Where to begin?

A lot of people I have spoken to have trouble getting past the sheer madness of it. They never get to examining the actual facts of that day because, how could our government do that to it's own people? And what would they have to gain?

Is government complicity in 9/11 a crazy notion? Yes.

But no crazier than some of the other crap they have cooked up. Case in point: Operation Northwoods.

Now declassified, the Northwoods documents detail a covert psychological operation intended to rally foreign and domestic support for military intervention against Cuba. (Starting to sound familiar yet?)

The operation included, among other things, this little gem: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba...casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Read the declassified Northwoods documents I linked to - They are actual plans to wage psychological warfare on the American people. They are a black & white refutation of your statement.

Maybe I should have cited the Gulf of Tonkin lie that got us into Vietnam. Doesn't quite have the parallelism of Northwoods, but still relevant.

Its hard to cite the specific motivation but watch this video, it contains some hard evidence. BTW, here is a related debate.

If the government were involved, speculating on its motivations is fruitless. We don't have the classified 9/11 Psy Op document (if there is such a thing)... and look how crazy that Northwoods document sounds. I'm looking at it, and it's still hard to believe!

The questions of this debate are merely:

1. are there elements in the Bush administration crazy enough, stupid enough, and lacking in conscience and decency enough, to terrorize and murder it's own citizens in the pursuit of a political agenda, and

2. is there credible evidence that the government covered up their own involvement?

That being said, I can't resist pointing out the following:

We didn't frame Afghanistan, we pinned it on "the terrorists," specifically, Al-Quaeda. For a corrupt and sinister government, this is actually a better scapegoat because it gives us the right (so says Bush) to attack any country (including say, Iran) as long as we label them terrorists first. In addition, the CIA could have found no better accomplice than Al-Quaeda, since the CIA created and trained them to begin with, and they are fanatical muslims to boot.

Let me point out that there is a huge difference between orchestrating an apparent attack on destroyers already deployed to a foreign land and demolishing a building that in many respects symbolized Americas economic dominance, actually killing American citizens and attacking our own military command; finally attempting to attack our own government? None of this makes any sense from any perspective and I for one don't see any of the so called "evidence" that supposedly "proves" that 9/11 was a fake as being particularly convincing.

Well, I posted a link to the Northwoods papers which are massively relevant to the 9/11 conspiracy angle...

Anywho, you're saying the Gulf of Tonkin LIE is not relevant to the 9/11 conspiracy angle? Well, I fail to see how it is not.

Pres. Johnson wanted to rally support for a war in Vietnam. But like always, the American people don't want to send their kids to die for some Washington political agenda. What to do? Let's LIE and deceive the American people into thinking the first attack was unprovoked (our ship wasn't "deployed" there. Johnson told the American people it was "patrolling," ie, combat neutral, when in fact it was secretly coordinating with the the S. Vietnamese forces, ie, taking sides) Let's LIE a second time and say there was a followup attack. Let's LIE yet a third time and tell the American people that there is a credible threat of continued attacks against neutral (lie) American patrols (lie) that are minding their own business (lie).

The president LIED so he could send American kids to die in the jungle for a political agenda.

Just like Bush LIED so he could send American kids to die in the desert for a political agenda.

The point I'm making with Tonkin is that our Government has LIED to us in the past. Governments LIE. How many men died in Vietnam for a lie? How many men are still dying in Iraq for a lie?

If presidents can lie about pretexts for war, what else can they lie about? What other lies have Americans died for? Was 9/11 a lie? Is it really unthinkable? Is there a small possibility?

There is a famous liar who went far beyond the worst of what the 9/11 conspiracy anglers have suggested of this government. And he has some famous advice for Liars in positions of power...

Like Johnson and Bush, he lied to rally his people to war and invade Poland. He dressed up some of his SS in Polish army uniforms and simulated a Polish invasion. To what end? With no formal war declaration, Germany invaded Poland in 1939. It was the beginning of WWII.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."

from Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler

Good points, but I disagree.

1. Complexity: "think of what it would take to do it and how many people would have to be involved."

It's a military and CIA proposition. Did you know Jeb Bush owned the company that handled WTC security in the weeks preceding the attacks?

Did you know that Larry Silverstein, who bought the lease to the WTC towers in the months before the attack (despite the fact that the WTC towers were a losing proposition and in need of a costly asbestos cleanup program, in the billions of dollars) explicitly insured the towers against acts of terrorism, and has since collected something like 14 Billion in insurance claims? (As a matter of fact, they wanted to blow up the towers legally--cheaper that way--but NYC wouldn't let them release all that asbestos into downtown Manhattan).

Did you know that while the hijacked planes were in the air, speeding to their targets, the vast majority of U.S. military air power was in the middle of a massive training simulation involving--you'll never guess--hijacked planes targeting the World Trade Center towers.

2. Secrecy. "And if you have a lot of people involved, then you will eventually have someone "tell" all. No one can keep a secret..."

Because of the sheer number of people involved at some level in the alleged conspiracy, most of the people played only minor roles. Somebody recruited the hijackers (for example). Somebody else bought the plane tickets. Somebody else got the explosives, still others actually placed the explosives; somebody else got the order pack up all the steel columns and put them on a boat to China to be recycled with no forensic investigation. When lots of people have very small roles, yes, you can have suspicions, but it's not so easy to come forward and break the story, even if you wanted to. As you may have noticed, there is a lot of resistance to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. Even those who participated might have little to no proof of what happened that day. I refer you to Hitler's "Big Lie" monologue I posted elsewhere. In addition, those who know more about what happened that day might fear reprisal from American citizens: a lot of Americans died in those towers; firemen, policemen...As for the alleged Big Dogs, like Cheney and other senior people....They have gotten rich off the aftermath of 9/11 (war profiteering). Listen to the lies they peddled to us on Iraq. Senior administration people are well-trained liars--you think they'd have an attack of concscience or something?

The 9/11 commission omits the presence of molten steel from their official report. It took weeks for rescue workers to water-cool the glowing steel beneath the wreckage at ground zero. It was clearly and prominently visible in a thermal image taken by a USGS satellite on September 16--five days later.

In the video, one of the workers states that it has been almost 6 weeks after the attacks, and workers are still trying to cool down the steel.

The 9/11 commission and supporters of the official story don't try to make the claim that office fires produce molten steel. They just ignore it.

The 9/11 commission omits the presence of molten steel from their official report.

The 9/11 commission omitted it because...??? What is this deep dark secret they don't want the American public to know?

Which, according to you is easily figured out anyway.

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay...

OMG. Couple of CIA guys brainstorming for solutions to a problem and people go nuts. If that's the worst of what they contemplated...I'm not impressed.

I'm sure conspiracies happen all the time but they are so rare as to be insignifigant. My wife and I can't even agree on a restaurant.

We've seen the footage of the WTC Towers collapsing straight down, into their own footprint, at nearly free-fall speed, so many times that it can start to look "normal" somehow.

Nevertheless, it is not normal. Buildings don't collapse straight down, into their own footprint, at nearly free-fall speed--at least, not without proper planning.

I'm surprised all the Demolition companies didn't go out of business after 9/11. Apparently all you have to do is set a steel-frame building on fire for a couple of hours and they collapse perfectly without any planning or explosives. Right?

Take a look at what happens in this failed demolition video. According to the 9/11 pancake theory, the force of the remaining upper floors of the building hitting the ground should have precipitated a massive "vertical failure" resulting in "global collapse."

Reposted from the WTC7 debate for relevance

Wow...the History Channel and TLC or Discovery both did animated stories of exactly why the WTC suffered a catastrophic collapse.

Even at the time of the collapse architects and engineers both agreed that the temperatures created by burning jet fuel is more then enough to melt girders. Collapse would have been inevitable. The only question was the speed with which it took place.

The problem was two fold. All the girders and support structures were insulated. What happened was that the inertia of a plane wasn't taken into account and the insulation was basically 'knocked' off as the plane hit. That still shouldn't have been enough.

The second part of the problem is that the central core of the building, where the elevators were, is 'the' support structure for the building. Plans originally called for stronger walls surrounding this core. They were replaced with simpler facings. It's not entirely clear how much of a difference the original design would have helped but it is clear that the redesign did absolutely nothing to impede the momentum of the aircrafts.

Structural damage to that core was the major cause of the WTC collapse.

But let's go with the theory, I think, you're proposing.

Hire/inspire a large group of terrorist into committing a coordinated attack. Then coordinate that with operatives planting some type of thermal device within the WTC building. There by doubling your chances that either end of the plot will be discovered.

Let's say I buy your theory.

1. Why is it so important to collapse two entire towers? I may not be an expert in psychology but an attack on the towers and the pentagon killing hundreds, should be more then enough to spur the American people to exact revenge.

Even if you say it is important. Both...Both...Both Towers??? You are asking me to believe that our government wouldn't be happy if hundreds died and they could tie it into terrorism. They wouldn't be happy if a thousand died, "a" tower collapsed and they could tie it into terrorism. You want me to believe that our government wanted thousand"s" to die, two towers to collapse and tie it all into terrorism. So basically you're saying Bush wanted to hit the "big bang trifecta"?

The same Bush who displays incompetency like ornaments on a Christmas tree. The same Bush who had a difficult time coordinating government relief in New Orleans? With experienced agencies who've coordinated relief efforts before mind you.

This alone should be enough but let's say I still believe your theory has merit...

2. Is the catastrophic collapse worth exponentially increasing your risk of discovery; two ends of a plot, more people involved, a longer money trail, added complexity???

3. Why attack the pentagon too?

4. Why bother to cover up the thermal devices within??? If someone figures it out, roll your eyes in wonder and confirm how brilliantly conceived the terrorist plot truly was.

5. Same as #2. Is the cover up worth increasing your chance of discovery. You pointed out how easy it was to discover the truth?

6. Is it possible the 'molten steel' wasn't mentioned because who cares? What difference does it make? There was paper littered all over the place. They didn't mention that. There was a lady on a wheelchair in the stairwell they didn't mention that. Oh my what are we to read into all these omissions?

Szechuan...you are the person the terrorist were targeting. All the people in the tower were killed to get to you. People like you sowing the seeds of doubt. People like you spreading paranoia. Don't let the terrorists get to you Szechuan. Remain strong; if not for your country then for apple pie and hot dogs.

How does the lack of molten steel in the commission report indicate that the government planned 9/11? This wasn't an ordinary "office fire" as you state in your argument. It's well documented that jets ran in to the Twin Towers with full tanks of jet fuel.

From the NIST website, "Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.

The lack of molten steel in the report indicates one thing: The working hypothesis is insufficient.

