead of claiming they were names picked from a hat to represent people who weren't actually on a plane is a little progress. Someone boarded the planes under those names. This is not evidence of anything.

PNAC is the most troubling, and by far the only factor in your post to be concerned about. The turf war between intelligence agencies allowed lots of things to happen which would not have been caught, and correcting that should have been the most action to come out of 9/11. At worst, you could claim this was intentional, and the attack was allowed to continue beyond the point that it was discovered, in order to support PNAC's goals. I am 100% certain that someone, somewhere, watched this unfold, and thought, there's our new Pearl Harbor. Whether they failed to act intentionally or not is entirely conjecture, and cannot be proven reliably either way.

So here's what you do. Suggest first that the reaction was assymetric, everyone will agree. Suggest second that this was a help to the goals of PNAC, and we have documents to support that. Third, suggest that it is not impossible that someone just didn't try hard enough to stop this, whether it was intnetional or incompetence. They don't have to buy the intentional PNAC part, just that someone didn't do everything they could (which is obvious from the infoturf wars).

At that point, you don't need a conspiracy theory to support the claim that the sum total of everything that happened was *in part* a logical extension of PNAC's goals of subjugating the citizens. Everything else is irrelevant. You can deal with the rest, how much was known and allowed vs. how much was just noise in a vast intelligence wasteland, however you want.

The power grab is complete, and didn't need a conspiracy to help. One rich pissed off Saudi who was trained, armed, and abandoned, gave them everything they needed *and more*.

Hasnt it been shown (ie, here, and other places) that it would take ridiculous quantities of thermite to bring down the WTC towers, on the order of tens of thousands of pounds?

yeah, a few planeloads of kerosene turned out to be a much more destructive!

Hasnt it been shown (ie, here, and other places) that it would take ridiculous quantities of thermite to bring down the WTC towers, on the order of tens of thousands of pounds? And that using thermite would be retarded anyways?

Dont let that stop you, though, Id be interested in how truthers get around that little obstacle-- its bound to be amusing.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

WTC 7 was NOT a hardened building. It was constructed in the early 80s as a run of the mill office building. The only thing unique about it was the unusual arrangement of the load-bearing members. This was needed because the thing was constructed on top of a massive utility vault. The Emergency Command Center was shoehorned into the building and not everyone thought the location made any sense for obvious reasons. (It was located there AFTER the '93 bombing)

As for the collapse, it looks "controlled" because buildings don't usually fall down for any reason other than controlled demolition. That's the only point of reference most people have. That aside, physics ensure that buildings tend to fall straight down, or twist a little and then fall straight down.

But if you want more in-depth detail about how stresses were distributed and how the building was comprimised, then check out this link or or this one.

How's that ignorance?

It's ignorance since you obviously have no clue how things happened in reality.

Did I say who did it? Did I get onto conspiracy mode?

Yes you did. Since the official record differs from your assumption, it would mean that you think that there is a conspiracy at work.

Look kid. Welcome to the real world. Taped, archived and accesable interviews with eyewitnesses (fireman, and alike) from cable tv networks all around the world said that they heared explosions from underground when they where inside the building.

Well grandpa, many of those interviews were taken out of context or they were made by people who had no idea what's going on. Just because some panickinggue tells that "OMG, I heard explosions!" does not mean that there were actual explosions.

phosphor

Is this the "there were traces of thermite!"-argument? That's debunked here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html

and here:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Evidence number 2. NASA posted infra red satalite images from days after the collapse showing alarming heat still comming from the WTC site.

And what does that prove? That there were fires among the rubble? Surely not!

Evidence number 3. Pictures of the days after showing 21 meter long steel bars from the core structure cut in a pricise way show evidence from a demolition.

Debunked here:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

The cuts were done by the rescue-workers AFTER the collapse...

Evidence piece number 4. Then we've got confirmed, on public-, cable television by the head of the WTC 7 tower that tower 7 was collapsed by a demolition.

Debunked here:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Evidence piece number 5. Want me to go on?

Please do, I love laughing at your retarded arguments.

Notice that this is not theory, but actual court grade evidence?

None of the things you listed would pass as "evidence".

