Slashdot Mirror

black boxes are almost always recovered

Except when planes crash?

Seems the 9/11 planes' were lost too. http://911research.wtc7.net/pl...

Service provider, type of plane, and how high? I doubt you'll be able to do it. There's also some debate about how the "flight 93" survivors made their calls. Something that the 9/11 truth guys bring up. If you're flying a typical flight at cruising altitude you will be too high to make the calls. You were probably low enough to make the calls. Here's an interesting read on the whole flight 93 call thing: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html

No, I don't remember that notion, because I don't spare brain cycles on loony crackpot bullshit that was debunked literally decades ago.

As usual, you are attacking a straw man. Nobody claimed the trilateral commission runs the world. They do wield disproportionate power over American public policy.

Nor do I have an explanation for the "immediate removal of the debris from the site" because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Yes, yes it did. Yes, I also know I linked right to a conspiracy site. So what? If I want information on conspiracies, that's where I look. If I want information on what the government wants me to believe, I'll look to the mainstream media.

"I did not. I read it and found it did not say what you implied it did, but then I've got the advantage over you of a career in Engineering and Materials Science and a first exposure to thermite in 1985."

"Did not say what I implied it did"??? Are you sure you are referring to the same paper that I was? It not only DOES say what I implied it did, I challenge you to give me specifics about how you are pretending to refute it.

Now, it is possible that I did confuse you with someone else, but there was someone who argued with me about the veracity of the evidence based merely on the fact that Alex Jones had (later in the process) become involved in publicizing the evidence. That was nothing more than ad hominem and I give it no respect. I am not a fan of Alex Jones, nevertheless, shooting the messenger is not a valid scientific argument.

There is other evidence that thermitic materials were found in the debris: FEMA's own ("Building Performance Study" (see Appendix C) suggests as much, including micrographic evidence.

And it must be noted that "nano-thermite", even according to Wikipedia, has properties that are very different from conventional thermite. That was part of the point I was making.

The BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 (the third tower to collapse on 9/11 even though it was not hit by an airplane) approximately 23 minutes before it happened. With the building still standing behind her in plain view, Jane Standley reported "live" that the collapse had already happened. It's actually quite funny how the BBC quickly tried to cover it up, "lost" the tapes, and denied everything. The video is freely available online so they were finally forced to apologize, citing the "confusion of the day".

http://www.wtc7.net/bbc.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky90eEIzStw

Same with blowing up WTC 7. Why on earth would the government participate in that?

WTC7 contained mostly federal government offices, including the SEC, and all of their files on the stock market crash / insider trading investigations which the new Republican administration was probably not eager to pursue. Lucky for them WTC7 collapsed mysteriously and the evidence was all destroyed.

Oh, and speaking of insider trading.

-All video content confiscated except four frames from the many surrounding the pentagon?
---Actually, more has been released. There's really not much to see. You have some low fps cameras trying to catch a fast-moving object. The Pentagon missile theory breaks down under its own weight. I mean, if the evil conspiracy had already lobbed two planes at the WTC, why would they bother doing so much to make it look like a plane at the Pentagon instead of just lobbing another plane at the Pentagon? // Oh, you mean ALL of four frames released in 2006? What about the other dozen or more cameras that could certainly show an approach or something? We have been shown nothing of significance, so why hide the rest? No idea why they do what they do in regard to plane/missle/fighters ... but I do know there is not good reason to deny access to the hundreds of frames confiscated by the FBI.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-16-pentagon-video_x.htm

-All evidenciary building materials confiscated and destroyed at the crime scene around the trade center plaza?
---There was plenty of debris that was later taken back and tested. NYC was in a bit of a hurry to get that massive pile of rubble cleared out. // As if they expected to rebuild immediately so we could forget our loss? That hole sat ages before they really cleaned it up. Additionally they decided to make a new battleship to help us forget. The whole remove it to forget it argument does not hold up.

