9/11 TRUTH

Oh, Jones. Yeah, well, many of his own colleagues disagree with his assessments. In fact, most qualified engineers who have seen his 'evidence' disagree with his conclusions. That's probably why he hasn't submitted his theory and evidence to any normal peer-reviewed channel. Very odd. It's almost like he doesn't *want* his peers to review it. (Hah! A conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theorist!)

The fact that he believes that Jesus was resurrected and then came to Latin America for a visit, well, I'm not so sure his elevator goes all the way to the top. Sounds like a decent 'B' horror movie though: 'Zombie Jesus Goes To...Cancun!' I'd put that in my NetFlix queue immediately. Really! Even if it would make Mel Gibson mad.

(No offense meant to anyone who really believes that. I feel like a subtitle in a South Park episode.)

Well, there's a lot more to the Steven E. Jones story. His main "influence" for his 9/11 theories was Sarah Mene, who claims to have had "visions" of the events of 9/11 beforehand. She's the author of a book called There is No Death. Her website is suspended, but you can still get a cache of it on:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=5

Jones' connection to Sarah Mene:
http://911truthseekers.gnn.tv/blogs/...t_MP3_Download

From the (suspended) website, There Is No Death:
Sarah Menet was pronounced dead but she did not die. Her near death experience (NDE) is one of the most extensive ever recorded. Sarah not only visited the beautiful spirit world, describing the people, their dress, activities, and buildings; but she also visited what could be called "hell" and describes the torment of those committed to that terrible place. She also received answers to many questions such as:
*Why are terrible things allowed to happen to good people?
*Is there a purpose to life here on earth?
*Why is it important to treat others with respect?
*Is it important to be good?
*Is there such a thing as deja vu?
*Is there such a thing as reincarnation?
*What are some of the difficulties that may lie ahead for us on earth?

Sarah was also shown several future events. She saw tall buildings in New York collapsing amidst smoke and debris and people running years before 9/11. (Bold Mine). This was the beginning of other calamities which were to include a great plague suddenly striking several cities in the United States, a nuclear war, and other devastating events.

This happened to her because Sarah, after a lifetime of abuse, difficulty and disappointment, had sought oblivion and death by attempting suicide. She found that it is always wrong to take one's own life, as it frustrates the purposes of life and brings on difficulty and penalty in the world beyond. However, she learned that there are different degrees of seriousness of such actions. She emerged from her experiences with a changed heart, released from the pain and bitterness of abuse and failure and willing to forgive herself and others, something that had completely escaped her before her experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamstigator

The fact that he believes that Jesus was resurrected and then came to Latin America for a visit, well, I'm not so sure his elevator goes all the way to the top. Sounds like a decent 'B' horror movie though: 'Zombie Jesus Goes To...Cancun!' I'd put that in my NetFlix queue immediately. Really! Even if it would make Mel Gibson mad.

---

That's too fuckin' funny! :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron385

bird girl - you are correct :)

But I still feel like I could have done more. I went to a conference last weekend where the new senior fellow to Condalissa Rices' (spelling whatever) advising staff was giving a speech.. talking about sucess and all this stuff he had done.. which included getting a phD from Oxford, leading a whole division in Iraq.. publishing a book on foriegn policy.. and being accepted as a senior advisor to Condis staff.. he then took questions and answered them better than I have ever in my life seen real questions answered.. as calm and cool as possible and they were definatly not staged questions.. but he answered them as perfect as if he was on tape being played back.. He gave up a basketball scholarship to join ROTC.. I mean this guy really had an impact on me.. like where I want to go with my life kind of impact..

At the end of the whole thing the guy that introduced him came out and told him to tell everyone how old he was... he said.. twenty seven.. and a STANDING OVATION ensued.

So I guess I have some catching up to do.. hehe.. Im not the best but seeing him and his achievements motivates me to strive for more.

---

That must have been neat to see! What was the guy's name? I'll bet we'll all see more of him. It's always nifty to see intelligent, articulate people speak extemporaneously and without stumbling, completely off the cuff, esepcially when they're so young. Brain power shows through!