All I know is that this is not speculation and it's comming from highly credible sources and not John Doe dragon fighter xXx p0rn l33t 0wN3r's, AOL homepage. Kindergarten is someplace else.

"Highly credible sources" indeed.

How's that ignorance?

It's ignorance since you obviously have no clue how things happened in reality.

Did I say who did it? Did I get onto conspiracy mode?

Yes you did. Since the official record differs from your assumption, it would mean that you think that there is a conspiracy at work.

Look kid. Welcome to the real world. Taped, archived and accesable interviews with eyewitnesses (fireman, and alike) from cable tv networks all around the world said that they heared explosions from underground when they where inside the building.

Well grandpa, many of those interviews were taken out of context or they were made by people who had no idea what's going on. Just because some panickinggue tells that "OMG, I heard explosions!" does not mean that there were actual explosions.

phosphor

Is this the "there were traces of thermite!"-argument? That's debunked here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html

and here:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Evidence number 2. NASA posted infra red satalite images from days after the collapse showing alarming heat still comming from the WTC site.

And what does that prove? That there were fires among the rubble? Surely not!

Evidence number 3. Pictures of the days after showing 21 meter long steel bars from the core structure cut in a pricise way show evidence from a demolition.

Debunked here:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

The cuts were done by the rescue-workers AFTER the collapse...

Evidence piece number 4. Then we've got confirmed, on public-, cable television by the head of the WTC 7 tower that tower 7 was collapsed by a demolition.

Debunked here:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Evidence piece number 5. Want me to go on?

Please do, I love laughing at your retarded arguments.

Notice that this is not theory, but actual court grade evidence?

None of the things you listed would pass as "evidence".

All I know is that this is not speculation and it's comming from highly credible sources and not John Doe dragon fighter xXx p0rn l33t 0wN3r's, AOL homepage. Kindergarten is someplace else.

"Highly credible sources" indeed.

How's that ignorance?

It's ignorance since you obviously have no clue how things happened in reality.

Did I say who did it? Did I get onto conspiracy mode?

Yes you did. Since the official record differs from your assumption, it would mean that you think that there is a conspiracy at work.

Look kid. Welcome to the real world. Taped, archived and accesable interviews with eyewitnesses (fireman, and alike) from cable tv networks all around the world said that they heared explosions from underground when they where inside the building.

Well grandpa, many of those interviews were taken out of context or they were made by people who had no idea what's going on. Just because some panickinggue tells that "OMG, I heard explosions!" does not mean that there were actual explosions.

phosphor

Is this the "there were traces of thermite!"-argument? That's debunked here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html

and here:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Evidence number 2. NASA posted infra red satalite images from days after the collapse showing alarming heat still comming from the WTC site.

And what does that prove? That there were fires among the rubble? Surely not!

Evidence number 3. Pictures of the days after showing 21 meter long steel bars from the core structure cut in a pricise way show evidence from a demolition.

Debunked here:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

The cuts were done by the rescue-workers AFTER the collapse...

Evidence piece number 4. Then we've got confirmed, on public-, cable television by the head of the WTC 7 tower that tower 7 was collapsed by a demolition.

Debunked here:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Evidence piece number 5. Want me to go on?

Please do, I love laughing at your retarded arguments.

Notice that this is not theory, but actual court grade evidence?

None of the things you listed would pass as "evidence".

All I know is that this is not speculation and it's comming from highly credible sources and not John Doe dragon fighter xXx p0rn l33t 0wN3r's, AOL homepage. Kindergarten is someplace else.

"Highly credible sources" indeed.

I believe that the WTC towers were collapsed by detonation, for example

Ah, ignorance at it's finest...

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

No, that is a pic from before the wreckage was being cleared. In the zoomed out version you can see a fireman on hand, and NO cutting had been done.

Wrong. There were fireman on the scene for weeks after 9/11: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Besides, the column shows all the evidence of having been cut by hand - it is not sheared (there is slag on it), and thermite/explosives could not make a neat cut like this.

Do you have any other evidence that this pic is from before the wreckage was being cleared..?