9/11 was a historic and tragic event. It has radically altered the political discourse and shaped America's foreign and domestic policy for the last 6-7 years. Don't you think our government should be interested in a full and complete investigation? We spent more on the Challenger disaster($3million vs $50million). Considering the investigation doesn't appear to be complete, it seems reasonable to invest another $47million or so, what do you say?

I agree with NIST's first proposition. I even agree with some of the claims in their 2nd proposition, but it goes too far.

See the link below for a plausible look at the actual energy unleashed by the burning jet-fuel.

Even if you believe NIST's claim that a massively compromised support structure on a handful of floors could cause a global collapse, how could it have created the molten steel furnaces that burned for weeks beneath the rubble at Ground Zero?

That's why molten steel is important. It proves that the 9/11 commission's hypothesis is not sufficient to explain all the data. If you can explain the molten steel with the 9/11 commission's facts, I'm ready to hear the alternative viewpoint. So far, the best your side can come up with is, Oh, molten steel is irrelevant.

You have a really good point here and I'm in noway inclined to defend Bush (or Johnson) but I still think that you haven't made the full case on how 9/11 would directly resulted in the Iraq War. It seems like 9/11 was a better case for invading Afghanistan. If the true goal was to invade Iraq, don't you think the government would have tried to pin the attacks directly on Saddam Hussein?

This is probably the most wanted to know question in the world. Until "PROOF" comes about its speculation...and in the USA speculation has no grounds but i think we all know someone had a hand in it... even with out proof im saying yah.

NEXT!

proof is already present.:ae911truth.org

here is some "proof" that counters many of the non-free fall conspiracy theories.

1. blame the terrorists

2. fight the terrorists in afghanistan

3. then fight the terrorists in iraq

4. possibly fight the terrorists in iran...?

5. ...yeah. pretty much anywhere there are terrorists we can start a war (says bush) except maybe saudi arabia and pakistan, because they play ball.

A war on terror has no end and no borders.

How it was (most probably) done:

1. Don't build the buildings properly in the first place (X-beams left out due to rushing).

2. Get some R/C planes.

3. While before, fill the buildings with thermite & igniters so when ignited in time they cause the structure to fall in on itself to minimize outside damage.

4. Drop the air-defenses for the time needed to do the job (eg: turn off SAMs and divert interceptors somewhere else).

5. Have a training exercise running at the same time, to confuse the lower echelons of the Air force.

5. Do the job.

This falls into the category of "how many suspicious things must be revealed before the mounting questions tip the balance away from the official story?" By the official story I mean the explanation profferred by a government or other overarching body, and it always holds much more sway with the general public. But when presented with an "official story" about anything, I would encourage everyone to investigate the possible motives that the establishment would have for pushing this particular version of events.

In the case of 9-11, the official story serves so many purposes for the establishment that it starts to look very much like the event was a benefit to them and their associates. Just look at the Reichstag fire in 1933. It was blamed on communists and helped Nazi Germany consolidate power under Hitler. Once you start to accumulate enough advantages from a so called negative event, is it that much of a leap to actually think that the ones standing to gain were involved? Isn't it strange that the interests of radical Islam parallel the interests of the Bush administration so closely? Global unrest has allowed the Bush administration to impose so many of their policies, is it so hard to imagine him and his business partners pumping their fists in the corridor of the White House?

was there a reason to invade Iraq? A reason to invade Afghanistan? A reason to go into Vietnam? I mean, real, valid, sensible reasons. No. Is there a reason to think that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Gov? Yes, since in all other decisions regarding national security and belligerent action the US government has acted irrationally, hence if attacking your own people seems irrational to more than 50% of the public, then it has more than 50% chance for it to have been a decision taken by the gov.

How can two towers, hit by two different planes, at two different impact altitudes and with different speed, with different fuel loads can create exactly the same type of damage to identical towers?

If you wish to refute the identical towers claim, then how can the two towers differ in such a way, that their physical differences compensate the differences stated above, and still cause the same type of damage?

Vertical collapse after a horizontal impact sounds almost cartoonish doesn't it?

Either the buildings were specifically designed to fall in such a way or it was arranged for it to fall like that.

Regarding the whole, molten steel, weakened steel effect theory, since when are steel columns all uniform? Steel uniformity is so hard to achieve, that the steel structures of transcontinental cruise liners and cargo ships have to be manufactured to very specific properties in order to withstand the rigors of seafaring. Steel used in building construction during the 60s could hardly be ascertained as uniform, especially if it came from different foundries.

So, again, how can so many differences in all the variables required for proper demolition be accounted for without the planned demolition theory?

The thing about the CIA brainstorming:

If they came up with that idea, means that it some cases it's a valid idea, and it means that in some cases it has been the accepted procedure.

I'd imagine that the people installing whatever joint replacement would notice if it was rigged to blow - these things tend to be no more than steel. What's more, replacing a structural component of a building is no small task, it would require floors to be shut down and temporary buttresses to be installed so that the replacement could occur without weakening the building. These things are noticed.

Admittedly, at some point you can devise a scenario whereby the government is implicated. But that scenario is so far from being likely that it's negligible. The far, far more likely scenario is that it occurred precisely the way we perceived.

And it's not that I trust the government, it's that I don't believe the government is competent enough to pull it off.

If it wasn't done by us, we had something to do with it. (More than just our "freedom".)

OMG retard. Utterly vacuous argument.

123ddddddddddddd

Does not, and can not Explain how the entire steel frame of world trade centres 1 2 and 7 collapsed at free fall speed.

The section on free fall speed begins with the false assertion that other parts of the building falling faster than the building itself are proof that the building itself collapsed slower than free fall speed.

NIST can't explain either. It is pretending to be able to, but any competent observer can see they fail to explain the free fall and the molten iron/steel.

If you have seen the collapse of WTC 7 1 and 2 and don't call them controlled demolitions, you either don't understand Newtonian physics or are lying.

Here's a far more rational and scientific demonstration:- 911blogger.com/node/10025

You're talking about 2 planes, flying at hundreds of miles an hour, filled with jet fuel, with enormous amounts of mass, colliding with fixed steel structures. Imagine 200 tons of steel and jet fuel crashing into structures. If you take a Hummer and a Volkswagen and have one travel at 50mph and the other at 100mph and crash them into stop sign the outcome is the same, the sign is done for.

Done for for sure, but bent, not collapsed in its base.

From the top of page 2: "The widely accepted account that hijackers commandeered and crashed the four 9/11 planes is supported by reams of evidence, from cockpit recordings to forensics to the fact that crews and passengers never returned home."

To those who reject the official story: how do you account for this evidence?

Page 4 provides a mere seven paragraphs of despicable lies dealing with core claims to help government terrorists get away with murder.

The first three paragraphs insults alert people and confuses dimwits by asserting that lobby damage was as a result of burning jet fuel falling hundreds of metres down the lift shaft, when the vast majority of it visibly burned up on impact in a large fireball and other eyewitnesses (William Rodriguez and others) have testified to hearing and feeling bombs in the basement IN ADVANCE of the plane impacts.

Then the releveant section follows up with deception by omission- A collapse itself doesn't require melted steel but the SPEED of collapse DOES:- "However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength"

Explosives make objects accelerate FASTER than free-fall acceleration.

"In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground."

Here is the necessary proof : video presentations by ae911truth.org, which has the support of 380 architects and engineers.

911blogger.com/node/10025

and

911blogger.com/node/14020

Ok, I've seen the video where they blow the bottom floor of a building and it doesn't collapse into itself (I'll call this building number one). The floors near the top of the towers blow up and the whole thing collapses. Why did the towers not behave the same as building number one? If you're going to use the video of building number one as evidence then the conclusion would be that you would have to blow every floor in order to get the towers to collapse onto itself. However, there are no explosions on the subsequent floors.

The premise that this was an inside job doesn't make sense. Assuming that that it is an inside job, why not just blow every floor of the tower and have some terrorist group claim responsibility. They have tried to blow it up before. It would have killed a little less people but it would have had the same effect and it would have been easier to pull of logistically. I mean, the hardest part is to get the explosives in place. Once in place, why have a plane crash into it and then set of the explosives? Just blow it up. A plane just adds to the complexity of an inside job and added complexity increases the likelihood of failure. Why risk it. Imagine how bad it would have been (for the insiders) if the plane crashes into it, then they set of the explosives and the explosives in the middle malfunction and don't go off. If you were an insider trying to blame the terrorist and cover your tracks, would you take this chance? Would you risk proof that the plane had nothing to do with the explosions near the lower floors? Or would you just say, "The terrorist infiltrated our security, planted the bombs and blew the whole thing up." Same dramatic effect (the towers collapsing) same results (people pissed off at terrorist) and no risk of a plane hitting the top and the middle explosives not going off and the bottom explosives do go off.

What this video tells me is that you have to blow every floor in order to get a building to collapse onto itself. I don't see an explosion on every floor of the towers. This means that something other than explosives caused the towers to collapse. Could it have been the intense heat of the plane's burning fuel? We have to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges.

Burning jet fuel doesn't generate intense heat. Its flame point isn't even close to that required to melt steel, and melted steel IS required for the free fall collapse of the THREE towers:- anything less means that plastically deforming steel retains some resistance to the collapse, making free fall impossible.

Did you really see explosions in this video?

Look again.

All you can see is large clouds of grey dust being ejected from the bottom. It actually looks remarkably similar to the giant greyish dust cloud that progressively obscured the upper floors of the WTC towers as they collapsed.

Controlled demolition uses the building's own weight against it, by severing its support columns.

That source you linked to says that the columns fell faster than the surrounding floors: consistent with controlled demolition. In attempting to refute the collapse speed, he actually reinforces the controlled demolition theory. Regardless, no one says it fell at exactly free-fall speed. It fell at "near" free-fall speed. Like, give or take a second...that's pretty close.

This guy also "proves" that the giant pyroclastic flow didn't happen, because pyroclastic flows are a "minimum of 100 degrees C."

Pyroclastic flows, also known as gravity currents, are explained by fluid dynamics. It has nothing to do with temperature, rather with the difference in density between the flow and the surrounding air.

This is a video of 5 story concrete building. In no way do I see how this is relevant to a 110 glass and steel building.

Find the society of structural engineer's, or of civil engineer's or even of architects who support the notion that it was a planned demolition.

Do you see something that I don't?

I don't believe that the collapse of the 9/11 towers warrant as much investigation as the challenger disaster. There was a very evident cause of failure and there are few within the engineering community who doubt it.

Prof. Thomas Eager of the material sciences depart of MIT reaches the same conclusion as the NIST, even going so far as to specifically dismiss the claims of the 9/11 truth movement:

"These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

A debate site is doomed because it permits free and open discussion?