While my political leanings are in the other direction, I have a lot of respect for Condoleeza Rice, as I do for lots of folks in the Bush administration. Condi is bright as can be, but I've noticed she's not always an at-ease speaker herself. Probably it's simply having to measure her words so carefully, which never fails to set speakers up for self-consciousness. Her coaches and writers haven't gotten her to the point where she's dropped the "ahs" and "uhs" when she's speaking. She'll get there, though, and I would love to see her teach sometime and watch what happens when the careful scripting is gone.

I'm going to look out for this senior fellow once I know his name. Sounds like a good professional model to aspire to!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

It will be five years in Sept. 2006 since the towers were attacked by terrorists. There will be all kinds of memorial services and tributes. Why don't you just come to New York City and ask the people that were there that day what happened? You can easily find people that were in the Towers on 9/11 that still work in lower Manhattan. If you can't, or won't, do this, then you should not make statements about it because you don't know what you are talking about.

Nobody in NYC, at least nobody I've ever met, believes that anything other than terrorists in planes were responsible for the destruction of WTC One and Two. If you've never even come here, you won't know jack.

P.S. Please stop wasting valuable space on this board with the same old videos. They are not going to change anybody's mind.

9/11 conspiracy debunking site:
http://us.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm

---

I see your looking for bin laden...........

Where's bin Laden........
For your future reference, here's what Bush has said about bin Laden at various points in time, depending on how he was trying to spin things:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availability with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
â??"Because he's hidingâ?¦" Bush, explaining why Osama bin Laden has yet to be captured. (Washington Post interview, Jan. 16, 2005)

Those 6'6" Muslims with attached dialysis machines and armies of AK-47-wielding bodyguards are hard to spot in a crowd!

9/11 was planned ten years ago by both Mossad and CIA. No true white americans and jewish were present in towers at 9/11.
It was a scenario which served both sides USA and Israel, with the rising patriotism after 9/11 Bush attacked on Iraq and created a kaos as we see now. Israel is also using that muslim terrrorist crap and killing innocent every day.

IT IS A DOUBLE STANDART WORLD, JUSTICE IS ONLY FOR STRONGS!!!!!
GOD DAMN JEWS AND THEIR DOGS

What's a 'true white American'? That's a phrase the neonazis and fascists tend to use. Looked like lotsa white folks were in the towers, at least to me. You saying they were black people wearing makeup? Aliens? What's your conspiracy theory? Hope it's something other than the same ol' boring and totally repudiated ones we've all seen.

BTW, an estimated 400-500 Jews died on 9/11 in the WTC buildings. The number would have been higher except many Orthodox Jews went to work an hour later because of the Selichot prayers recited in the days before the Jewish New Year.

Here's some of the last names of victims: Adler, Aron, Berger, Bernstein,
Cohen, Eichler, Eisenberg, Feinberg, Friedlander, Goldstein,
Greenstein, Horwitz, Jablonski, Kestenbaum, Kirchbaum, Kleinberg,
Levi, Levine, Mayer, Rosenberg, Rosenblum, Rosenthal, Sachs,
Safronoff, Schwartz, Shulman, Shwartzstein, Silverstein, Solomon,
Steinman, Temple, Weil, Weinberg, Weingard, Weinstein, Weiss, Zukelman.

You think none of those names refer to Jews?

paparose, your prejudice is clear. It's sad, really. When you're gone, will your kids tell others, "My dad was okay, except that he was a racist and a bigot"? Nice legacy you're working on there.

keep living in denial. I am a person that knows what is right and whats wrong. Could you tell me that what Jews are doing in Labanon and Palestin are right?
keep belive in what CNN tells you....
your children would say our dad only knew one side of the story he never cared the other part because he was prejudice....

Well, my children can say what they want (seeing as I have chosen not to have any). But if I had any, at least they wouldn't think that I was blind enough to think that the World Trade Centers were devoid of Jews and blacks and Spanish people and anyone not a 'true white American', whatever that is.

BTW, you didn't define what a 'true white American' is, and I'm sure many of us are interested in your definition, and why you chose to include the word 'white' at all.

As for whether what the Israelis are doing is right or wrong, well, that kinda depends on your perspective. If you're an Israeli who just lost his family because of Hezbullah rockets, I'm sure what they're doing seems very right. If you're a Lebanese civilian who lost his family in an Israeli airstrike, then I'm sure what the Israelis are doing seems quite wrong. Me, seeing as I don't like when terrorist organizations like Hezbullah kill Americans, which they have -- I'm okay with bombing them back to the Stone Age. Less people will die at their hands if all they have access to are sticks and rocks, and if they decide to attack Americans again, it'll be easier to defend against them.