Then the question is, if there was molten steel, how did it the steel get so hot? We know from physics that it can't be jet fuel or offices. So the question is, what produced the heat. Certain chemical reactions, such as thermite and thermate produce heat in excess of 2500 degrees Fahrenheit -- more than enough to melt steel. So, one explanation for how the towers and WTC7 were brought down is Thermite cutter charges.

Indeed, thermite could have done the trick. Except that there was no evidence of thermite/thermate found at the site - only sulfur (which has lots of more likely possible sources).

This page explains why an absurd amount of thermite would have been needed to do the job.

And this page gives a simpler possible explanation for the molten steel.

It also answers the idiot who thinks that just because the structure below the falling floors was intact, that it would have stopped the collapse. Hint: objects falling onto other objects is work (in the physics sense) and generates heat.

Then the question is, if there was molten steel, how did it the steel get so hot? We know from physics that it can't be jet fuel or offices. So the question is, what produced the heat. Certain chemical reactions, such as thermite and thermate produce heat in excess of 2500 degrees Fahrenheit -- more than enough to melt steel. So, one explanation for how the towers and WTC7 were brought down is Thermite cutter charges.

Indeed, thermite could have done the trick. Except that there was no evidence of thermite/thermate found at the site - only sulfur (which has lots of more likely possible sources).

This page explains why an absurd amount of thermite would have been needed to do the job.

And this page gives a simpler possible explanation for the molten steel.

It also answers the idiot who thinks that just because the structure below the falling floors was intact, that it would have stopped the collapse. Hint: objects falling onto other objects is work (in the physics sense) and generates heat.

I'm wondering, if that's the case, how fire can cause 'cuts' in the beams like in this picture.

Fire doesn't make cuts like that. Thermite doesn't make cuts like that. Ironworkers are what make cuts like that.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Governments lie, but this. . ?

From the get go, the controlled demolition idea struck me as 'off' somehow. If the goal was to persuade the country into war, then a single airplane crashing into a single building would have been plenty of motivation. Heck, the sinking of one passenger ship, (the Lusitania) was enough to inspire the national outrage required to get the U.S. into WWI. A couple of gun boat attacks on American destroyers in the "Gulph of Tonkin incident", (half of which turned out to be a mistaken report which nobody denies) was enough to get the U.S. to jump into Vietnam. Coupled with the right level of media encouragement, a medium-sized disaster is all that is required. Four crashing airliners on 9-11 was more than spectacular enough to launch a war.

So why go on to massively complicate things by planning a demolition of the three towers? The only two answers I've seen which suggest motive were the Silverstein profit gamble and the fact that WC7 housed a bunch of incriminating paperwork. But motive does not prove anything by itself; it has to be supported by evidence. --I've seen the Loose Change video and others, I've read all the arguments, and many of them raise clear and logical concerns. And I have gone over all the other evidence from the debunking side. They pretty much cancel one another out on the Twin Towers issue. --This is not to say that the debunkers are entirely rational. (The Popular Mechanics version of reality was perhaps one of the most arrogant, simple-minded and unconvincing.) Rather, it is the work of private individuals who put together the more rational arguments on the "natural collapse due to fire" side. (A good example of this is here.) --Though, even they offer up some pretty thinly-stretched and in my view, totally unnecessary ideas in their attempts to explain certain details. Indeed, everybody, on both sides, sport some pretty poor arguments. --But that's not a problem! All ideas, all questions and the attempts to answer them, the dialogue is entirely valid as people explore what happened on that day. All in all, it has been a spirited and very thoughtful debate with a lot of smart people contributing on both sides.

My personal conclusions?

1. Secretive portions of more than one government not only had foreknowledge, but actively strained against the well-intentioned systems in order to allow the attacks to take place, and indeed worked at certain levels to set various elements of it in place.