Maybe our side of the debate has more support because we've submitted more convincing evidence.

Here, here! We should consider all the evidence in an open, honest and transparent way.

"It is already common knowledge that many key reports and forecasts of forthcoming terrorist attacks were not headed by those in the government. This is simply proof of the ignorance of those responsible for our safety not of their guilt in a treasonous conspiracy to forward their own agenda."

I don't see how the government's failure to prevent the attacks proves their innocence....

Why, exactly, do you think we're in Iraq?

Since many of you are familiar with the NIST report and freely refer to it, consider this editorial written by Kevin Ryan.

Mr. Ryan worked at Underwriters Laboratories (UL) -- the company that tested (and disproved) the pancake theory. The progressive collapse theory, which NIST fabricated later, was based on a distortion of data provided by UL.

Although he had recently been promoted, when Kevin Ryan asked too many uncomfortable questions, he was fired.

The Gov't lied to the US to get them into WWI, WWII, Vietnam as well as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. With Iraq/Afghanistan being the most recent, how did the US get its people to agree to such a thing? 9/11...that's how. For those who haven't seen the movie Zeitgeist, watch these clips to see how the gov't lied and put everything in place.

Good boy. NIST would be proud.

Let's not forget that the fire was only on a few floors. If the WTC buildings had been rotated evenly over 1800 degree barbecues for 2 hours, then maybe I'd buy the "progressive collapse theory". It's simply not possible for unfocused, random fires on a handful of floors to weaken all the steel, from the basement to the crash zone, symmetrically and cause global collapse.

p.s. it's called a forge. I have never argued that steel is invulnerable to fire.

"No one could pull this off." Don't you mean, no one other than the conspiracy the government tells us pulled it off??

Yeah, well now link me the Popular Mechanics article addressing the STRAW MAN!

WTC7 had ALL of the characteristics of a controlled demolition. Here they are itemised in an powerpoint format presented by an architect: ae911truth

Its worse than that: data and evidence was DESTROYED by government, the commission was SET UP TO FAIL. Let me know when you find the location of the steel from WTC1 2 and 7.

Further: steel framed high rise buildings have NEVER collapsed like this except in controlled demolitions. To get the free fall vertical speeds, ENGINEERED SYNCHRONICITY is required.

Simple physics proves that the structure was taken out in advance of the falling mass hitting it. Gravitational theory and Newtons laws prove the resistance to be absent.

Pretending the government didnt do it is mere denial.

Here's more details : ae911truth.org

Floors were shut down- but no structural component was replaced. Merely charges set. Look for Scott Forbes interviews.

It isn't impossible to fathom at all, and since the controlled demolition has been proven, so has the inside job.

Intelligence work, Bullying, bribery and information management are core functions of the US military intelligence framework.

It was an inside job for no other reason other than 20 floors of a building cannot destroy and pulverize 80 floors. Just think about that for one moment. If you turn the building on its side and smashed 20 floors against 80, which side would win?? Well i hate to be the bearer of bad news, but gravity ain't that strong...and you can't say it was a pancake collapse because that wouldn't take no 10 seconds as reported by the 9/11 omission report.

In Addition, imagine for a moment that halfway through the "collapse" you were to draw lines up the edges, you would see that 75% of the material is outside the building, so what was pushing on the remaining so much that it could destroy all the way down to the ground? I don't subscribe to anything but science. I don't let things like "the government could never do that" or "it would be impossible for them to keep it a secret". That has nothing to do with what we see. People (and especially politicians) LIE , Science doesn't!!

So please ask yourself, do I believe what a government of Men tells me, or do I believe what unbiased science tells me?? Think for yourself. How could investigating be bad?

We can start from a few uncontroversial facts:

- It was a conspiracy

- 3 steel framed buildings with all floors remaining collapsed

- America has many enemies

- The global competition for oil is ballooning

- The perceived anti-Western population of Muslims are concentrated in oil-rich regions of the Middle East

- The entire world's economy is based on oil for fuel and manufacturing

- Subterfuge, sacrifice and coercion are the historic staple strategies for successful empire building

- No photographs of flight 77 have been released by the government despite the Pentagon and surrounding buildings bristling with CCTV

- The collapse of WTC7 is not mentioned in the 9/11 commission's report

- Iraq/Saddam Hussein had nothing whatever to do with 9/11

- Civil liberties of Americans have been significantly curtailed

We must always ask cui bono? with any event within the sphere of human influence. It's simply in our nature to secure the watering hole, protect our family etc.

Stop talking about 9/11 damn they died get over it and so did a gay building and all the people that are crying about there gay family they should hurry up and get over it damn pussy's

I think it's only meant to imply that you "trust the government" not to have a hand in 9/11. Sadly, when I look at history, I don't.

"We've got the popular mechanics article, which I think does an excellent job at debunking the myths."

Only to the superficial observer.

The popular mechanics article implies that standard office materials created the heat necessary to melt the steel core of the towers, which is utterly impossible because of the amount of steel involved, its conductivity and the low flame temperature of almost every office furnishing mentioned. Even they admit that only "pockets" reached the temperatures they claim, and doesnt address the video and eyewitness evidence of streams and pools of molten metal.

The popular mechanics article ALSO fails to address the free fall speeds of the collapses, which means that the entire steel frame had to lose ALL of its resistance, not just part.

Thirdly, the popular mechanics article fails to address thje vertical nature of the WTC7 collapse, a building that was overwhelmingly damages on the SOUTH side, and reinforced to withstand earthquakes to provide support for the emergency command bunker.

There are several other points from ae911truth.org that popular mechanics doesn't address, or pretends to address, but those who stand behind the popular mechanics article are not serious critical thinkers.

Both chairs of the 9/11 commission have stated publicly that the Kean Commission was inadequate and even interfered with.

The evidence is legion. Scientist from across the spectrum are coming together on this and Dr. Stephen Jones has now proven that a derivative a thermite was found in debris and dust from the incident.

There are witnesses, and video evidence for secondary explosions and molten metal that were excluded from the report. Quite frankly we couldn't possible get to all the question and evidence that need to be brought forth. Obvious foreknowledge, dubious wargames, pentagon cameras, the shankville crash... we could go on and on. I'll end with an utterly useless fact : 90-100 million dollars spent to investigate Bill Clinton's blowjob --- 11-16 million used to investigate 9/11.

Follow the link I provided to a timeline that shows how afghanistan played into all this.

I'm still not convinced. I don't buy the conspiracy theory.

I'd just like someone to show me where to buy one of those planes with impervious steel & concrete-slicing wings, and a nose which can puncture an entire building and come out the other side in tact, and which disintegrates completely post-impact.

Office of Public Affairs

CGI Department

Central Intelligence Agency

Washington, D.C. 20505

I think the greatest scientific argument that can be made is that jet fuel cannot burn anywhere near the temperatures needed to compromise a steel structure of such integrity. That is why oxyacetylene and oxyacetylyne torches are used to weld steel. They burn at much higher temperatures. Furthermore, if we take the arguement that the steel lattice distorted before failing, one would witness some horizontal force twisting when, and during the building's decline, spreading the debris over a much larger area. To your proposition of inertia, this implies that there is momentum, however, if I recall correctly, the buildings actually stood for a few decades before hand, and for half an hour after the plane(s) hit, whence cometh the inertia?

Never before has a steel structure collapsed due to fire, until this point. Fire simply isnt hot enough. So while the diagonal cuts did not attribute to the fall of the building, neither did fire. Im really interested why people always bring up the domino effect succession theory, because it assumes that the internal structure of a building can be treated as a series of independant units, and even if we do assume this, for the building to fall in it's own footprint, it takes the similtaneous failure of all load bearing columns on a single level to happen. One can demonstrate with a large tower out of playing cards, if one removes a critical card from the middle of the tower, the tower does not fall symmetrically, within it's own footprint, but spreads out over a much larger area.

Also, Ockham's razor is no proof. If I told you that balloons float because of a magical force, or that it was due to a complex interaction between a resisting medium, gravity, things called atoms and molecules, pressure, temperature, cohesive and adhesive forces, which would you believe?

I don't believe you have watched the presentations which prove the inside job. The presentations I have given you prove the existence of the explosions you deny. One of the presentations includes video of a fireman speaking on the day- "its like they had detonators in the buildings, the floors started popping out, one by one, boom boom boom boom."

Another quotes a different firefighter describing the way the explosions went around each floor.

Another part demonstrates the free fall nature of the collapse, something jet fuel categorically can not produce.

Another still shows video of the molten steel and eyewtiness testimony of the witnesses to molten steel, again something impossible for standard hydrocarbon fires to produce.

Another still demonstrates the vertical nature of the WTC7 collapse, again impossible when almost all of the supposed damage to this building specifically reinforced for emergencies was to the south side, without systematic and highly skilled synchronised explosions.

I gave references to 118 firefighters all citing evidence of explosions, many in direct contradiction of your assertion that there were none on subsequent floors. No matter how good the proof, you negatively rate my response and wander off saying "not convinced"

I have given conclusive evidence. Please address the arguments above and evidence cited directly.

"By molten steal are you referring to those trusses and beams that had diagonal cuts and were allegedly proof of theremite?"

No. Im referring to the video of orange/ yellow molten iron/ steel pouring from the towers before collapse and the firefighters who claimed it was "flowing like lava" among several other documented eyewitesses. All this and more can be found in the 2 hour presentation by gage at 911blogger.com/node/10025.

"As for WTC7 and why it lands in its foot print: WTC7 had extensive fire damage and therefore its entire structural integrity was compromised."

There is no evidence to support this assertion. I challenge you to demonstrate there was any damage whatsoever to the north side of WTC7, with the exception of standard hydrocarbon fires incapable of weakening steel on the bottom 15 floors. Standard fuel fires do NOT melt steel, and this is the ONLY way to eliminate ALL of the resistance to collapse and produce the free fall collapses seen in all of the videos.

-------

"(which rescue workers were well aware it was going to do 20 minutes ahead of time: hence the "we pulled" and the 20 minute prescient news report) "

Workers were told to start moving away from WTC7 HOURS before. And a collapse like this has NEVER occured before without preplanted explosives. They knew because they were told by someone who knew the building was rigged to blow.

Cite an example where one of these firefighters might have seen a steel framed high rise collapse at free fall speeds due to standard office/ hydrocarbon fires.

---

The south side, it's true, had the bulk of the damage mainly from falling debris, once it failed it, like the towers, fell into its foot print through a domino effect succession.

A domino effect succession would can not explain the free fall speeds. A complete lack of resistance (or "domino impacts", if you like) is necessary to achieve free fall acceleration.