-First steel framed high rise buildings in history to collapse due to fire (and a near free fall collapse I may add)
---First steel-framed high-rise building (with a rather unique design) to have massive jumbo jets filled with fuel slammed into them, too. // So, you have looked at the floor plans and still think it was a "hollow box" design? First of all the building was designed to take a hit from an even heavier plane, with four engines not just two. The fuel burned off and is not capable of enough heat to generate the molten steel found in the wreckage, and remaining fires were oxygen starved mostly (See smoke for this). You can't really believe that a building with a core of steel girders running vertically could just collapse straight down into itself, do you? Almost 50 columns of steel 52"x22" and the upper ones still 36"x12".
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/docs/jfk_column_s.jpg

-WTC Tower #7 reported as collapsed 20 minutes prior to actual collapse.
----DERP because the media was in on it DERP! The BBC knew, right? No. Misinformation as the fire chief had pulled everyone out of WTC7 and said there was a collapse zone around it. This is one of the more idiotic conspiracy bits because it makes no sense to tout it. It was miscommunication and nothing more. Claiming that BBC an/or the NYC fire department was somehow in on it is absurd, but that doesn't stop conspiracy nuts from flinging every piece of dookie they can find at the wall, now does it? // "BBC in on it?" No, but they were given information to report from someone. They had a source for that and just like the whole farce with NORAD and FAA, you can't just say, "Oh, we're sorry ... that is just a misunderstanding." Too many coincidental misunderstandings in one day I would say.

-NORAD rendered useless due to coincidentally occurring training exercises.
----And training exercises happen all the time. // Yes, and the most well equipt and best trained air force on the planet is bourght to it's knees (Once again coincidentally) because on this specific day nearly EVERYONE is playing wargames and not on duty? You are a real piece of work, slashdotters used to be thinkers ... go back to your xbox.

-Bush remaining in publicly known location despite the, "attac

Sad, though, that the magazine has been abused for political gain by engaging in a straw man attack, instead of addressing the science properly.

UPDATE:

Apparently, some people HAVE noticed since I saw the video, years ago.

This website mentions the same thing.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/videoframes.html

Yeah, I just remembered looking at photos before the collapse of the building facade and wondering why damage from the engines hitting the building wasn't apparent. Now looking at it again, the right engine probably entered the same hole as the fuselage, and the left engine created its own hole closer to the ground.

photos random debunking crap

The investigation into that disaster would be pretty quick.

I wouldn't bet on that. After all, there was no investigation of the tremendous imbalance of put options on companies hurt by the disaster prior to 9/11.

The feds' are pussies. I require destroying the drive, pc and building with 3500 pounds of thermite.

I thought that's what the FED's did with WTC 7! WTC7 did have lots of SEC data (bye bye Enron data), not to mention the IRS, CIA and the Secret Service.

http://www.wtc7.net/background.html

So if those crazy people who question the official conspiracy theory are correct, maybe that is the FED's real policy!

Here is a recently published article by these "9/11 truthers."
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

Also, it takes a considerable amount of scientific illiteracy to look at new experimental findings and declare that scientists are "changing their story." Truly, 9/11 truthers are the creationists of the 21st century.

NIST's webiste:

As for fuel fires, the team found that they could not have been sustained long enough, could not have generated sufficient heat to fail a critical column, and/or would have produced "large amounts of visible smoke" from Floors 5 and 6, which was not observed.

Finally, the report notes that "while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7."

I'll leave finding their previous statements up to you. They can be found in Popular Mechanics, which states that anyone who doesn't believe the last two statements is crazy.

Rather than, say, setting fire to a real 40-story skyscraper? Wow, those scientists and engineers sure are underachievers.

NIST claims that the collapse of Building 7 is "The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building".

You could also compare it to other skyscrapers that have had worst fires than WTC7.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

You could also read a leaked NIST report which was never meant to be shown to the public.
http://www.infowars.net/WTC7Report/WTC%207%20chapter%20Pitts.doc

Chapter 1: WTC 7 Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis (William Pitts) is a thorough analysis of window fires by video and picture evidence, which concludes that all major fires before floors 7 and 13 died out prior to collapse.

The report states, "At 4:38 p.m. all of the windows between 13-44A and 13-47C were open, and the fires responsible for opening the windows had died down to the point where they could no longer be observed."

"Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. The event that caused this unusual behavior has not been identified."

The report describes the nature of fires from floors 7-13 and also states, "With the exception of the fires on the 19th, 22nd, 29th, and 30th floors discussed at the start of this section, there is essentially no direct visual evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7."

Don't forget Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study, which stated:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel... The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

I'm sorry for have scientific illiteracy. I better tell my boss that I can no longer carry out my duties because some random person on the internet is too lazy to read the governments own reports and would attack me instead of the facts.

Actually the manifests as published by CNN at the time contained NO Arab names. http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html Since then the lists seem to have been "revised" and now include the names of the hijackers. Including of course the ones the BBC has reported as still being alive. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

The steel doesn't need to melt to cause catastrophic failure.

That is a good point. Steel does not need to melt to become too weak to support some loads. However, steel does need to melt to become molten steel, right? So if they found molten steel in the rubble, how did it get there? If the fire was 400 degrees too cool to melt steel, how did the steel melt?

Summary: The steel did not have to melt for the buildings to fall down. The fires were not hot enough to melt steel. The buildings fell down. They found molten steel in the wreckage. Where did the molten steel come from if the fires were not hot enough to melt steel?

which is why, for instance, steel support beams on a bridge can collapse when a fuel tanker explodes.

Was there any molten steel found in the wreckage of the bridge? Is it now possible to melt steel at temperatures which were too low to melt steel last century? Jet fuel is kerosene. Can you melt steel with a kerosene fire? Can you melt steel with a kerosene fire which is pumping out heaps of black smoke, like the tower fires were? Or do you need a forge to melt steel, with oxygen being pumped in, making the forge fire not produce very much smoke at all?

Was molten steel found in the wreckage of the towers? If it was, how did it get there?

You have to make your conclusions based on the actual facts at hand.

The facts are... ...no amount of jet fuel can burn down a steel framed skyscraper. It burns at too low a temperature to have any significant effect on the structural integrity of steel beams. Period.

I don't care if Manhattan Island is completely submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and the fire is allowed to burn for years... ... when the fires do go out, the steel frames of the skyscrapers will emerge mostly intact.

If jet fuel could not burn down the WTC buildings, and it couldn't, then there had to be another cause. The evidence from every single sample of WTC ash tested by independent labs shows thermite residue in every one of those samples.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf [journalof911studies.com]

-----

Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...

"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].

The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.

and a quote from [3].

The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃffC...."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm [wtc7.net]

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm

You have to make your conclusions based on the actual facts at hand.

The facts are... ...no amount of jet fuel can burn down a steel framed skyscraper. It burns at too low a temperature to have any significant effect on the structural integrity of steel beams. Period.

I don't care if Manhattan Island is completely submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and the fire is allowed to burn for years... ... when the fires do go out, the steel frames of the skyscrapers will emerge mostly intact.

If jet fuel could not burn down the WTC buildings, and it couldn't, then there had to be another cause. The evidence from every single sample of WTC ash tested by independent labs shows thermite residue in every one of those samples.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf [journalof911studies.com]

-----

Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...

"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].

The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.

and a quote from [3].

The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃffC...."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm [wtc7.net]

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm

You have to make your conclusions based on the actual facts at hand.

The facts are... ...no amount of jet fuel can burn down a steel framed skyskraper. Period.

I don't care if Manhattan Island is completely submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and the fire is allowed to burn for years... ... when the fires do go out, the steel frames of the skyscrapers will emerge mostly intact.

If jet fuel could not burn down the WTC buildings, and it couldn't, then there had to be another cause. The evidence from every single sample of WTC ash tested by independent laws shows thermite residue in every single sample.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

-----

Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...

"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].

The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.

and a quote from [3].

The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃfC...."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm
 

You have to make your conclusions based on the actual facts at hand.

The facts are... ...no amount of jet fuel can burn down a steel framed skyskraper. Period.

I don't care if Manhattan Island is completely submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and the fire is allowed to burn for years... ... when the fires do go out, the steel frames of the skyscrapers will emerge mostly intact.

