fact is that tons of molten steel were found in the basements - try to liquify steel with kerosine ... TRY IT and lemme know ... you will never report success - FACT! :2 cents:

what really pisses me most of those who refuse to ask questions ...

::: WHY THE FUCK WERE THE BASEMENTS FILLED WITH MOLTEN STEEL? NO-ONE SEEMS TO CARE - NOR TRIES TO EXPLAIN IT ::: all those official story believers bend the question and say "you dont need to melt it" BUT IT WAS GDAMMIT!!! NOW EXPLAIN TO ME: WHY?! THAT IS THE MOST CRUCIAL QUESTION!

I don't want to group all official story believers together, as not all believe exactly the same story, so I know this won't apply to all of you.

There's a major flaw in your arguments. On the one hand you believe that if one floor near the top of a skyscraper is hit it will take the whole skyscraper down in it's own footprint, but when people say to you that this is a controlled demolition, the rules change and you say "They wouldn't have time to rig the whole skyscrapers up", but according to your first belief only one floor needs to be taken out, so doing a controlled demolition of one floor perhaps with some burning jet fuel added for good measure would be enough.

Is it possible that the controlled demolition firms have been ripping us off for all these years, pretending they needed to work long hours rigging up a whole building, using far more explosives there were necessary, when all they really needed to do was blow up one floor near the top?

Assumptions are dangerous, it is only the highest-order of thinking that questions the assumptions that most of us make. This order of thinking is known as critical thinking. Next time you watch the news, don't believe what you're told, question everything, no more assumptions. Research for yourself :thumbsup

seriously.. like an accident... i just can't help slow down and watch.

oh yeah ... then watch THIS video VERY CLOSELY ... an unedited footage ... a CURSOR with a jet stream? lmao ...

It's been debunked. I would post the link but it is on another forum.

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

fact.

And why did the powers that be allow no inspection of the rubble?

Radio controlled demolition was prob used. Not wires.

Overload, good post on the fact that no steel frame building pancakes perfectly unless all beams are cut properly.

Lucy, right on the button on all posts.

This whole "the beams were weakened so it pancaked" just doesnt hold up.

Also, all it takes is the owners paying one small group of demolition experts a huge sum and they easily shut up for ten years. There doesnt have to be a lot of people involved to pull this off.

A lot money buys the arab leaders. Who get some patsys. And it happens. Perfect diversion.

Now whether the skies were cleared by the govt that day? Seems there were some fighters up who were called off. The sky was not cleared the whole day. Maybe just a bad call by the govt and not a govt conspiracy.

Show me how the govt was def involved? I may be missing some details.

Yes the govt and mil ind complex gained big time from the tragedy but that doesnt prove anything.

I find it hardest to believe that the govt and the owners were conspired alho if it was at the very top of the govt only it could happen with less involved.

Then again ever hear of the Free Masons?

At least one of the owners and the Bushes are known members.

Bottom line imo, someone demolished the Twin Towers. How big a conspiracy I dont know.

:1orglaugh

One last thing, I swear :) there are only two big motives:

1) A trillion dollar swing for the owners. 1/2 trill lost or 1/2 trill gained on insurance (these are numbers I had heard so this is only hearsay :) ) on what the Port Authority was assessing in needed repairs and wiring and other repairs to bring the towers up to code. Could explain why Bldg 7 had to go.

Why would they kill all these people? The only motive is the trillion dollar swing. It had to be an accident. To collect on the insurance. Which they did in 2005 (I believe that was the year).

2) Going to war.

So the two parties (owners and govt (Bushes) and other powerful mil ind interests) coming together at a Free Masons meeting or somewhere else... eh could happen.

It is interesting anyhow and I respect all opinions. Mine may not be right. Just how I lean. :) Some of you have done way more research so I will bow out of the discussion now and honor your expertise. :)

jesus christ what a stupid bitch

No, the temperature steel melts at is not a constant. It depends on the alloys used to make the steel. However, this is a pointless discussion because the fire was in the 600 degree range, which is about half of what steel generally melts at. The steel didn't need to melt - it needed to be weakened.

The building was constructed so that if some of the supports failed, it would shift the load bearing to other columns. This means that is "one column" failed, it would still stand. But dozens of columns were destroyed by the impact, and many many more weakened by the fire. That was just the start.

What most likely caused the building to collapse was the angle clips that held the floors in place - the joints that attached the floor to both the outer shell to the inner core. Once enough of these failed, one floor fell onto another floor.

It's also possible that the outer box columns began to bow outward, leaving entire floors without support. In other words, the outer walls heated and expanded and moved outward, and the concrete floor - which did not expand - was pulled on until the joints holding it up failed.

Can you show me a video of a building tipping over?

One floor failed to have enough support, and it fell down. DOWN. It did not tip over, it fell down. That hit the floor below it, which also fell DOWN. And so on. It wouldn't have tipped over because everything was falling DOWN.

That's incorrect. While there was a huge hole on the top of the towers where the plane impacted, every floor below it not affected was still in fact pressurized. All that air had to go someplace.