I have to assume you're either not an American yourself, or you're anti-American, or something, seeing as you're basically defending a militant organization that has used terrorist methods to kill Americans.

A true white American hates:

Homosexuals (aka, a bad name)
The United Nations
A woman's right to choose
Anti-war protesters
Evolutionary science
Universal health care
Questions about GW's military record
Immigrants (legal or otherwise)
The Indian guy at 7-Eleven (see Immigrants above)
Opinions of college kids (and college professors)
Noam Chomsky (well... they would hate him if they could read him)
African Americans (aka, another bad name)
The first amendment
Anyone that hates the second amendment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by graymatter

A true white American hates:

Homosexuals (aka, a bad name) = Who cares
The United Nations = sucks
A woman's right to choose= every woman should have the right to choose
Anti-war protesters= cant they find something better to do?
Evolutionary science= Darwin end of story
Universal health care= dream
Questions about GW's military record= who gives a rats ass
Immigrants (legal or otherwise)= i love legal immagrints. illegal= take your ass home
The Indian guy at 7-Eleven (see Immigrants above)=My grandpa was 100% indian
Opinions of college kids (and college professors)= most are left wing commie, see ward chuchill, steve jones, and Jay beenish
Noam Chomsky (well... they would hate him if they could read him)= is a commie bitch
African Americans (aka, another bad name)= why do they wear thier pants like that?
The first amendment= defend it to the death
Anyone that hates the second amendment=use the second to save the first

---

Im a white American............. Sterotype much?

Sorry, Bong, this list was compiled through extensive, objective, research and I'm afraid you don't qualify for "true" white american status. Please submit your request again in a few weeks... :smokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by graymatter

Sorry, Bong, this list was compiled through extensive, objective, research and I'm afraid you don't qualify for "true" white american status. Please submit your request again in a few weeks... :smokin:

---

OK cool...........:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paparose

No true white americans and jewish were present in towers at 9/11.
It was a scenario which served both sides USA and Israel
GOD DAMN JEWS AND THEIR DOGS

---

Somebody say cooling off period? (please)

Like I said before.. its only a matter of time berfore people say their were no towers at all in new york and thw whole thing was just computer generated.. like nasa. :thumbsup: I want to know how you crash a 747 into anything in new york without killing jews! maybe the UN building.. hahaha..

Bird girl- the speakers name was.. darn i cant find the program.. i will keep a eye out for it.. so do I get to ask which part of the over/under 30 croud you belong too?? haha..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron385

Bird girl- the speakers name was.. darn i cant find the program.. i will keep a eye out for it.. so do I get to ask which part of the over/under 30 croud you belong too?? haha..

---

You bet you get to! I don't mind being asked my age and don't understand why some ladies are so gamey about that. I'm 44. Will be 45 at the end of September. Happy to be where I am on the chronology.

Well, keep an eye out for that guy's name because if you can find it, I want to keep my own eye out for him. I've just left a long-time job as a speechwriter, and I always like to see good speakers, particularly in politics/matters of state, and make guesses as to where they'll end up based on how they sound and look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by birdgirl73

You bet you get to! I don't mind being asked my age and don't understand why some ladies are so gamey about that. I'm 44. Will be 45 at the end of September. Happy to be where I am on the chronology.

Well, keep an eye out for that guy's name because if you can find it, I want to keep my own eye out for him. I've just left a long-time job as a speechwriter, and I always like to see good speakers, particularly in politics/matters of state, and make guesses as to where they'll end up based on how they sound and look.

---

BG.... im end of sept too...............libra?

My wife is a Libra like me, and trying to pick a place to eat is like watching paint dry....... we cant make up our minds......lol:D

When I'm asked what sign I was born under, I reply, "Room for rent".

:dance:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

When I'm asked what sign I was born under, I reply, "Room for rent".

:dance:

---

LOL the hospital i was born in is a drug rehab now........how funny.. or not

!!LOL!! Yeah, when someone asks me "What's your sign?" I often find myself wanting to say "Yield."