2. There is plenty of photographic/video evidence of the steel structure deforming and falling down as a result of fire. The big argument against this is that jet fuel cannot create enough heat. However, there were plenty of other combustibles in the fire, not the least of which being the several dozen oxygen generator canisters the planes were equipped with. I've worked with an iron forge, and simple bio-carbons, like coal in a forge, or in the case of the buildings, furniture and paper and plastics, etc., when subject to a steady airflow like a bellows or high-altitude winds, is sufficient to create high enough temperatures to take steel past the point of structural integrity and even melt it. The "Never Before Has This Happened to a Steel Building" arguments are faulty on a number of levels, not the least of which being that it's not even properly accurate. There are however, as far as I have seen, a couple of unanswered questions remaining; the claims of mysterious construction being done and the removal of bomb-sniffing dogs and the shut-off of security systems in the week leading up to the event is curious to say the least. I wonder if perhaps there might not have been more than one effort involved in the events of 9-11 rather than that of a single unified group.

3. WC7 is different question and it is less clear cut, but my impression after going over the many, once again valid questions raised by those suggesting that the building was

There is only one way in which buildings fall into small pieces and powder: They were deliberately demolished.

You mean "small pieces" like these?
http://www.debunking911.com/cstripped.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/columnd.jpg

Apparently you're unaware that deliberately demolished buildings are largely destroyed by their own weight, after their structural integrity is broken with explosives?

There is only one way in which buildings fall into small pieces and powder: They were deliberately demolished.

You mean "small pieces" like these?
http://www.debunking911.com/cstripped.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/columnd.jpg

Apparently you're unaware that deliberately demolished buildings are largely destroyed by their own weight, after their structural integrity is broken with explosives?

First hit on google for "9/11 freefall" explains it all: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

If you only listen to one side of the story, you will always be convinced. Here is what the other side has to say: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing [...]

I'm pretty sure you're talking about the Windsor building in Madrid.

I've got news for you, buddy: It actually works against you.

First, the Windsor building had a concrete core and two concrete technical floors. A very different design from that of the Twin Towers.

Second, the steel portions of the building exposed to the fire did in fact get all melty and collapsey. The only reason the building is still standing is because of the features I mentioned above.

http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html
http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

pen & teller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

Debunking the 9/11 Myths
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

http://www.debunk911myths.org/

http://www.debunking911.com/

That should to keep the paranoids and nutters silent for a least a min or two.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkl7up.dHWO8ADoFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzNmRvbGhpBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMTEEY29sbwNzazEEdnRpZANGODIzXzg3/SIG=11gi164v7/EXP=1206450542/**http%3A//www.debunking911.com/

There are several points to be made here. . .

I've been impressed for some time now with the work done by the guys at http://www.debunking911.com/index.html and http://www.911myths.com/. There's a lot of rational thinking going on there. Since the day of 911, I couldn't understand the assertion that the towers had been destroyed through controlled demolition. It didn't make sense; a series of jet liners being hijacked in an orchestrated manner, and the crashing of them into the twin towers would have been entirely adequate to start a war. If the buildings had not come down, the deaths of the people and the hampered rescue efforts and the fires would have been a huge tragedy which people would still be talking about today. The buildings collapsing was icing on the cake, if you'll pardon the glibness of the term.

I remember early on, within the first couple of months, a proliferation of conspiracy ideas all landing at the same time. There was one link forwarded to me, which showed a missile striking one of the towers. It was very convincing, upon checking it thoroughly and looking at other samples of the same footage, it turned out to be a very poorly compressed video. The background, which moved very little in the frame looked fine, but the moving object, (the plane), devolved through the encryption process and really did look like a torpedo or cruise missile. I pointed this out loudly, and then never saw that clip ever again. It struck me as odd at the time that such an article would make its way on to the web. Surely the guy who compressed the video and posted it as, "Look! A Missile!" knew that he was creating something very misleading. Perhaps it was a series of mistakes; a poor compression found by somebody else who posted it. But it did seem weird that it and a dozen or so other theories and bits of misleading evidence showed up all at once, several of which continue to hold sway to this day. The process through which disinformation is known to be deliberately distributed to confuse and divide the public seems to me to be a large part of what may be going on here. Covert perception management has been a large part of conducting war in the U.S., and there is plenty of documentation to support this.

I really didn't think much more about the controlled demolition claims until much later when some very well produced items, like "Loose Change" came along and raised doubts again, but for the most part, after looking through all of this stuff, I really don't think that the buildings were deliberately demolished. --I think there is some strong argument of foreknowledge of those attacks, and I noticed that de-bunk sites linked fail to address the more damning of those claims.