If jet fuel could not burn down the WTC buildings, and it couldn't, then there had to be another cause. The evidence from every single sample of WTC ash tested by independent laws shows thermite residue in every single sample.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

-----

Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...

"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].

The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.

and a quote from [3].

The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃfC...."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm
 

Wrongo, old chap!

Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...

"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].

The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.

and a quote from [3].

The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃfC...."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm [wtc7.net]

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm [wtc7.net]

Wrongo, old chap!

Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...

"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].

The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.

and a quote from [3].

The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃfC...."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm [wtc7.net]

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm [wtc7.net]

...Its simple physics....

    that also mandates that the speed of the collapse was WAY too fast if the official domino collapse of the towers were true. The inertia of the large mass of the buildings below the crash sites should have slowed the rate of collapse significantly. The videos of collapse instead show that it took place in the same amount of time that a free falling object tossed from the roof buildings would have taken.

Speaking of simple physics: The first rule is to measure. You can do that to +/- .5 seconds at: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/ntc_frames.html

The second rule is to do math. From these frames, it started at second 3, and ended on second 16, totalling 13 seconds with .5 seconds of error. If it were free fall, the start point is 830m above ground, which is 190m higher than the world's tallest building. An object tossed from the top of the tower would take 10 seconds to hit the ground.

The third rule is to know what you measure. I measured from where the dust cloud started to grow rapidly until no further downward movement is visible, which is valid but different from a definition of collapse where any debris touches the ground. I also measured with two significant digits.

Now, what have you done to make your claim?

It wouldn't matter if the entire south end of Manhattan Island was submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and allowed to burn for weeks. The steel structures of the high rise buildings would emerge relatively intact.

Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to damage the framework of steel frame buildings.

-------

"While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].

The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.

and a quote from [3].

The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÂC.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm

It wouldn't matter if the entire south end of Manhattan Island was submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and allowed to burn for weeks. The steel structures of the high rise buildings would emerge relatively intact.

Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to damage the framework of steel frame buildings.

-------

"While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].

The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.

and a quote from [3].

The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÂC.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm

Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...

"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].

The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.

and a quote from [3].

The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃC...."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm

Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...

"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].

The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.

and a quote from [3].

The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃC...."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm

This is all from a UK grad student's thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...

"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].

The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.

and a quote from [3].

The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÂC...."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm

This is all from a UK grad student's thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...

"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].

Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].

The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.

and a quote from [3].

The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÂC...."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm

"Yes, the 9-11 Commission was actually very informative and thorough . . ."

I'd hardly use those adjectives to describe it, considering the fact that they "forgot" all about the 47-story skyscraper (WTC7) that collapsed on the day of the attacks WITHOUT being hit by an aircraft . . . among other things.

http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/report.html

Why am I NOT encouraged by the government investigating itself about domestic spying?

When I read articles such as this one, I assume someone is going to ask about 9/11. Here's some more information for you: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html

The Afghanistan war was planned before 9/11.

The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11.

The decision to launch a war against Iran was made before 9/11.

The Patriot Act was written before 9/11.

The government's spying on Americans began before 9/11.

The government knew that terrorists could use planes as weapons -- and had even run its own drills of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, using REAL airplanes -- all before 9/11.

The government heard the 9/11 plans from the hijackers' own mouths before 9/11.

No steel-framed high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire before 9/11.

The neocons who now run the U.S. government lamented, before 9/11, that they could not institute their plans for global domination without a "new Pearl Harbor".

Did 9/11 really "change everything"? Or was everything we're seeing now planned before 9/11?

-FL

Sadly, I don't see any push from any group/government with the financial backing to actually do a serious investigation. Of course it takes time, but because it takes time to do it you actually have to START it.

As for the free fall thing, every video I've seen shows the building collapsing unhindered, and every video showing the entire collapse shows them falling at roughly free fall speed. Show me a video where this is not the case.