Further, uneven damage leads, if there is to be a collapse at all, to an uneven collapse, in this case a collapse to the south. That was not witnessed. It was a perfectly vertical free fall collapse. which takes systematic planning. Even the slightest mistake in planning leaves some of the structure in place and causes toppling, NOT free fall.

-----

"In truth, though the south side was badly damaged, fire raged for a long time through practically the whole building."

No it didn't, the top 2/3 of the north face of the building showed NO evidence of fires or fire damage.

Even if it had, this wouldn't explain the absence of resistance and molten metal witnessed later, because standard hydrocarbon fires don't produce the heat necessary to melt the steel frames, which is the only way to eliminate ALL of the resistance.

---

This is predicated not only on video evidence and professional testimony,

Provide links to the video evidence showing the evidence of fire damage througout WTC7. Include the fire damage in the top 2/3 of the northern half of the buildings.

---

but also several computer models done by NIST and independent enterprises, including the discovery channels "Conspiracy Files" show.

The conspiracy files is a show by the BBC, an organisation managed by UK government appointees and regulated and funded and controlled by the UK government.

Most of the simulations you cite are performed by US unversities heavily dependent on Pentagon/US government funding for research.

NIST stopped its investigations at "collapse initiation", didn't explain the rest of the collapse, and still hasn't come close to an explanation on WTC7. They never will. Basic physics demonstrates they are lying. Kevin Ryan debunks their report in far more detail than I do here.

Occams Razor is not a serious forensics tool. It is usually applied pseudoscientifically by those without enough time to give serious issues the attention they deserve.

The seriousness of your response demonstrates you are considering this carefully. Please don't stop thinking about it. You aren't far from realising the story you have been sold is a stack of lies.

watch 911blogger.com/node/10025 and www.911blogger.com/node/15793

and even more importantly keep your eye focussed very hard on basic physical principles like "free fall", the melting point of structural steel, and angular momentum (which should have been seen in the WTC7 collapse, but wasn't.)

This is all assuming that you actually WANT to realise your government sees you as little more than a slave, to be killed at a time of their choosing. Some people don't want to realise just how tyrannical the US government is and will do anything to maintain their delusions.

Im a truther. The government did 911, as demonstrated by the extensive evidence cited in my rebuttals found below.

That does not stop me from agreeing with this sadly deluded and superficial individual that the debate options present a false dichotomy.

So I gave him a point for effort and endorse his argument. But it isn't an argument against an inside job, just an argument against silly debate premises.

For the proof the government did 911, I suggest

ae911truth.org

http://www.911blogger.com/node/10025

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15793

as good starting points.

Specifically, the best proof lies in the fact that a third building, WTC7, damaged largely on the south side, but hardly at all on its north side, fell verticaly at free fall speed, meaning the entire resistance of its steel structure was eliminated synchronistically by preplanted explosives.

The free fall WTC collapses have never happened at any point in history to steel framed buildings without the use of preplanted explosives or steel cutting charges.

The links above provide ample evidence of molten steel far too hot to have been melted by anything other than preplanted charges.

"The L'Ambiance Plaza is an example of progressive collapse. At the time they were only half way through construction of the 16 story building, but that half was structurally completed. When the initial collapse occurred, one floor slab fell onto another, which couldn't take the weight and collapsed onto the next, and so on.

Many other examples exist: the New World Hotel in Singapore; Bailey's Crossroads collapse of 1973; in 1985 a 21 story building in L.A.; the fire induced collapse of the Ronan Point flats in the UK."

You are incorrect. the WTC collapses had to be controlled demolitions for the three core reasons- 1) molten metal witnesses and video evidence 2) free fall collapse acceleration (NOT pancaking) 3) vertical collapse of WTC7, overwhelmingly damaged on the south side, and hardly damaged on the north side at all.

Studying any of the previous collapses you cite will demonstrate expose differences in the manner of collapse or structure of the building. I know this because basic, independently verifiable and reproducable laboratory physics proves the 911 collapses to be controlled demolitions. The lack of previous examples means that propagandists will merely reach for closest fit examples of collapses that are almost impossible to verify due to lack of documentation.

Every collapse at free fall speed is a controlled demolition. Free fall speed means no resistance and no resistance means anticipatory elimination of resistance and that means preplanted charges.

And thats before we get to the verticality and the pools of molten metal.

Includes a whole lot of straw men about 911 truth. Most truthers dont claim to know about most of how 911 was pulled off. But we DO know the buildings were pulled with preplanted explosives. As a I make very clear in my arguments throughout this debate.

"first of all, I don't believe in conspiracy theories."

Oh yes you do:- "10 Arab Muslims CONSPIRED to hijack 2 planes, outflew the USAF, flew them into 2 hundred story buildings, and brought down a third 47 storey building at free fall speed, vertically and magically creating pools of molten iron/steel." is your conspiracy theory.

You didn't address my request for evidence that those hijackers boarded the planes.

I dont claim to know everything that happened on 911, just that the government blew the towers up.

Evidence for your claim, please.

KKitching's argument is pseudoscientific rubbish.

All three collapses progressed at very close to free fall speed. That means there was no gathering pile-driver and no smashing into floors- that would cause the block of floors above to slow well beneath free fall speed.

And it is VERY clear, visibly clear in the video of the collapse even DURING the collapse that almost the entire building is pulverised before it gets chance to impart energy on the building below it. The excessive dust covering a huge portion of mahattan island is NOT explained by gravitational collapse and fires. Something has to impart huge amounts of explosive energy in order to force the concrete apart in that manner.

I refer you to Macqueen's speech and video at 911blogger.com

The free fall speeds prove anticipatory removal of structural resistance BEFORE the building mass hits its. Any resistance left stops it being free fall.

What do you mean by "conspiracy"?

Joe's position is, in my opinion, superficial. He clearly doesn't understand what a conspiracy is. Claiming you don't beleive 911 was a conspiracy means you either don't think the attacks happened at all, or you think one person carried them out.

He, and many other intelectually lazy people like him have been trained to ignore the meaning of words by the nmainstream media, which frequently perverts language in an attempt to dumb the population, in the same way described in 1984.

With Joe, they have clearly succeeded. He uses the word "conspiracy" without having the first idea what it means.

To claim not to beleive in conspiracies is SO dumb it should be apparent to everyone. It means you don't believe that robbers conspire to steal from stores, you dont beleive terrorists conspire to perform terror attacks, in say Madrid or London or any other conspiracy.

Its so dumb it discredits not just the person's position but the person himself.

In this case I can, for example, confidently declare Joe not to be a serious debater.

I guess you don't keep up with history. Ever heard of Iran Contra? How about how nearly every war we've been in since the 60's has usually be precluded by a lie: Gulf of Tonkin, WMD, Babies being killed by Iraqi's, Do I really need to go on?? and that's just the lies to get us into wars... and you ask such a vapid question. Every new experimental aircraft was a secret at one point. The stealth bomber was thought to be a freakin UFO before they showed it to the public. The freedom of information act has allowed us a huge insight into out government except for people who want to remain ignorant I suppose.

Ever heard of the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline? I didn't think so.

Unfortunately, language and thinking has been degraded to such an extent now that that previously assumed obvious must now be stated explicitly. "conspiracy" has been perverted to mean several different things. Theory too. Theory didn't historically mean "unproven" historically it merely meant "systematic explanation".

The 911 conspiracy has been proven, as shown in the discussion below. So your implied (ie unstated) connotation (ie selective defintion) doesn't hold here.

Nice attempt to sneak it past the metal detectors by just implying it, though.

One definition of "Conspiracy" is now merely "crimethink". Orwell explained that things have gotten so bad that intelligent men have to go round stating obvious things. That was in 1948. Perversion of language has gotten so bad now, that conspiracy and theory have lost all of their original meanings. Maybe they had even more meaning before I was born.

But most people are indoctrinated and too busy earning money to think about this stuff, so I am not convinced you or very many others here will have a clue what I am banging on about.

So I'll summarise: deceitful language means you can't skip words.

No it isn't insane. Its proven. References are throughout this argument.

That you think there were only 2 buildings brought down indicates your ignorance about the events.

Most people thought the earth was flat once - they were all dead wrong.

“You are incorrect. the WTC collapses had to be controlled demolitions for the three core reasons- 1) molten metal witnesses and video evidence 2) free fall collapse acceleration (NOT pancaking) 3) vertical collapse of WTC7, overwhelmingly damaged on the south side, and hardly damaged on the north side at all.

Moving the goal post. I responding to you (or perhaps the other poster in this thread) who said that progressive collapse of a steal structure was never documented prior to 9/11.”

No. you aren’t. He said:- “Never before has a steel structure collapsed due to fire, until this point. Fire simply isnt hot enough.” He is right, as long as we are talking about common hydrocarbon fires which, at best can weaken structural steel in localized parts of a structure to around 50% or 70% of its original strength at best. A small, overloaded and untested steel structure could produce a GRADUAL, PLASTIC collapse, even without a fire. Construction regulations are designed specifically to prevent this.

The WTC steel was

1) extremely large,

2) conductive,

3) tested to comply with various temperature and load bearing regulations (see Jones and Ryan’s video presentations and papers)

4) and in the case of WTC7 included additional redundancy in overdesign to ensure that the emergency command bunker it contained could withstand natural disasters including earthquakes.

Further we have no reason to think that the design was inadequate in any way.

“I showed that as false and how you responded was irrelevant to the categorical fact that they have occurred in the past.”

If you claim these collapses to be this rare hitherto unknown example of steel structures losing enough of their strength to suffer total collapse then you should present evidence that they were the kind of collapses you claimed them to be.

It is possible, under the contrived conditions I cite above for steel to lose its strength due to fire or even, given extremely flawed design methods, collapse GRADUALLY and PLASTICALLY under its own weight.

I think that the “unprecedented” argument, while true, is far harder to demonstrate and therefore far less convincing that my other three arguments. However, if you feel it important enough to justify a serious refutation, you’ll need to present forensic, eyewitness, or video evidence to support your hitherto unsupported assertions about the examples you cite.

So we need another theory in order to support the original conspiracy theory!?!?!?! I mean, we can come up with all kinds of theories in order to support the original theory which can't stand on its own.

Scott Forbes said EXACTLY that.

Look up the interview where he explains the unprecedented power down in the WTC the weekend before 9/11.

The ORIGINAL conspiracy theory is the US government official conspiracy theory. They have never proved it. There are no videos of the terrorists getting onto the planes at airports, most of the steel from the WTC that would have exposed how the buildings came down has been destroyed and evidence that they promised to release has never been released. Your notion of what constitutes a conspiracy theory is a perverted US propaganda version of the phrase.