And this my problem with all the 9/11 conspiracy theories. There is a logical explanation for everything that happened.

But the big question is "why?". So we could attack Afghanistan? Afghanistan is a land locked country with no oil. Oh yeah, the pipeline? TEN YEARS later and that pipeline STILL ISN'T BUILT. I saw a new idea the other day saying that they did it because of asbestos. That was funny.

TOTAL BULLSHIT! for how long did it burn? 90 minutes? how many tons cud that possibly produce? less than ONE if any because the falling metal flow is cooled on its long way down :2 cents: fact! no way cud that lil flow produce a metal lake that burns soles of steel cap shoes for ... FOR 3 WEEKS! besides, this shit you mean lands OUTSIDE and NOT in the basement as one can obviously see ... so, TOTAL BULLSHIT!

I think your wrong here. One floor does not hold the weight of the floor above it. The outer shell and the inner core are what support the floors, and the floors are "suspended" between the two.

Like this:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...ar/fig5-sm.gif

But that's an impossible task.

In the 1940s we were pretty sure an attack from Japan was coming, but not where or when. In hindsight now it seems obvious, but in 1941 Hawaii was a military outpost - it was not a US state then or even a tourist destination then. It was also one of a dozen or so US military outposts in the Pacific. Don't think the US military knew it was coming and knew where the attack would be.

Likewise, we know another attack is coming. But you can't prepare for it if you don't know when, where, how, and who. In the summer of 2001 no one imagined that we could have a terrorist attack like this on US soil - even though they had already targeted the WTC before.

Thing is discussions like this can only be solved in one way due to the truthers standing by their corner till death and those who believe the government standing by their corner till death.

That way is a knife fight.

Truthers crack me up. No facts, just theory.

:1orglaugh

Easy for you to say :) I do feel better :) except now I have 2 secret societies, 6 govt agents, 22 secret agents, 3 rich families and several other unmentionables incl the ghost of Aleister Crowley after me. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Yeah easy for you to say. :)

http://www.sqvirtual.com/img/aleistercrowley1.png

pretty hip dude old Aleister in 1906 (those eyes look like he wants to perform evil experiments) Prob f'd up on something.

Is he the (evil) grandfather of certain secret societies? Cough! cough! Free Masons. Or at least a staunch member? That is what I hear.

Edward Alexander Crowley
Born 12 October 1875(1875-10-12)
Royal Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, England

Died 1 December 1947(1947-12-01) (aged 72)
Hastings, East Sussex, England

Yearly Percentage of Nutjobs as Perceived by the Official Story Believers

2006 - 22%
2007 - 29%
2008 - 37%
2009 - 47%
2010 - 59%
2011 - 70%
Unless current propaganda techniques improve, then...
2012 - 76%
2013 - 80%

At what point will you have a reality check to see if there really are so many nutjobs around these days? Maybe it's time to listen :thumbsup

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llyio8FdNm1qdjxpm.gif

just an appropriate gif for this entire thread, from the OP to this post :2 cents:

:1orglaugh While I'm not religious or anything, this did come to mind

Revelation 9:6 NIV

During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them. :helpme

Why is it the people who think 20 third world peasants could pull off 9/11 without any help believe it would take "thousands" of people if the US Government had done it?

Now there's a good point! :thumbsup I believe they think that as that's what's pumped out in the "Debunking" Propaganda

Michael Westen did it.

http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/graphics...nNotice-S1.jpg

I can't stand rubberneckers on the freeway, drives me CRAZY.

The melting steel streaming down from the building was "debunked" if you want, but no one has explained the molten metal beneath the rubble and in the basements which lasted for months and was detectable by satellite view.

What would justify this stupid comment? Apart from the schoolyard name calling, you just ignore what she asks, which is completely valid.

If the official conspiracy theory is true, and the buildings collapsed due to office fires, there should be a huge investigation and re-evaluation of everything we think we know about steel constructions.

Which is hard to do since the rubble was removed immediately unlike every other plane crash and building collapse before.

So right after asking why the building construction wasn't investigated, you have to ask why was all the evidence removed before it could be inspected.

So who's the stupid bitch here?

Bureaucracy. If the government had done it there would be a load of paperwork to fill out.

Yes, agreed, and I was generalizing about the steel.

Actually the core didn't have "dozens" of columns compromised. The only part/s of the plane that could have affected the core were the engines, and nowhere near "dozens" were compromised.

Regardless, no matter how many or how the structural supports were affected, the building should not or could not have fallen symmetrically - the symmetry is the week point of any argument, especially three times in one day.


"Most likely" and other suppositions are as convincing as demolition possibles without the science, which NIST was unable to provide...

Again, "possibles" and maybes and such isn't much stronger than truther theory, and much less credible than scientific analysis of powder remain (the thermate thing).

Regardless, you can't explain the multiple symmetry of all three first-time collapse occurences that day...








This would be fin if 20-tonne pieces of the WTC towers weren't flung 600 feet away.