For the BBC, I'm not sure what the reason for it is. The BBC is not necessarily complicit, just not doing their job. Using your favorite Ockham's Razor here would seem to imply that SOMEONE told the BBC that the building was either going to collapse or had already collapsed. Why would the reporter say it had collapsed when the building is still CLEARLY VISIBILE just behind her? (Youtube video, check other videos as well) That's not normal. Now what evidence was there saying that building 7 would collapse? It wasn't hit by a plane. There were other buildings in the area that didn't collapse that were also on fire, but were there any reports saying they were going to collapse? The selectiveness of the reporting is unusual.

Silverstein's comment is not evidence for complicity; however, he purchased the building just 6 months prior to 9/11 and insured it against TERRORISM. The building hadn't changed ownership in 33 years. First order of business was replacing the security company with another one, which just happened to have Marvin Bush, W's brother, on the board of directors, and Marvin's cousin as the CEO. This same Securacom security company also did security work for Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, which also play in 9/11. One must also understand that WTC 7 and I believe also the other two (don't quote me on this though) were not in the best of financial shape. The NY Port Authority had tried for years to get permission to demolish the buildings, without success. It also was looking at some costly renovations, on the order of billions! Blowing the buildings up would not only not cost them money, they'd get money from insurance. Now if one also takes into account some of the documents located in WTC 7, very sensitive documents looking into Enron and Worldcom and probably others, the whole picture starts to get interesting. These pieces of information are not proof of conspiracy to blow up the towers, but I will say they sure raise some serious questions, none of which have been investigated.

Another interesting aspect of the story were the unusual trades in the days just before the attacks. There was a large surge in purchases of 1) put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines, of 2) put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group, of 3) put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, in 4) purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon, in 5) purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes (info from 9/11 research, read article here). Whoever made the $2.5 million on trading United Airlines has yet to claim it.

How does the 9/11 Commission Report mention it? In a footnote. This is a what it says (see here , Chapter 5, note 130)

130. Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/1

Even if the fire weakened the steel, why did the building collapse at roughly free fall speed? The fire surely wasn't raging on the lower floors. How does the top of a building fall unhindered through the lower floors at free fall speed without support from underneath being removed? If it wasn't demolition, why weren't any of the 47 giant steel columns sticking up out of the rubble about 20 stories?

As for WTC #7, two large skyscrapers rained tons of debris (literally tons of steel and concrete) on it, it caught fire and was allowed to burn. There were large diesel fuel tanks for backup generators that probably fueled this fire as well. The FDNY had more important things on their hands and didn't wan't to risk more life unnecessarily. The fact that it contained things "convenient to dispose" for some shadow conspiracy is irrelevant, it was in a disaster zone and lots of other buildings were damaged to near collapse, and many buildings in that area probably fit the criteria of "convenient to dispose of".

What evidence is there that there was a raging fire at WTC 7? What evidence is there that any of the diesel tanks were breached? What evidence is there that raging fires have brought down other high rise structures? How do you explain the BBC reporting that the WTC 7 had collapsed approximately 20 minutes before it actually DID? How do you explain Larry Silverstein's statement that he told the firefighters to 'pull it'? Why didn't the 9/11 Commission Report even address WTC 7? At least the FEMA report tried to address, but this page explains some of the problems with that account. The FEMA report has even gone on to say that your explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 has a low probability (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch8.pdf). See section 8.2.5 I believe.

We know Al Qaeda tried to blow it up once before, there is pretty damn compelling evidence that they tried again and succeeded. These conspiracies not only fail Ockham's razor, they fail a simple logic-check: if there existed a conspiracy powerful enough to orchestrate the collapse of WTC #7 to get rid of data and services, they would be powerful enough to accomplish it by means less crude than blowing up two adjacent buildings and then collapsing it in the mayhem.

Once again someone knows who Al Qaeda is; let me guess, you heard it on the news or read it in a book? 'Al Qaeda' tried to blow up the WTC once before, and I presume you're referring to the '93 bombing. Interesting how all of the people implicated in it (except the FBI informant) were on the CIA payroll in Afghanistan.