Oh and a second CRUCIAL point. You assume that people generally know what people close to 9/11 were saying at the time. They don't. The media is covering it up, I had to dig around in alternative media for the Scott Forbes interview. I suspect most Americans STILL don't even know there was a third building that collapse completely in on itself at 5:20 on 9/11. Thats not because it was a small event, but because the media has hardly reported on it since the day itself, and on the day itself they reported on it BEFORE the event happened. go watch the BBC, who were being fed form a script.

Also, for reference, take a look at 911blogger.com/node/15793.

Where have you heard THIS story reported? Just like every other story the government wants buried, very few have the time to dig past their propaganda distractions.

Kevin Ryan and Dr. Steven E. Jones debunk NIST relentlessly at the journal for 9/11 studies.

Jones has done extensive testing on the WTC dust, but he refutes your allegation that the molten metal witnessed was aluminium in this video:-

http://www.archive.org/details/liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2

In short, he points to many eyewitnesses and video evidence of the streams of metal being orange, NOT silver as molten aluminium is. He performs several tests to refute NIST claims that organics can mix with molten aluminium to give a red glow, but I suggest you watch the whole video for yourself, and look at his responses at the journal.

In another video I have seen of one of his lectures. He identifies iron rich microspheres in the WTC dust, which are only produced where molten iron is present.

He also finds EXPLOSIVE RESIDUE- something called "nano-thermite", I think he says it is, in the dust, and can provide a chain of custody from the woman's apartment.

I'm sure you'll be able to find the other Steven Jones videos, but will return to post links when I find them.

This proves explosives brought down WTC 1 2 and 7, supported by seperate verticality and free fall speed proofs and much more supporting evidence eg 911blogger.com/node/15793

The destruction of evidence Jones and many others referred to, along with NIST withholding secret evidence, is clear evidence of a cover up, before we get to the pentagon videos, all of the other governmentally withheld, hidden(eg. Mineta testimony) and destroyed evidence and outright internal contradictions and story changes documented by David Ray Griffin.

It doesn't prove it. There could be perfectly reasonable, scientific explanations why the buildings fell - I just don't think there's enough evidence either way to prove the causes beyond a doubt. I think considering the events without adequate evidence will bear no fruit. Instead, we should focus on the concrete facts and aspects which can be proven beyond a doubt. E.g. Why hasn't the Pentagon released the video showing the plane? Clearly, they have it. Why has the flight recorder data not been turned over to air crash investigators and scientists? Why was WTC7 collapse not mentioned in the official account when it's destruction was linked with the tower collapses? Why did Bush and Condoleeza's advisers instruct them to lie when they said they hadn't envisaged terrorists using planes to attack American civilian targets?

"It doesn't prove it."

Yes it does. You clearly don't know what constitutes proof.

"There could be perfectly reasonable, scientific explanations why the buildings fell - I just don't think there's enough evidence either way to prove the causes beyond a doubt."

Thats either because you are ignorant of the evidence or ignorant of the physics. There could be no such scientific explanations without throwing out all of Newtonian physics.

1) Near free fall speed collapses can only occur where the resistance from the steel structure is removed by explosives. The janitor witnessed explosions long before the collapse while in the BASEMENT BEFORE the planes hit. google William Rodriguez. Also see the Macqueen interview at 911 blogger.

2) WTC7 could only have fallen vertically if both sides of the structure was taken out simultaneously by explosives. Other explosions were witnessed in the building hours before the collapse. see the Jennings interview at 911 blogger.

3) Streams and pools of molten iron and iron rich microspheres could only be caused by steel cutting incendiaries. See the Dr. Steven E. Jones presentations

http://www.archive.org/details/liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2

and the Richard Gage presentation at ae911truth.org.

"I think considering the events without adequate evidence will bear no fruit."

We have far more evidence than we will ever need. The government withholding AND destroying evidence is merely another component of the case against them, but alone, it doesnt constitute proof, like the above arguments do.

To think we have insufficient evidence, you have been watching media channels helping to cover it up and give precisely that impression.

No. I mean what I said. There are dozens of witnesses, some are listed at ae911truth.org in the presentation. Here's a forensic analysis:

http://www.archive.org/details/liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2

Wrong. If you know something the government doesn't want people to know, the media just wont print it. Only fringe researchers get to find it out. Censorship was never easier.

That you don't know it already constitutes proof hiding things is easy. The proofs are all over the net, you just havent seen them yet, or maybe you are too ignorant or frightened to recognise them of admit them when you see them.

Those sites rely on you being too lazy and careless to spot their lies.

1) BPITU- cites PM and NIST, as I rememebr it

2) NIST- Doesn't and cant address molten iron. Lead engineer denies existence of molten iron.

Also doesn't address eye witness accounts of belt explosions

(see the Macqueen presentation at 911blogger)

3) PM: Also doesnt address molten iron - claims there didnt need to be molten iron for the collapse, but doesn't address the video and eyewitness accounts. Only 4 paragraphs - hardly even a serious analysis. Heres a more serious one for anyone willing to take the time: http://www.archive.org/details/ liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2

4) LCG - let me know where it deals with molten metal, near free fall speeds, verticality of the WTC7 collapse and the 118 firefighters, and ill address those points.

While loose change made MASSES of serious and compelling points, it wasn't really a forensic film, and I dont think it went into nearly enough detail on the core forensic proofs.

Loose change guide, if nothing else, fails in that it doesnt challenge a more serious and systematic case, like that of Gage and Jones. I wont be bothering to defend 80% of the arguments in loose change because they don't constitute proof, even if some are powerful points.

"Near free fall speed"

Yes, it wasn't free fall.

Of course it wasn't PRECISELY free fall speed. Close enough to require explosives, though.

"can only occur where the resistance from the steel structure is removed by explosives."-argument from ignorance- "I can't think of any way therefore it's xyz."

No. To eliminate the resistance from those structures in that amount if time, huge amounts of steel had to be ripped apart from it ties with the rest of the structure and displaced at incredibly fast speeds. Theres nothing humans know of that will do that apart from explosives. Name one.

The world over, explosives are used to produce just this kind of demolition. It takes significant engineering skill to acheive- see the Jowenko interview.

---

""google William Rodriguez" because his account is completely reliable and accurate."

One persons account is never completely reliable and accurate. There are hundreds, including some who confirm Rodriguez story from the basement, and some of the 118 firefighters I linked you to, some of which explained in detail specific characteristics of CD they witnessed that day, and Jennings, inside WTC7, also(911blogger).

---

""WTC7 could only have fallen vertically if both sides of the structure was taken out simultaneously by explosives."

There's absolutely no other explanation (until one is found)."

Your mind set is one where you have been indoctrinated into beleiving hat everything is merely opinion, and there are no cold hard facts.

All of conventional science dictates that steel structures will topple to the side weakened if one side loses resistance even slightly before the other.

If you want to dump Newtonian physics or talk about space rays from mars, you are welcome to, but Newtonian physics is taken so seriously for very good reason- laboratory experimentation proves it to be an accurate model and it is independently verifiable as such.

----

"Streams and pools of molten iron and iron rich microspheres could only be caused by steel cutting incendiaries."

Or maybe the pressure of half a million tonnes or stuff crashing down.

Falling debris doesn't producing temperatures capable of melting structural steel. The heating of elements of steel pushing against each other when they collide are hardly even noticeable unless you specifically design a situation to maximise them.

"To think we have insufficient evidence"

There is insufficient evidence. Who do you think perpetrated this crime?

The government. The only people with the media to cover it up so that people like you havent realised it was them yet, and the only people with access throughout WTC7, with many governmental security agencies. Bush's cousin was head of security at the WTC.

It just so happens you are right that it needs even more than explosions. Controlled demolitions rely on steel cutting charges to eliminate the resistance from the structure.

"hell, no one's actually ever seen a fallen building with melted steel (intentional or not), it doesn't work like that."

Really? Perhaps you'd better explain that to the writer of patent number 20060266204

"Thermite reactions are well characterized ... The thermite reaction is an exothermic reaction that can produce temperatures of more than 4,000° F. These temperatures are well above the melting point of most metals....Applications for the invention include linear cut or curvilinear cuts in homogenous and non-homogeneous materials. Typical cutting operations include: Concrete, and reinforced concrete, in a variety of applications (cut into slabs or rubble); .... buildings—steel reinforcing (I-beams in concrete); steel bridges, steel hulls (ships for rescue applications and hostile applications); and general concrete removal."

and wikipedia:- "LSCs are commonly used in the cutting of rolled steel joists (RSJ) and other structural targets, such as in the controlled demolition of buildings."

The reason you dont think that steel cutter charges can melt steel is quite simply because the propaganda outlets you cited don't want you to be aware that they do. They don't want you to know about the witnesses or the videos either, and so NONE of them address that, choosing instead to argue against a straw man argument that collapses necessarily require melting. Do you have ANY references which address Gage's video and eyewitness evidence and Jones' proof that it was not aluminium from the planes? (even if that could explain the volumes and WTC7 molten pools.)

There are actually videos of molten steel flowing from the building just before it collapsed, and dozens of eyewitnesses listed and some videoed at ae911truth.org

Steven E Jones has found thermite residue and iron rich microspheres in the dust from the WTC collapses. Please watch the videos and look at the papers and presentations I directed you to.

George Bush is little more than a retarded chimpanzee acting as America's mascot, unable to control anything. How does that mean the government didn't do it?

So you expect me to believe that the entire congress and the entire house of representatives are against America?

No. there are a few honest people: Gravel, Kucinich, Senator Karen S. Johnson. Most have been bribed, others were bullied with Anthrax traceable back to US military installations (remember the anthrax deliveries?) and a big group are simply ignorant. Bribery is how government keeps everyone in line, not just congress.

"And there is not one person powerful enough in government other than the president who can pull off something that big!"

THis was OBVIOUSLY NOT ONE PERSON. Congress doesn't get to hear about many of the worst government operations. The US government has been running terrorism in the middle east for decades, and people DO know about it. At least a quarter of Americans think 9/11 was an inside job. And they're right. The video evidence, forensic evidence and eyewitnesses prove it. Look here: 911blogger.com/node/10025 and search for presentations by Steve E Jones, David Ray Griffin and Kevin Ryan.

The proof is just insurmountable. I really didn't want to believe it, but emotion gives way to logic, and I can't honestly see it as anything but an inside job.

False hope is NEVER desireable. Fear of betrayal at the hands of your freinds should ALWAYS drive to you want to determine their trustworthiness conclusively, and override any and every other emtoion involved. In this case those who dont bother will accept the government story. Some cowards are so scared of government that theyll revert back to the government story out of fear of ridicule or punishment.