Bong, I'm sorry to say I missed being a Libra like you by two days. I was born on September 21 of 1961. So I'm a Virgo. Was really supposed to be a Libra because I came four weeks early, but I was a little preemie Virgo. Not that I really believe that means much. I seem to go against all the characteristics they list for Virgos. I rather enjoy the fact that I was born in the year of the Buffalo, though, and seem to match more of those traits, at least the ones they list on the Chinese zodiac calendars at restaurants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat

Nobody in NYC, at least nobody I've ever met, believes that anything other than terrorists in planes were responsible for the destruction of WTC One and Two. If you've never even come here, you won't know jack.


9/11 conspiracy debunking site:
http://us.geocities.com/debunking911/index.htm

---

what are you talking about? in a zogby poll in 2004 48% of new yorkers believed that the government had prior knowledge of the attack and failed to act on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordSmaug

what are you talking about? in a zogby poll in 2004 48% of new yorkers believed that the government had prior knowledge of the attack and failed to act on it.

---

Nonsense. I know people that were actually in the towers that day and none of them believe that.

Here's some information about (among other things) the Zogby International telephone poll - which is very slanted. There is NO WAY that "Half" of New Yorkers believe that the government knew about the impending 9/11 attack. In any case, even if they did believe so, that does not mean that they think the government actually carried out the attacks and planted bombs in the buildings.

http://newsbusters.org/node/5681?fro...ts_per_page=90
NYT Gives "Bush-Caused-9/11" Conspiracists a Respectful Hearing
Posted by Clay Waters on June 5, 2006 - 09:36.

A wacky group of conspiracy theorists who think 9/11 was an inside job on the part of the Bush administration met in Chicago over the weekend, and got a respectful hearing from Times Metro reporter Alan Feuer.

â??500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet To Seek the Truth of 9/11â?� made Page 1 of the Metro section, and that very headline gives the conspiracy-mongers the undeserved accolade of truth-seekers when theyâ??re actually just crawling for scraps of evidence â??provingâ?� that Bush, not radical Islamic terrorism, was responsible for 9/11.

Feuer explains: â??Such was the coming-out for the movement known as "9/11 Truth," a society of skeptics and scientists who believe the government was complicit in the terrorist attacks. In colleges and chat rooms on the Internet, this band of disbelievers has been trying for years to prove that 9/11 was an inside job.â?�

The text box puts this latest batch of conspiracists in the same box as other historical sceptics, to make them appear less wacky: â??Some participants see an American tradition of questioning concentrated power.â?�

Feuer writes: â??At the lectern Friday night, beside a digital projection reading â??History of Government Sponsored Terrorism,â?? Mr. Jones set forth the central tenets of 9/11 Truth: that the military command that monitors aircraft â??stood downâ?? on the day of the attacks; that President Bush addressed children in a Florida classroom instead of being whisked off to the White House; that the hijackers, despite what the authorities say, were trained at American military bases; and that the towers did not collapse because of burning fuel and weakened steel but because of a â??controlled demolitionâ?? caused by pre-set bombs.

â??According to the group's Web site, the motive for faking a terrorist attack was to allow the administration â??to instantly implement policies its members have long supported, but which were otherwise infeasible.â??

â??The controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement -- its basic claim and, in some sense, the one upon which all others rest. It is, of course, directly contradicted by the 10,000-page investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which held that jet-fuel fires distressed the towers' structure, which eventually collapsed.â?�

â??The movement's answer to that report was written by Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University and the movement's expert in the matter of collapse. Dr. Jones, unlike Alex Jones, is a soft-spoken man who lets his writing do the talking. He composed an account of the destruction of the towers that holds that â??pre-positioned cutter-chargesâ?? brought the buildings down.â?�

Feuer paints this rag-tag group in non-threatening, almost affectionate terms: â??[Group press director Michael] Berger, 40, is typical of 9/11 Truthers -- a group that, in its rank and file, includes professors, chain-saw operators, mothers, engineers, activists, used-book sellers, pizza deliverymen, college students, a former fringe candidate for United States Senate and a long-haired fellow named hummux (pronounced who-mook) who, on and off, lived in a cave for 15 years.â?�

Feuer brings up more palatable conspiracy theories, as if to shield the 9/11-mongers: â??Like a prior generation of skeptics -- those who doubted, say, the Warren Commission or the government's account of the Gulf of Tonkin attack -- the 9/11 Truthers are dogged, at home and in the office, by friends and family who suspect that they may, in fact, be completely nuts.â?�
Feuer even promotes evidence that â??Bush was responsible for 9/11â?� is a relatively mainstream view: â??It would even seem the Truthers are not alone in believing the whole truth has not come out. A poll released last month by Zogby International found that 42 percent of all Americans believe the 9/11 Commission â??concealed or refused to investigate critical evidenceâ?? in the attacks.â?�

But the pollâ??s co-author was David Kubiak itself, who spoke at the conference. And hereâ??s the question that led to that â??42%â?� answer.
â??Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?â?�
(Go here to see how slanted the poll truly is.) http://www.911truth.org/images/911Tr...inalReport.htm

The 42% figure is far too high and speaks badly of the gullibility of many phone poll-takers, but the question itself is loaded to deliver the first, skeptical answer. The second choice, with the sarcastic tone about â??honest and well-respected people,â?� perks up knee-jerk U.S. cynicism of government -- the subtext is that only a chump would think the government is full of â??honest and well-respected people.â?� People donâ??t want to be seen as naïve or unsophisticated, so they feign doubt where previously none existed.

The Times has not been nearly as respectful when it comes to right-wing conspiracy theorists alleging perfidy in Democratic administrations. See Timesâ?? contributing writer (Times Select $ required) Philip Weissâ??s â??The Clinton Hatersâ?� for the February 23, 1997 edition of the Sunday magazine, on those who questioned the verdict of suicide in the Vince Foster case.
The Foster-suicide skeptics arenâ??t seen as lovable losers the way Feuer portrayed the 9/11 skeptics. Weissâ??s 9,000-word article refers to Clinton â??hatersâ?� six times, â??Clinton craziesâ?� 11 times and four â??far rightsâ?� for good measure. While Feuerâ??s tone is sometimes skeptical, he doesnâ??t see a single hater or crazy among a sea of people holding up signs declaiming the â??Bush junta,â?� or alleging that Bush instigated the destruction of the Twin Towers.

UPDATE: The folks at 911truth.org appreciated Feuer's story, linking to it yesterday and noting with approval that it was drawing attacks from the "rightist blogworld" (that would be, um, me).

"In the meantime allow us to share another bit of history, the New York Times' first recognition of our existence, which has been the most popular story on AOL News all day. Yes, there are the expected hits and snickers, but Feuer had to get it through his editors and to his credit he inserts enough meat and salient points to make our case quite clear, clear enough in fact to already draw attacks from the rightist blogworld. - Ed."

Isn't there a big difference between having prior knowledge of a specific horrific event and prior knowledge that a horrific event will happen? Sorry, I'm just a little suspicious of Zogby's methodology....

A polling question the way that one was worded completely provides the answer the poll wants before the respondent even responds.

That would never be allowed in legitimate sampling. Or even in focus testing. Heck, it wouldn't pass muster on a high-school sociology test (unless you had a really dumb class that had to be provided the correct answer ahead of time.) It's that much of a lead-on question.

Polling NY'ers about any Sept. 11th happenings is a convoluted thing.

1. They have the air of...'I was there! I know exactly what happened!'

2. Ny'ers are NEVER wrong.

3. Theres only two kinds of NY'ers...Mets or Yankees. No matter the topic, the two will most likely never agree.

4. They take the whole matter closer to heart. Instead of an attack on America, they confine to an attack on NY city.

5. Anyone insane enough to live in that stwey mess of people, steel, and concrete isn't qualified to answer any polls!

:rolleyes: + :p = :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slowthestone

Polling NY'ers about any Sept. 11th happenings is a convoluted thing.
1. They have the air of...'I was there! I know exactly what happened!'
2. Ny'ers are NEVER wrong.
3. Theres only two kinds of NY'ers...Mets or Yankees. No matter the topic, the two will most likely never agree.
4. They take the whole matter closer to heart. Instead of an attack on America, they confine to an attack on NY city.
5. Anyone insane enough to live in that stwey mess of people, steel, and concrete isn't qualified to answer any polls!
:rolleyes: + :p = :D

---

â??Jealousy is the tribute mediocrity pays to genius.â?�
Fulton J. Sheen, American cleric (1895-1979)

:thumbsup:

I keep reading peoples comments on here who claim to be engineers. That's all you guys say "uh, yeah, i'm an engineer, and fire definitly took out the towers"

I'm not calling you liars i'm just saying that you're not answering any questions. I want someone to tell me exactly how the a hell fire brought down steel reinforced with concrete buildings.