Also, if your pile-driver theory were valid, why would it take so little time? What you're advocating is that somehow uncompromised floors reacted the same as compromized/weakened floors, and that the whole thing could have fallen in ten seconds instead of 100 or so seconds, if it took about one second per floor as it should have if the 9already discredited0 pancake theory were valid.

Ok so the lower floors were uncompromised, even still presurrized - so why did they fall or collapse so easily?

There is in fact not really a "logical explanation" for most of what happened, without new qustions arising each and every time. What bugs me about all this is the huge amount of unanswered questions, from the building construct to the family members who have simply been ignored.

Well, back when the US was friends with the Taliban, they were needing security for the pipeline. Now with permanent bases they've gotten that security.

But Afghanistan was just a rehearsal for Iraq, and meant to look like they were hunting for bin Laden. Of course that's my conjecture and I could provide lots of links that refer to that,, but that doesn't have that much to do with the 9/11 attacks directly...

:D

stupid euro half-wit. use your brain and read.

A couple of videos on Youtube can explain all building collapse physics questions/variables for every situation on planet earth. Thanks for cracking the case.

the buildings didnt just collapse because of fire donkey, planes slammed into them and weakened the structure of the buildings. the now weakened structures burnt and subsequently collapsed. it wasnt just fire that fell the buildings.

but yeah youre right,k the government should be testing and rebuilding all steel strctures in case planes fly into them again :Oh crap

If you were able to read instead of just watch videos you'd understand my post to Rochard better. Good luck!

Yes the plane impacts made a difference. But two buildings hit in a different way collapsing in an identical and improbable way are beyond suspicious. A third building also falling symmetrically intoi its own footpront, as they say, is even more suspicious.

Donkey?!?

To anser the OP's post:

the goverment diidn't 'do it per se but...

if they didn't, they knew all about it,

and they loved it.

:D

Hahahahaha

In answer to the thread title...only the ignorant and the plumb dumb.

Some of us are not so keen to trust a channel whose logo has two 2 masonic pillars and a pyramid to the side :thumbsup

Of course dozens of columns were compromised. Here's a picture:

http://www.documentingreality.com/fo...-wtc-fires.jpg

From Wikipedia:
Again, the supports holding the floor in place - between what was left of the outer shell and the inner core fell. It fell down at least one story with the force of 300 tons. It took out the floor below it, and the floor below that.

The videos you showed (which surprised me really) seem to be more of the support of the building failing, which caused it the building to lean. In this case, the supports were still in place, but the floors were no longer attached to it. The floors fell down on each other, and continued to fall taking out other floors until it started to pull the entire structure with it.

You've mentioned this before and I'm not sure why. Your saying that the buildings fell straight down, but 20 ton pieces were flung 600 feet away? Which is it?

You need to understand the size of the towers. They were 210 feet wide - each side. When the towers fell, they took up more than 200 feet by 200 feet at the base. The towers went down hundreds of feet taking out a subway station, parking, and shopping centers, and also went out too. Millions of tons of concrete fell, and it should come as no surprise that it fell 600 feet away. Just think about the amount of force those tons of steel and concrete and what not fell.... An entire city block was destroyed - a huge city block.

A slab of concrete weighing 300 tons was suspended between the outer shell and the inner core. It fell, and when it fell it fell an entire story - what's that, fourteen feet? More? - and slammed into another 300 ton floor. Your looking at the floor below it as something that should stop the falling, but it didn't. The joints were meant to support 300 tons, not 300 tons and another 300 tons falling on top of it. Now 600 tons of steel and concrete are falling onto another floor. Your thinking it should have met with resistance at each floor, but the truth is none of the floors had any hope of holding this for even a fraction of a second and it quickly picked up momentum because it was picking up mass and weight.

You also mentioned how quickly the towers fell. Did they really fall that fast?

On this video, we can see the tower started to collapse at the fourteen second mark. However, that's only what we can see. We can't what was happening inside of the building; We can't see see if entire floors fell before that mark.



We also can't see when the building finally stopped - it's covered in dust. Seems to me on this video it was fifteen seconds, but that's only what we can see.

And I think there is a logical explanation for everything.

Why did WTC7 fall? Because billions of tons of concrete fell at it's doorstep. You don't question why a bridge falls during an earthquake, but a building that has millions of tons of concrete dropped at it's doorstep, destroying the entire front of the building, suffering earthquake like movements, and being on fire fifteen hours... What do you think is gonna happen?

Here's a picture of the progression of damage of WTC7...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rogression.png

Everything here is completely explained.

And again with the oil and the pipeline. Ten years after 9/11 this pipeline hasn't been built! And who is behind this magical pipeline that doesn't yet exist? Take a look at the first sentence on Wikipedia:

But even if this pipeline was to be build, it changes nothing. There's already pipelines in place without going through Afghanistan.

At the same time keep in mind where the bulk of America gets it's oil from - Canada and Mexico. If this was about oil and pipelines, why haven't we knocked off Canada and Mexico? We don't even need an excuse to fuck with Mexico....