As for the Ockham's razor argument, you forget also the motivation the neocons might have to 'blow up' the buildings by planes. The reasons for collapsing the twin towers is pretty easy to detect, and the reason for using planes isn't terribly difficult to discern as well (fear from the sky helps secure funding for missile defense and other new weapons, easier to explain hijackings bringing down towers than bombs placed within the building, etc). WTC 7 was conveniently located to bring it down in the process and few would question it when there were two much more exciting collapses nearby and something at the Pentagon. The fact that WTC 7 is hardly ever mentioned in the media and was totally ignored by the 9/11 Commission Report seems to support the idea that no one

Most the military takes what it does very seriously. Then there are the political officers. In the months before 9/11, the Cheney administration changed the procedure so that NORAD had to get permission from the Secretary of Defense before they could intercept an off-course airplane. Before the civilian air traffic controllers & NORAD did the intercept thing on a regular basis.

But wait, we don't believe in conspiracies here. Hmm.

The losses from the attacks themselves were largely confined to 3000 innocent lives, two skyscrapers, and four downed airliners.

Three skyscrapers. WTC7 collapsed for what appears to be inadequately explored reasons.

I remember the day of 9/11. I remember not being as hell-bent on revenge as everyone else. I remember desiring a detailed investigation into the crime and calm, measured action being taken. I remember being very concerned that the politicians would use it as the catalyst to finally take away the freedoms they had been poised to for so long.

I am sad now.

Totally incorrect. The WTC was designed to withstand being hit by an airliner. I recall this from the various documentaries post-9/11; a web reference describing this is:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.ht ml

which contains the quote (with citation):

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

In the future, please use Google searches to verify claims you make in public posts. It's to no one's benefit to have discussions based on speculation and bullshit.

See: http://911proof.com/ and for mreresearch and studies .
Did you know that the building called World Trade Center 7 also collapsed in spite of not being hit by a jet and being 370 yards away ?

Um, yeah. It was also Richard Clarke who warned the deaf dumb and blind (or so they appeared, cleverly), administration about Bin Laden. It is now quite clear this was an Inside Job instead. While the U.S. is trapped in the quagmire of Irag, real threats such as Pakistan (an easily toppled dictator), N. Korea, Iran (Britain and U.S. pandering to that country), and, most of all, China, with it's massive dollar reserves, and manufacturing prowress, continues to test the limits, such as knocking out U.S. satellites, and, as this post mentioned, hit the information systems, while Americans are asleep at the wheel, or glued to the next American Idol. Plan For a New American Century? There is one, but it's in Chinese.

That's all fine and good, but how exactly do you explain the molten pools of steel that were present for several weeks after the collapse of the towers? Oh... you can't explain those? I didn't think so.
I know I'm burning Karma on this one, but I'm truly tired of hearing know-it-alls completely dismiss anyone who doesn't tow the party line when it comes to the explanation of what happened to all the WTC buildings.
I'm not a conspiracy nut, but something just doesn't feel right when it comes to the explanation of events on September 11... and believe me, I'm not alone out here.
So are you a Physicist, or did you just sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

The vast majority of the 9/11 conspiracy "evidence" is of the form:

1) Eyewitnesses don't report consistant stories. (For example, they hear multiple explosions that 'sound like bombs'.)

This is well-known to be true in crisis situations. Ask any police officer about the eyewitness reports they get after a car accident or a murder and they'll tell you that the information is correct and useful only in the widest sense. (i.e. male suspect, tall as opposed to female suspect, short). In addition to this, there's a mental component that makes people claim to be eyewitnesses when, frankly, they were too far away, or had their vision obscured by something.

And the average person on the street, frankly, has no idea what an exploding bomb sounds like.

2) The hole in the Pentagon isn't large enough, additionally there was not enough debris. (Implying it was hit by a missile or commuter jet.)

  Look at this video of an F-4 hitting reinforced concrete walls:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466424262 6206288868&q=jet+hitting+wall

Imagine that on a larger scale. The Boeing hitting the Pentagon was larger, of course, but its speed wasn't significantly slower than that F-4's and the walls of the Pentagon aren't much thinner than the reinforced wall used in the test also. The plane virtually vaporized on that impact.