I'm a real skeptic demanding to be convinced and so far the Conspiracy side is winning because no one else is showing me why the conspirators are wrong, they're just repeating that "they're wrong and stupid".

so go ahead and convince me.

Read the NIST report, it has more engineering info than your brain or mine can handle. Don't have the link handy, personally, but I read some of it a few days ago, and it was pretty convincing. I'm sure you can find it with google.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordSmaug

I keep reading peoples comments on here who claim to be engineers. That's all you guys say "uh, yeah, i'm an engineer, and fire definitly took out the towers"

I'm not calling you liars i'm just saying that you're not answering any questions. I want someone to tell me exactly how the a hell fire brought down steel reinforced with concrete buildings.

I'm a real skeptic demanding to be convinced and so far the Conspiracy side is winning because no one else is showing me why the conspirators are wrong, they're just repeating that "they're wrong and stupid".

so go ahead and convince me.

---

First you assume the fire was the main cause that brought it down. It was a structural collapse. Since the majority of the support beams were in the center, which is designed this way to sustain the high winds above. All it takes is a few floors to buckle down, and the supports in the center collapses like dominos. It it seemed like a controlled-demolition, it wasn't. The support beams were in the middle and the direction would be going straight down, which would seem like an implosion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/metal.html#

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-2ExecutiveSummary.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thcbongman

First you assume the fire was the main cause that brought it down. It was a structural collapse. Since the majority of the support beams were in the center, which is designed this way to sustain the high winds above. All it takes is a few floors to buckle down, and the supports in the center collapses like dominos. It it seemed like a controlled-demolition, it wasn't. The support beams were in the middle and the direction would be going straight down, which would seem like an implosion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/metal.html#

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-2ExecutiveSummary.pdf

---

Thank you for using your head...... using logic is good.:thumbsup:

There's also video of the outer walls buckling inward as the support beams give way and the entire structure begins to collapse downward from the middle, beginning the 'pancaking' process.

I would still say that fire brought it down though, by burning away walls and other supporting structures, putting too much pressure on the primary supports. The heat also weakened the supports (heated metal isn't as structurally sound as unheated metal, whether it melts or not). Or to rephrase: without the fire, I don't think the collapse would have occurred.

I don't think that the collapse could have been caused by the fire. That leaves the only other two possibilities being that it collapsed because of a few floors "buckeling down" like bongman said or that it was caused by thermite or some other shit.

I did some research and basically I found out that there's absolutely no way that the center columbs where melted by jet-fuel. Steel melts at 2500 degrees F. The Jet fuel burns at around 425 degrees F and it would have all burned up within a minute or two leaving shit around the office to burn until the buildings actually collapsed. And you have to take into account the fact that these planes couldn't have been fully fueled. And steels critical tempurature is at 1,100 degrees F, where it loses about half of it's stability.

Remember that the North tower had an intense fire in 1975 and suffered no structural damage.

In any case, a fire couldn't possibly have brought down those buildings. It's scientifically impossible. I'm sure there's a logical explanation that the official report fucked up on. -the official report says that they collapsed solely because of a fire-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordSmaug

I want someone to tell me exactly how the a hell fire brought down steel reinforced with concrete buildings.

I'm a real skeptic demanding to be convinced and so far the Conspiracy side is winning because no one else is showing me why the conspirators are wrong, they're just repeating that "they're wrong and stupid".
.

---

In addition to the NIST report, you can look up and watch the two very thorough documentaries that were done about a year after 9/11 in which they talk to the architects and engineers who built the towers as well as a wide variety of architects and engineers who did forensic investigations after the collapses. These aired on PBS and still run periodically on Discovery or the History Channel. They're called "Why the Towers Fell" and were done by "Frontline," which features the most well-researched documentary and in-depth news work available on TV today. There were two more excellent documentaries about the structural collapse and the events of that day that air periodically on Discovery and the History Channel. I will try to find their names as well. These documentaries go into impressive, scientifically backed detail about how the intense heat up in the area where the planes hit melted the structural supports in that section, causing them to bulge out and weaken, allowing the process of collapse to begin. I think you'd enjoy watching them, and I suspect documentaries in general and PBS in particular are probably not part of your regular TV repertoire.