And the Pentagon is another matter. I have yet to see anything which convinces me that a passenger jet struck that building. There are a multitude of questions which the de-bunking sites, again, either ignore or answer with very stretched and unconvincing arguments. --The best piece of evidence in my mind in favor of a large jet is the combustion chamber debris, but the first thought which struck me was, "Why not just load some 757 engine parts into the attack vehicle?" I'm surprised that nobody has ever considered this. It seems to me that it would have been a rather obvious ploy. The nature of the wreckage and the missing parts and the withholding of camera images, among numerous other points, are also very awkwardly addressed, if addressed at all by the debunkers. I tend to think that it was not a missile, but perhaps a different type of aircraft which could have been remotely controlled to ensure a 'safe' show-piece disaster at the Pentagon.

In any case, the larger issue is not really in much question. --As one of the sites you linked to put it, "The evidence for a conspiracy to use 9/11 to invade Iraq is significant. While there is not one

There are several points to be made here. . .

I've been impressed for some time now with the work done by the guys at http://www.debunking911.com/index.html and http://www.911myths.com/. There's a lot of rational thinking going on there. Since the day of 911, I couldn't understand the assertion that the towers had been destroyed through controlled demolition. It didn't make sense; a series of jet liners being hijacked in an orchestrated manner, and the crashing of them into the twin towers would have been entirely adequate to start a war. If the buildings had not come down, the deaths of the people and the hampered rescue efforts and the fires would have been a huge tragedy which people would still be talking about today. The buildings collapsing was icing on the cake, if you'll pardon the glibness of the term.

I remember early on, within the first couple of months, a proliferation of conspiracy ideas all landing at the same time. There was one link forwarded to me, which showed a missile striking one of the towers. It was very convincing, upon checking it thoroughly and looking at other samples of the same footage, it turned out to be a very poorly compressed video. The background, which moved very little in the frame looked fine, but the moving object, (the plane), devolved through the encryption process and really did look like a torpedo or cruise missile. I pointed this out loudly, and then never saw that clip ever again. It struck me as odd at the time that such an article would make its way on to the web. Surely the guy who compressed the video and posted it as, "Look! A Missile!" knew that he was creating something very misleading. Perhaps it was a series of mistakes; a poor compression found by somebody else who posted it. But it did seem weird that it and a dozen or so other theories and bits of misleading evidence showed up all at once, several of which continue to hold sway to this day. The process through which disinformation is known to be deliberately distributed to confuse and divide the public seems to me to be a large part of what may be going on here. Covert perception management has been a large part of conducting war in the U.S., and there is plenty of documentation to support this.

I really didn't think much more about the controlled demolition claims until much later when some very well produced items, like "Loose Change" came along and raised doubts again, but for the most part, after looking through all of this stuff, I really don't think that the buildings were deliberately demolished. --I think there is some strong argument of foreknowledge of those attacks, and I noticed that de-bunk sites linked fail to address the more damning of those claims.

And the Pentagon is another matter. I have yet to see anything which convinces me that a passenger jet struck that building. There are a multitude of questions which the de-bunking sites, again, either ignore or answer with very stretched and unconvincing arguments. --The best piece of evidence in my mind in favor of a large jet is the combustion chamber debris, but the first thought which struck me was, "Why not just load some 757 engine parts into the attack vehicle?" I'm surprised that nobody has ever considered this. It seems to me that it would have been a rather obvious ploy. The nature of the wreckage and the missing parts and the withholding of camera images, among numerous other points, are also very awkwardly addressed, if addressed at all by the debunkers. I tend to think that it was not a missile, but perhaps a different type of aircraft which could have been remotely controlled to ensure a 'safe' show-piece disaster at the Pentagon.