3) The steel in the World Trade Center couldn't possibly have weakened from the fire enough to collapse.

http://news.google.com/news?um=1&tab=wn&client=saf ari&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=en&q=freeway+collapse+sa n+francisco&btnG=Search+News

Oh yeah? It's happened since in a very similar circumstance.

If you're referring to the "issues" brought up in the movie Loose Change, they've already been thoroughly debunked several times:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_cha nge.html

I'm not saying here that everything reported in the media, and everything said by the government is true. The simple fact is that extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence, and the 9/11 conspiracy people simply don't have it.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/ nyt_destape.html

Apparently, the traffic controllers' union required an agreement that recordings of their testimony would be destroyed. Something like that.

It's impossible to bring a building like WTC7 down just like that without damaging neighboring buildings.
The people who do that kind of work are highly paid professionals and they take weeks to months of planning
and preparing. The neighboring buildings next to WTC7 were left intact.

Btw the interesting thing is that now we're discussing how they "pulled" WTC7 when only a couple of weeks
people like you would scoff at the "wild conspiracy theory" that WTC7 was "pulled". I'm sure most people
will take note of that.

Here follow these links and read up on the subject.

http://www.wtc7.net/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

ha... sure we'll take your word for that.

from dave schroeder's personal web site:

"Association For Intelligence Officers"
"National Military Intelligence Association"

uh huh, no conflict of interest there.

http://infowars.com/
http://stj911.org/
http://wtc7.net/

911 was an inside job.

That supports this anti-constitutional activity by our repressive regime is 9/11. The jets were classic misdirection. Jumbo jets can not demolish skyscrapers. It's sad that people can be so easily fooled. Myself included. We (finally) have the tower blueprints, and it's clear that NIST, FEAM, and the 9/11 Commission report all LIE about the towers construction; see http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprint s.html http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-718030371 2325092501 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-522496324 6223576086

Oh,.. and here is your rebuttal:

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

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_cha nge.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SgjWGVHxW8

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_(video)

And here is a pre-emptive one: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Statements by Engineers

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

John Skilling

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3 A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707--DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4

# Behavior of Villains
The behavior of the alleged hijackers preceding the attack is inconsistent with skill and discipline needed to have a hope of pulling off such an attack.
        * Mohammed Atta allegedly barely caught Flight 11, a key flight in the event that he was supposedly planning for years.
        * The alleged hijackers partied at topless bars and drank alcohol, despite being portrayed as fundamentalist Muslims, for whom such behavior would be surprising, to say the least.

# Evidence Void
There is no hard evidence that any of the alleged hijackers were on any of the doomed flights, and substantial evidence that some weren't involved.

        * No video of any of the 19 hijackers at any of the three originating airports of the four flights has been made public, except for a video allegedly showing hijackers of Flight 77.
        * At least six of the alleged hijackers have turned up alive since the attack.
        * None of the four flight crews radioed Air Traffic Control about hijackings in progress.
        * None of the four flight crews punched in the four-digit hijacking code.
        * No public evidence indicates that the remains of any of the hijackers was identified at any of the crash sites.
        * None of the contents of any of the black boxes have been made public.
        * The only 4-1/2 minutes of the phone call from Flight 11 Attendant Betty Ong made public describes a stabbing but does not provide any details indicating that Arab hijackers were on board.

# Phenomenal Success
The success with which hijackers allegedly took over four jets with knives and then piloted the jets to small targets is simply miraculous.

        * None of the four flight crews were able to stop the alleged hijackers, in spite of several of the pilots being Vietnam veterans.
        * None of the alleged hijackers were good pilots, yet the three buildings were hit with phenomenal precision.

-FL

Come on, are you really still trying to convince people about 9/11 and what not?
Let bygones be bygones, people whom have searched for truth would have stumbled on http://911research.wtc7.net/ or sites opposing it, made their mind one way or another and moved on.

We want to take down Iran now, and sh*t is being falsified all over again. THAT (to me) is more important than what happened.

And finally, your post (and this one) don't have a place in this article. Posting opinions for or against something in this fashion will get you nothing but flamed.

oh and a source for the scramble figure is this, and another interesting critique is this