They don't have to melt for them to be significantly weakened by heat, and the NIST report showed that the temperature reached more than 1800 degrees in pockets, plenty enough to substantially weaken them. I really think that, without the fire and its effects, the structures would have withstood the actual kinetic energy of the planes themselves, although the WTC buildings were designed to withstand impacts from somewhat smaller jets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordSmaug

I don't think that the collapse could have been caused by the fire.

---

Oh, well I guess that settles it.

Quote:

---

I did some research

---

You mean you read a whole bunch of conspiracy theorist websites?

Quote:

---

and basically I found out that there's absolutely no way that the center columbs where melted by jet-fuel.

---

Yup.

Quote:

---

Steel melts at 2500 degrees F. The Jet fuel burns at around 425 degrees F and it would have all burned up within a minute or two leaving shit around the office to burn until the buildings actually collapsed.

---

First of all, jet fuel burns at 800°F to 1500°F, not 425°. And it wasn't the only thing burning...airplane seats, luggage, computers, office desks, and things like that continued to burn too. A lot of it was made out of wood and hydrocarbon-based plastics which can sustain very high temperatures for a long time.

Quote:

---

And you have to take into account the fact that these planes couldn't have been fully fueled.

---

Not fully, but they had taken off from Boston and were headed for the west coast, so they were mostly full.

Quote:

---

And steels critical tempurature is at 1,100 degrees F, where it loses about half of it's stability.

---

Right. The intense heat of the burning jet fuel, airplane parts and office materials was able to get the steel up to about that temperature, and the structure was unable to sustain the loss of stability.

Quote:

---

Remember that the North tower had an intense fire in 1975 and suffered no structural damage.

---

But did it have a giant gaping hole in it caused by an aircraft smashing into the side of the building at full speed? Believe it or not, that kind of thing can cause some structural problems.

Quote:

---

In any case, a fire couldn't possibly have brought down those buildings. It's scientifically impossible.

---

How so? You haven't shown me that it is.

Quote:

---

I'm sure there's a logical explanation that the official report fucked up on. -the official report says that they collapsed solely because of a fire-

---

Well, if it was caused by the building being filled with tons and tons of explosives, that would have been easily detectable by the firemen. Were they all in on the conspiracy too?

OK ok the fire............

what about the structural damage? watch the video again..... how they didnt fall on impact is beyond me.............like BA says it was just a matter of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LordSmaug

I keep reading peoples comments on here who claim to be engineers. That's all you guys say "uh, yeah, i'm an engineer, and fire definitly took out the towers"

I'm not calling you liars i'm just saying that you're not answering any questions. I want someone to tell me exactly how the a hell fire brought down steel reinforced with concrete buildings.

I'm a real skeptic demanding to be convinced and so far the Conspiracy side is winning because no one else is showing me why the conspirators are wrong, they're just repeating that "they're wrong and stupid".

.."Jet fuel burns at around 425 degrees F"

---

So if Jet fuel burns at 425F how do planes get off the ground? They wouldnâ??t.. but if jet fuel IGNITES at 425F and then proceeds to burn MUCH hotter... then the plane would take off. Look into combustion turbine dynamics since I know you donâ??t believe me because I voted for Bush.

In all fairness.. I will say there are a lot of things in this world I have to take someone elseâ??s word for because I have no idea and not enough desire to find out the truth for myself.. like say Art.. I couldnâ??t tell you if one painting looks better than another.. but if your an Art person and you tell me.. I will take your word for it because its probably true. I donâ??t know the first thing about art appreciation and I donâ??t think I really ever will.

The moral of this story is.. pretty please.. with sugar on top.. if you continue to refuse to develop the background required to accurately interpret the very limited sources of information that somehow find their way to you.. let it go.

Aaron....... they just hate Bush, and America so bad they just twist the truth to fit the hate....

I hate Bush too, and the American government (not America...it's kind of hard to hate 300 million people I don't know, or the expanse of land between Canada and Mexico), but I'm not going to just parrot anything that portrays them in a negative light. I find it better to use logic and evidence to make my points. There are enough real reasons to hate Bush that we don't need to make shit up.

Morons all of you, Nowhere i the 9-11 Documents does it ever say that the Steel Melted! It got so hot that the steel buckled, which started a chain effect, But it did not melt. God you Tin Foil hat guys are gullable...