In any case, the larger issue is not really in much question. --As one of the sites you linked to put it, "The evidence for a conspiracy to use 9/11 to invade Iraq is significant. While there is not one

Now Slashdot has been invaded! Is there nowhere I can go to escape these conspiracist nutbags? I will make a feeble attempt to counteract this inane review of an inane book, with a list of various debunking links:

September 11th
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
http://www.911myths.com/
http://wtc.nist.gov/

Income Tax and the Federal Reserve
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html

Other
http://www.debunker.com/conspiracy.html
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000140.html

General
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.h tm
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/
http://www.no911conspiracy.com/mythsvsfacts.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar y_law/1227842.html?page=1
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

It doesn't have to melt it, it only needs to weaken it to further contribute to structural failure.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

"7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren't hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was "certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours" is simply not true." http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.ht m

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

"The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building--paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained" http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

Stuff your paranoid delusions.

http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/12 27842.html?page=1&c=y
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

That is exactly when I stopped reading. You beat me to the post. Those theories have been debunked thoroughly.

the BBC broadcast that World Trade Center 7 had collapsed while it was visible over the commentator's shoulder

And why, oh why, did the building not topple to the south when it finally did collapse, as it must have if a quarter of its support on that side had long since vanished?

Sigh. It did.

There are also thousands of pictures and videos from the WTC site that are classified. If planes really brought down the towers, why would such classification be necessary? Also, just like in Oklahoma City, all the evidence from the WTC site was destroyed as quickly as possible. They could've saved the steel for analysis, and we'd know whether or not thermite (or some other explosive) was used to cut the core columns.

You might want to take another view on the 9/11 theories. The arguments you put forward are specious at best, mind you they are not uncommon arguments, but that does not make them correct.

A good primer can be found here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220 921158523

Keep in mind that Penn and Teller use Ad Hominim attacks for 2 reasons. First, its funny, and the show has to be entertaining to some degree. Second, they can be sued for using words like: "Hoax" "Fraud" etc, but they cannot be sued for: "Bullshit" "Asshole" and "Motherfucker". So, keep that in mind.

Also, if you have had the misfortune to watch the movie "Loose Change" first or second edition, you might want to check out this link:

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

It is "Loose Change 2nd ed." With added commentary pointing out the errors made in the movie. Keep in mind Popular Mechanics and a host of other publications have already soundly debunked these theories, and for more on loose change, a blow by blow HTML debunking can be found here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/i ntroduction.html

Remember, if you ever wonder about an issue, check out both sides and then decide for yourself. If you would like my suggestion into a few good books on how to do that (if you care) they are:

The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark - Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan
Why People Believe Wierd Things - Michael Schermer
Voodoo Science - Robert L. Park

A collection of excellent debunking links follows:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/12 27842.html
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.911myths.com/

what I see when I read the "refutation" of Dr. Jones' paper is someone who can't see outside their own "reality box".

That would be your filters at work then. All I see is an expert in their field refuting the claims of someone who isn't an expert in the same field (http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm).

I do not support the invasion of Iraq so I can see no point in responding to your comments except to say that I agree that they probably had no involvement in 9/11.

I'm pretty sure that you are not an explosives expert or you would have mentioned the fact, in which case I'm also confident that you would have no idea if and how thermite could have been useful, though this may help http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

This exchange has been fun & useful for me, but I think we've reached the conclusion of our little conversation. I'll check for a reply, but I'm disinclined to follow up, as the story is now 3 days old, and I do have other things to do, as you do, I assume. :)

Well here's somewhere that we agree! Though I would say that the story is close to 5 years old :-) Thank you for an interesting debate!

what I see when I read the "refutation" of Dr. Jones' paper is someone who can't see outside their own "reality box".

That would be your filters at work then. All I see is an expert in their field refuting the claims of someone who isn't an expert in the same field (http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm).

I do not support the invasion of Iraq so I can see no point in responding to your comments except to say that I agree that they probably had no involvement in 9/11.

I'm pretty sure that you are not an explosives expert or you would have mentioned the fact, in which case I'm also confident that you would have no idea if and how thermite could have been useful, though this may help http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

This exchange has been fun & useful for me, but I think we've reached the conclusion of our little conversation. I'll check for a reply, but I'm disinclined to follow up, as the story is now 3 days old, and I do have other things to do, as you do, I assume. :)

Well here's somewhere that we agree! Though I would say that the story is close to 5 years old :-) Thank you for an interesting debate!