You should only EVER WANT to beleive the truth. No matter how bad the truth is, its the only real starting point for improvements. Anything less is futile

come on didn't you see all the stuff that happened. the twin towers couldn't have just fallen because of two planes i mean the structure of the buliding could have handled that damage without the collapse and the way it collapsed was also suspicious i mean a building doesn't just fall like a pancake it just doesn't happen like that and why did building 7 fall there was nothing to make it fall no planes. nothing . it had to be set up. and the government had many warning yet they did nothing. yet when you think of england and how they had the bombs as well and how they survived and didn't many deaths compared to America of course it would have had to be an inside job. there were people trying to cover something up that is why building 7 collapsed!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with this arguer, even though he doesn't provide any evidence. It IS obviously an inside job, but many Americans want to cling to their notion that the US government actually cares for them, so you have to proovide forensic proofs. Even then some still deny it.

*she =)

Check people's profiles before using gender-specific pronouns. :P

Doesnt prove anything, for or against. Irrelevant.

"using a state of the simulation code"

Where has this code been published for peer review? Who paid for the simulation? does Purdue University receive funds from the US government?

"State of the art simulation system" sounds very credible to the superficial. scientists need details to assess its validity.

Here's some support for the conspiracy theory.

http://tinyurl.com/9kmqa

http://tinyurl.com/pyug2

The government story requires there Arabs who can create explosions 300 metres away inside a seperate building when they hit the towers with two planes.

The government story requires Arabs to be able to melt structural steel with jet fuel.

The government story requires that Arabs are able to make explosions occur in the basement of a 400 metre tall building when a plane hits it about 300 metres above ground level.

The WTC 1 2 and 7 collapse videos or the Rodriguez and Jennings testimony prove among many other pieces of evidence, that the government story RELIES on magical thinking.410 qualified architects and engineers agree. Go to ae911truth.org

WTC 7 has always been the big problem for me. WTCs 4, 5, and 6 all sustained heavy damage due to falling debris from WTC 1 and 2, however those structures are still standing. WTC7 showed minimal damage with a couple of small fires and fell into its own footprint.

The other thing that bothers me, is why was the debris from the towers so quickly carted off and recycled? If a plane crashes, they will hold on to the debris for quite some time in order to piece out what caused the crash, but not so for the towers.

I can't beleive I didn't give links to the evidence the first time here.

The government story requires there Arabs who can create explosions 300 metres away inside a seperate building when they hit the towers with two planes.

http://www.loosechange911.com/blog/?p=105

The government story requires Arabs to be able to melt structural steel with jet fuel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qEIlNVl5s

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q;=kevin+ryan

The government story requires that Arabs are able to make explosions occur in the basement of a 400 metre tall building when a plane hits it about 300 metres above ground level.

http://911blogger.com/node/11949

http://911blogger.com/node/11384

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmF-VQNEQMc

(In the last link, the guy corroborating Rodriguez is about halfway thru the video)

Also plenty supported by qualified architects and engineers at ae911truth.org

Why are you ignoring the eyewitness statements testifying to explosions in the basement before the plane impacts and in WTC7 far in advance of the tower collapse? Why are you ignoring the molten steel? Why are you ignoring the free fall speeds, which points to not just weakness but elimination of ALL resistance?

"The fire caused by the fuel could have weakened the structure of the building to the point that the structure could not hold up the several floors above the point of impact."

The structure was steel, which transmits heat rapidly away from the source and a lattice, which means that any weaknesses in the weaker columns are transferred instantaneously to the cooler and stronger columns away from the plane damage on the south sides

----

If almost ANY building were allowed to burn uncontrolled, the frame would eventually weaken to the point of giving way, and in this case, it brought down the building.

This is a lie. It has happened many times before and the steel strutures do not fail under hydrocarbon fires.

but WHY ARE YOU IGNORING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE?

---

The government story requires there Arabs who can create explosions 300 metres away inside a seperate building when they hit the towers with two planes.

http://www.loosechange911.com/blog/?p=105

The government story requires Arabs to be able to melt structural steel with jet fuel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9qEIlNVl5s

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q;=kevin+ryan

The government story requires that Arabs are able to make explosions occur in the basement of a 400 metre tall building when a plane hits it about 300 metres above ground level.

http://911blogger.com/node/11949

http://911blogger.com/node/11384

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmF-VQNEQMc

(In the last link, the guy corroborating Rodriguez is about halfway thru the video)

Also plenty supported by qualified architects and engineers at ae911truth.org

Conspiracy theories like this are always concocted to discredit political opponents. I don't lend any credence to this sort of thing. I'm not even sure why I took the time to post anything.

I agree, agree, agree!!

To specify, I'm Canadian and this isn't my government. I dislike the US' current government, and I think it has used 9/11 as an excuse to start a phony war.

This said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I see none that shows 9/11 was an inside job. It sounds like another conspiracy theory to me, like the fake moon landing or the bigfoot.

Moreover, the one reason I see to stage such an attack would be to earn the support needed to strike back at someone, like those mentioning Northwoods say. But if that's what really happened, why frame Afghanistan? I would think they would've directly framed Iraq...

I don't trust my government, but come on, think of what it would take to do it and how many people would have to be involved. And if you have a lot of people involved, then you will eventually have someone "tell" all. No one can keep a secret now -a-days, forget it, it just couldn't be pulled off. Some of you are watching way too much TV and stupid plot movies... No one could pull this off.

This is just too easy.

If the government were involved, speculating on its motivations is fruitless.

What? That's exactly how a lot of crimes are solved. Who stands the most to gain? Who has gained?

Example:

Did you know that Larry Silverstein...collected something like 14 Billion in insurance claims?

This may be valid or may be a coincidence but, if true, is a good place to start. Then take some time and build your case but to speculate does nothing but let guys like me have an easy time pointing out all you're doing is speculating without evidence.

1. are there elements in the Bush administration crazy enough, stupid enough, and lacking in conscience and decency enough, to terrorize and murder it's own citizens in the pursuit of a political agenda, and

Yes. Mystery solved.

is there credible evidence that the government covered up their own involvement?

No. Another mystery solved.

and look how crazy that Northwoods document sounds. I'm looking at it, and it's still hard to believe!

What is so hard to believe? You don't solve many problems do you? Some times it helps the creative process to contemplate the ridiculous. Sometimes it hurts to contemplate the ridiculous because you can get sidetracked. The point is that it's a process.

Now if you told me the ship was at the bottom of the Bay...well that would be hard to believe.

Here's an article from Popular Mechanics debunking many of the common 9/11 conspiracy theories.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Popular Mechanics, of course, did their best to remain unbiased and objective in their investigation.

A quote from prison planet web site:

"It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.

The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?"

Rocknwow.

You have criticized me elsewhere for speculating both too much and not enough. In fact, you do such a good job of contradicting yourself, I need only step aside.

However, you did raise one or two "points" I wanted to address:

"Why bother to cover up the thermal devices within??? If [discovered, it would] confirm how brilliantly conceived the terrorist plot truly was."

and

"Is it possible the 'molten steel' wasn't mentioned because who cares? What difference does it make?"

Molten steel, first. See the link below for a plausible look at the actual energy unleashed by the burning jet-fuel. It was insufficient to compromise the structural integrity of the steel columns on the floors in question.

How then, did it result in the molten steel furnaces that burned for weeks beneath the rubble at Ground Zero?

There is a brief video documenting the molten steel elsewhere on this page. In it, one of the rescue workers estimates the temperature of the steel as "about 1500 degrees" (note: this was filmed six weeks after the attack). As the temperature of steel increases, it shifts in color. The color range of steel from dull red to bright orange equates to 1200 degrees F to 1600 degrees F. I would say the rescue worker is pretty close with his estimate.

And you ask "who cares?" A jet-fuel fire + office fire could not have produced the necessary energy to heat that steel, and maintain that heat for weeks after the incident.

In this light, it certainly appears that secondary devices may have been used. To rebut your former question, why not blame those devices on the terrorists, I would suggest that it is much harder to explain away how the terrorists would have bypassed WTC security to plant those devices.

From http://www.iwilltryit.com/marvin.htm

" Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport.

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

The main crux of your argument is that because someone may have benefitted from the 9/11 attacks then that person must have conducted and/or supported the attacks at the very least. From the US government planning and executing the attacks, to Larry Silverstein fraudently insuring the trade centers against terrorism, to Popular Mechanics and the 9/11 Commission conducting widespread cover ups, your list of accomplises continues to grow to unbelievable lengths. Isn't it far more likely that a known anti-american terrorist group, that had previously attacked numerous US embassies, boats, etc. abroad, finally managed to succeed in an attack on US soil?

There's a layer of grunt work which would be unambiguously implicated in 9/11. Setting and wiring explosives isn't something just anyone can do -- it requires a fair number of people (to do it on that scale) with at least some experience of blowing up buildings and I'd imagine that those people would be acutely aware that they were setting charges in the Twin Towers.

The list of people involved would be hundreds long and the government's senior officials haven't the technical knowledge necessary to coordinate them. What's more, any significant deviation from the chain of command would be noticed.

Consider the logistics chain from procurement to placement. Think of the number of people needed for each of them to be relatively unaware of the implications of their role. There's noway that many people could have their actions coordinated without serious management. The senior officials wouldn't know who to contact to assign qualified people to fill the necessary roles; they wouldn't even know all the necessary roles that required filling.

My argument is

A: people benefitted and

B: then they lied about what happened

I think they lied about what happened because the official story omits many details or does not plausibly explain them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling the truth 16%

Hiding something 53%

Mostly lying 28%

Not sure 3%

Source: The New York Times / CBS News

Methodology: Telephone interviews with 983 American adults, conducted from Oct. 5 to Oct. 8, 2006. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

This supposedly authoritative article spends less than 15 paragraphs on the controlled demolition hypothesis. I have demonstrated why they are false in my Stumbleupon review of it.

Right conclusion for the wrong reasons. A very bad place to begin.

9/11 was an inside job because the manner of the collapses forensically prove it to be so using only basic newtonian physics.

Add a link to your StumbleUpon profile so people can check it out!

"is there credible evidence that the government covered up their own involvement?

No. Another mystery solved."

Liar. Name me the locations where the steel from the WTC buildings can be publicly viewed, then.

Also explain how the author of the national security strategy for the Bush administration ended up, after Kissinger, as the executive director of the 9/11 commission.

I'm sure you found it a profound leap of logic to think I might have the same SU username as I used here? Further, you can see the review by going to the article in SU and looking at the reviews from there. My profile has thousands of different reviews which make it very hard to find there, even for me.

Not a profound leap of logic, just a moderate waste of time to reference another website without providing a link.

Great point randomguy, it's pretty much impossible to fathom that all of these people from different walks of life would be in some huge conspiracy to cover up that the government hijacked 4 planes and caused the largest terrorist attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor.

Those conspiracy theories are absurd, every one of them can be proven incorrect and invalid.

I have one idea. It seems very improbable, but possible. Why not manufacture a replacement joint reinforcement that contains just enough explosives and a wireless detonator. Ask the building manager to install it as a new building regulation standard, and you have properly wired a whole building without anyone ever noticing a thing. OK, you can change the actual object with any strategically placed building fixture, and once again you have a possible modus operandi.

The US military has hundreds of independently managed units that could certainly coordinate such a procedure, since basically it can be done by such a reduced number of people. Post-op cleaning is much simpler with fewer people to dispose off.

Well, I may not trust my government completely, but I have experience with the Intelligence industry and it was far more a result of nitwits and opportunists than insiders.

asserting that conspiracy theories are ALWAYS made up to discredit political opponents ALSO means the conspiracy theory alleging 19 arabs did it was made up to discredit them. Its a totally retarded statement that forces the conclusion of the debate to rely on a throy involving just one man as the perpetrator of the crime. Does it have to get any more clear that this argument and the person who posted it is a simpleton?

This was a test post. How do I get rid of it ?

This is a pointless debate. Conspiracy theorists are going to cite regurgitated information from conspiracy theory websites, non-conspiracy theorists are going to cite sources from government and popular mechanics magazines. Each side will discredit the other side's sources.

We've got sources like the Northwoods Documents, which was a plan that was never carried out. There are thousands of documents in our government that play out different scenarios, most of which will never be used. We've got the popular mechanics article, which I think does an excellent job at debunking the myths. But what it really comes down to is your beliefs. There are a lot of impressionable people on both side of the debate that believe what others tell them.

Its my opinion was that it was carried out by terrorists. The buildings collapsed because planes crashed into them. That is a lot easier to believe than the government can keep a secret, especially one so big that would have to involve hundreds of people to carry out. I say no, even if they wanted to our government is to incompetent to pull that feat off.

I think it was an outside job. I mean, look at all the evidence! The videos don't lie. Those people where outside the towers. I mean, they where inside the plane but outside the towers. That makes it an outside job.

Page 5 attempts to explain the collapse of WTC7 with a 6 paragraph, arm-waving attempt to argue that the perfect, vertical, free fall collapse of WTC7 was not explosives for Americans too afraid to accept it. NIST has subsequently admitted it can't explain WTC7, and this is PM's DESPICABLE attempt to help the government escape blame.

There was NO DIAGONAL collapse. Watch the videos of this collapse. This collapse was vertical.

None of the assertions about "unusual design", fires, or debris damage can explain the free fall, vertical nature of the collapse. Steel, when exceeding its "load-bearing capability" due to heat does NOT instantly lose all of its strength, but DEFORMS PLASTICALLY, Maintaining resistance to collapse.

WTC7 contained an emergency command bunker, reinforced and designed to withstand earthquakes, among other disasters. If there was any "unusual design", it was a STRONGER design with ADDITIONAL REDUNDANCY to achieve this.

As any chemist knows, even an ENERGY PRODUCING CHAIN REACTION requires an ACTIVATION ENERGY, WHICH WOULD NECESSARILY REDUCE THE SPEED OF THE COLLAPSE WELL BELOW FREE FALL SPEED WHERE THE ACTIVATION ENERGY WAS THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO OVERCOME THE RESISTANCE OF A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO RESIST THE LOAD.

Where is your evidence that there was anyone in the planes, please?

There are no videos of the hijackers boarding. The ones you have seen are from other locations and times.

So it wasn't an inside job. The towers collapsed due to the intense heat generated by the burning fuel and office fires.

All I see is an explosion due to the burning fuel.

I favour occams razor - "When multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities" i.e. "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

The people who believe it's a conspiracy have created an enormous 'tower' of evidence, with each wild hypothesis based on yet another wild hypothesis. It's an enormously convoluted mess. For example I find it extremely unlikely, nigh on impossible, that such a plan could be executed with the utmost secrecy, with everyone agreeing after the fact, and I repeat, AFTER the fact, to keep quiet. So everyone is given as minimal role as possible, yet don't you think that people would realise the part they had played once they saw TV that day? Everyone involved in this 'demolition' and many other planning aspects would suddenly realise what they helped plan for.

I could go on, this is just one example of how such a large and convoluted plan would never remain secret, were it even to get off the ground in the first place.

Key phrase being "equal in other respects."

According to our President, the terrorists attack us because "they hate our freedom." Accepting this argument is much simpler than getting off your ass and learning the history that the U.S. has in that region. I guess that's why a lot of Americans (probably the same ones that are satisfied with the 9/11 commission report) actually believe that nonsense.

There should have been a proper investigation. Occam's Razor doesn't mean that complicated situations don't exist.

The fact that the 9/11 truthers are winning this argument is every indication of why this site will fail. God dammit, it had so much potential too!

Right. I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I agree that saying 'the terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedom' is wrong. America was attacked because it has never been a popular country in the middle east. The fact is, there was a motivation there, so while saying 'they hate our freedom' is wrong, it doesn't change anything.

Of course complicated situations do exist. Occam's razor is a guide on how to examine two situations which both have varying explanations.

I don't understand what you mean by 'Key phrase being "equal in other respects."'

Why should there be another investigation? Your unanswered questions mainly relate to happenings which are unprecedented, ie. molten steel inside the building. You seem to be forgetting that the entire act was unprecedented. 'No building has ever collapsed in this way' people say, yet the fact is no building has ever been crashed into by a fully laden jet airliner of such a size. Videos are used to compare the collapse of the towers to the collapse of a controlled demolition. 'Look!' People say 'they're the same! and they shouldn't be the same! they should be entirely different collapses! there ought to be no similarities at all!' But hold on for a second. Since no building has ever been crashed into by a jet airliner before, exactly how should we know what the collapse should have looked like? We have nothing to compare this to. Just because the collapse has some elements of a structural collapse caused by controlled explosives does not mean that the collapse was caused by controlled explosives.

So the grieving widows shown on T.V. are fake? I can't even get one friend to keep a secret. If I tell anyone, it is leaked. And you think that we can get a group of people to collaborate on a lie? I mean, we might as well say that the Holocaust never happened because we never saw the atrocities being committed right in front of our eyes and that what ever evidence exist was fabricated by a group of people conspiring against us.

But, there were no planes! September Clues

What is the motive for that? I think any person who believes the government would kill thousands of people for no apparent reason is and ignorant conspiracy theorist.

Someone posted a URL elsewhere in this debate: http://www.ae911truth.org/

I suggest you take a look. 381 architects and engineers have risked their professional reputation to ask for a new investigation. What do they have to gain? Nothing - but they have a lot to lose: professional credibility, maybe a promotion, possibly their job.... It's happened.

Yes, you can find experts who will support the 9/11 commission findings. That shouldn't be surprising, given the amount of institutional pressure to conform to the official story.

Finally, this "reverse scientific method" accusation is absurd.

9/11 truth movement has explored the most likely hypothesis - controlled demolition - and been able to support this theory by taking all the evidence into account.

It is the 9/11 commission that is guilty of a "reverse scientific method," by throwing out the hypothesis that was unacceptable (controlled demolition), and omitting data that did not fit their progressive collapse model (but is consistent with controlled demolition).

When our government tells you that Saddam murdered thousands of innocent Kurds, you believe them, right?

So you're saying, other governments can commit atrocities -- just not ours? What if you knew that the U.S. supported Saddam through the very worst of the atrocities he committed against his own people? Our government has blood on its hands - there is no question about that.

Ok, that was a bit of a straw man.

What I mean by equal in other respects is, able to explain the available data equally well.

9/11 commission report fails to explain all the data. 9/11 truth movement via controlled demolition theory, and with the support of many scientists, engineers, and concerned citizens, is able to provide plausible explanations for all the data. If a new, independent investigation were launched and funded properly, I believe it would not reach the same conclusions as the 9/11 commission did. To be blunt, 9/11 commission report defies the laws of Physics - including gravity and conservation of momentum.

The 9/11 disaster was unprecedented - all the more reason to put our faith in objective inquiry and the scientific method.

One obvious motive would be to gain control of Middle-Eastern oil. The whole world runs on oil, and it's running out fast. It's not too hard to imagine a super conservative hardass thinking that he was "breaking a few eggs" to secure America's status.

The way this debate was constructed creates a false dichotomy. Just because one thinks that 9/11 was not an inside job does not mean one trusts the government.

Answer me this: How did the government arrange for Building 7 to have extensive exterior damage occur that would be a precursor to the controlled demolition?

Were explosives placed within all of the surrounding buildings and since building 7 was hit the hardest, only that one was imploded? What if building 5, 4, or 3 had been hit with debris but building 7 spared? Would the government still have imploded building 7?

Or was the exterior damage of building 7 also a controlled operation? Was the exterior damage to building 7 planned? If so, by what means was it carried out?

All right, since Youtube videos are apparently good enough to provide evidence for this debate, here's one for you.

(By the way, I don't trust my government at all. I personally think the prick who made this debate only sees things in black and white, as every idiot does.)

Official Account: With the intention of influencing American Foreign Policy in the Middle East with an act of terrorism, 19 Muslim extremists hijacked four commercial airliners crashing two into each tower of the World Trade Center, which subsequently collapsed due to the damaged sustained from the impact, one into the Pentagon, and the final crashing in a field in Pennsylvania killing 3,000 American civilians. WTC building 7 also collapsed due to a structural damage caused by a large portion of the falling North twin tower striking it during its own collapse.

Conspiracy Account: In an effort to cause fear in the American public in order to justify going to war in the Middle East to get access to oil and pass laws which strip civil liberties away, the government of the United States coordinated a staged terrorist attack on its own people. Four commercial airliners loaded with passengers were diverted of their planned flight and landed in a secret location where the passengers were either killed or imprisoned indefinitely, then the planes were destroyed. Then two unidentifiable windowless, and presumably radio controlled, government planes were crashed into each tower of the WTC and subsequently detonated there explosive payload. Meanwhile two ballistic missiles were launched into both the Pentagon and a random field in Pennsylvania to appear as though the last two planes crashed into them. After the initial impact of the military drones into the WTC at 56 and 102 minutes previously planted demolition explosives, including thermite, were set off to ensure the buildings collapsed within there own footprint and at free fall speeds. Additionally, WTC building 7 was also destroyed by explosives, also secretly installed at an earlier time, to ensure it also fell within its own footprint.

Which of these two scenarios seems most reasonable, obviously the official account is. The only somewhat rational argument for the governments involvement in 9/11 is that they intentionally ignored intelligence warning of the subsequent attacks. This is of course also highly unlikely for if that were the case, those involved are doing a horrible job keeping incriminating evidence a secret. It is already common knowledge that many key reports and forecasts of forthcoming terrorist attacks were not headed by those in the government. This is simply proof of the ignorance of those responsible for our safety not of their guilt in a treasonous conspiracy to forward their own agenda.

You really think the government would kill that many of their own people for a few dollars?

People who say 9/11 was an inside job do not understand the reality of Jihad.

"All right, since Youtube videos are apparently good enough to provide evidence for this debate, here's one for you."

I prefer to judge evidence by its validity, not by where it came from. I'll even listen to you.

"(...I personally think the prick who made this debate only sees things in black and white, as every idiot does.)"

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. --WIKI

As for your evidence...

Much of it attempts to discredit theories that claim the planes were not real passenger airliners, or were modified in some way. I agreed with most of what they said--I never put a lot of stock in what eyewitnesses saw, because eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. There are some inconsistencies with the planes that this video omitted, but I don't think I had any major objections. In my opinion, whether or not they were real planes is a minor question, compared to the rapid onset of global collapse seen in WTC 1, 2, and 7.

The official collapse theory has already been addressed elsewhere on this page, and multiple sources have been provided. Check it out. NIST's claims of 40-inch bowing were not arrived at by the scientific method. Underwriters Labs got the steel to bow 4 inches (by exposing it to higher temperatures than were present, for longer time periods), and NIST multiplied by ten. The computer "simulation" in the video is completely fraudulent, as is the attempt to measure the bowing of steel from video stills and/or distant photographs.

When you share private information with a friend--that's gossip.

When you murder thousands of innocent civilians, that's a secret. And if you were involved, you're invested in keeping that secret--because you're part of the system that perpetrated it. You benefit from keeping it secret. If you blab, you're taking a risk.

If you think our government can't keep a secret, then what exactly is the purpose of top secret clearances? I suppose the CIA won't mind if I examine their files, since we know all their secrets which they are unable to keep. You think everything they do is legal? How about moral?

p.s. the Government didn't fabricate the evidence of 9/11 - they omitted, destroyed, or distorted the evidence that was present.

I think all people who are opposed should watch a good show about it. Their theorys about what happened are wrong, engineers have figured it out.

And on a side note I am not american, and I don't think anybody could completely trust their government especialy the americans.

Just because all the data hasn't been explained doesn't mean it was done an inside job. Yes there should be another inquiry if thats what it takes to explain all the data. This debate is about whether or not it was an inside job, not about the merits of another inquiry.

Haha, what an awful comparison. That is a video of a controlled demolition of a building in an icy / snowy climate, with the steel supports at the strongest / most rigid they could be before cracking.

The WTC7 had been on fire for hours, and was hit with thousands of tonnes of debris. Fire radiates heat, which weakens steel. If you get a steel support, and heat it, even if you heat it in a conventional fire you'll get a malleable functionality. 5th-century Chinese [Song dynasty, if I recall correctly] didn't have jet fuel, yet they could still forge swords and armor. How surprising.

By heating steel, it loses it's structural integrity and can be bent and manipulated.

You mention Operation Northwoods. What has a declassified Cold War-era document, with no planned fatalities, have to do with a peacetime plan to evoke a war with casualties ranging from 2,000-30,000 at peak WTC hours?

Why is it so hard for people to see things the way they are now? A man with a $15 air rifle in a book depository or sixteen Saudis with box cutters can change the course of history? Everything is a conspiracy to give power to Israel or an international banking syndicate these days. If Bush wanted to go to Iraq, he wouldn't have fought Afghanistan in the first place. In fact, why even publicize the conflict? Why not just fight a covert war like the Contra scandal or funding the Mujahadeen?

If Bush wanted to go to war in the Middle East, it's not like he'd need a big precedent. This is the THIRD Persian Gulf War in less than two decades. I fail to see why this conflict would need a "false-flag" event that could only be completed by bribing or 'brainwashing' thousands of government employees who stand to gain NOTHING from this. Why would the members of the FAA or NSA want to see their friends in the Army go to Iraq and get killed? What's the point of this coverup?

You say this is "no crazier" than Operation Northwoods. That was a false-flag event that would see NO loss of life, and even that was rejected for being to far fetched. Why do you think it's a declassified report? Because the Government never put any amount of thought into it!

Your point makes the fallacy of hindsight is 20/20. We know now that the memo on Osama Bin-Laden was one that was very valid, but that is hard to discern in the heat of the moment while the president has literally dozens of similar memos put on his table every day.

Wrong. (Minus the I trust my government) I trust my own rational thought and impartial observers. It's the same logic I apply to the Kennedy assassination and the moon landing.

As an aside, what was the last really big secret that our government kept?

Oh, I don't know. Operation Northwoods is pretty good. (It's near the top, in the left hand column. Enjoy).

I don't buy the conspiracy theory.

If you know about it, doesn't that mean they were unsuccessful in keeping it a secret?

It was secret for forty years. How long does it need to be a secret before it "counts?" A hundred years? Two hundred?

It may as well still be secret, because the only way you can find out about it is to engage in independent research--something most Americans are too busy or too indoctrinated to undertake.

I can't do the research for you. More and more Americans are waking up to the fact that the government was involved, on some level, in the events of 9/11. The 9/11 commission report and the NIST report have been exposed as frauds by engineers and scientists (These people had nothing to gain by speaking out, unlike the experts who were willing to endorse the official version of events).

So in your world there are no traitors, counter intelligence, double agents, and death bed confessions.

Conspiracy? Puh-leeze. My dad was in the Pentagon for years, and while I waited for him to get off work, I'd sit in the lobby and watch CNN...

With all the other military types in there. Spy satellites? Hollywood thermal imaging? I can't remember how many times these general big wigs would stop and watch CNN, trying to get their news too. I don't trust my government, I trust that my government can't find it's way to Bin Laden's ass if he was camping on the White House lawn.

I trust that my government is filled with dumb meatbags who want to go home after their 9 hours and watch sports and porn, just like you. Just because they have power doesn't make them any more competent then your conspiracy addled mind.

9/11 an inside job? Not even, you'd have to believe that your fellow man is vastly more intelligent, then your common man displays. And then you'd have hope, because that would mean your fellow man has a plan to take care of your retarded ass while you suck on the teat of American Idol, World of Warcraft, conspiracy theory and fast food.

Conspiracy theory is for weak people who need faith. You've simply replaced God with Government.

Ok, are we done with this? Looks like the "No's" have it.

Then explain the molten metal and the free fall collapses.

Also, where is the steel so we can check how the buildings came down?

Cockpit recording? where?

They didn't. There was trivial external damage only, and almost all of that was on the south face.

External damage is NOT a precursor of controlled demolition. Controlled demolition usually occurs EXCLUSIVELY through INTERNAL DESTRUCTION OF THE CORE STRUCTURE.

building 7 was NOT hit hardest. Buildings 3 4 and 5 ALL took more damage than 7, as you'd expect them to, being closer to the collapsing towers than WTC7 was.

The poster of this question knows so little about 911 and makes so many errors, I dont consider his question credible.

Then explain the collapse of the north face of WTC7. Watch ae911truth.org video for ore details.

WTC7 is obviously a controlled demolition, and that means the government had demolition charges set.

To not realise this, you have to be extremely dumb.

No. No-one has responded to my challenge to explain the vertical free fall nature of the WTC7 collapse yet.

There are lots of explosions all the way down at WTC1 and 2. There are hardly any explosions visible at WTC7- this was a more traditional controlled demolition with Internal, not external explsions, not take out the structure.

Take a look here : http://www.911blogger.com/node/15793

and here:

ae911truth.org

I guess the "not an inside job" have it.

The "weapon" was a large airplane containing enough fuel to cross the ocean. The ignition of such a large amount of fuel produce a number of cataclysmic results including liquification of metals (and other materials). In addition, pressure generates heat. As the building collapsed, it caused massive momentary increases in pressure setting of further explosions, detonating other items which added to the heat.

You must remember that the mastermind is an engineer. Like Hitler, he's as insane and evil as he is brilliant. You may as well ask how Einstein or Beethoven achieved their great deeds. Genius is as genius does.

Your friend may not have the same pressures to keep schtum. Perhaps details of the conspiracy have been leaked (if there was a non-Islamist conspiracy) - perhaps information will be leaked. Weigh your incredulity against the unchallenged facts as they have been reported e.g.

- WTC7 wasn't mentioned in the official 9/11 report

- a few news organisations reported the collapse of WTC7 before it happened

- the 9/11 wreckage was illegally destroyed

- the collapse of the buildings and strange/missing plane wreckage at all sites

- unrecoverable flight recorders

So, if all this is possible, maybe it's possible a group of people can keep a secret.

Yet it sounds like you have done the research for me. Thank you. You're wrong about the commission report and the NIST report. You may believe that they are frauds, but that is hardly the same thing.

You're also wrong about the engineers and scientists not having anything to gain. They get immediate fame, which just goes to show how much science has been taken over by "American Idol"-itis. (Just like the scientists that blindly follow Al Gore.)

As to the question of how long a secret must be kept, I would think it would have to be forever. Frustrating, isn't it?

It is certainly possible that 9/11 was an inside job, but I would not classify it as probable and it in not way comes close to being definite. It is a fun mental exercise to think about it, though, the same way people spend time debating about Roswell and the moon landing being faked.

I appreciate the time and effort you have put into thinking and researching this, but frankly I don't think it is credible.

Ok, it looks like people who don't believe in conspiracies won this one.

Wrong. its too close to call. The strength of argument on the inside job side is stronger. The number of people on the 19 Arabs did it side is marginally stronger.

This is explained solely by the fact that big media has a pipeline into 99% of US and UK homes.

The evidence supports inside job conclusion.

And even if it didnt, the people on the 19 Arabs side STILL beleive in a conspiracy - by 19 Arabs.

So wrong its unbelieveable.

By molten steal are you referring to those trusses and beams that had diagonal cuts and were allegedly proof of theremite? If so, firemen and other workers have tools that enable them to cut through hard metals including steal, which is why it's cut diagonally (theremite can only burn holes at best) and so low to the ground.

As for WTC7 and why it lands in its foot print: WTC7 had extensive fire damage and therefore its entire structural integrity was compromised. The south side, it's true, had the bulk of the damage mainly from falling debris, once it failed (which rescue workers were well aware it was going to do 20 minutes ahead of time: hence the "we pulled" and the 20 minute prescient news report) it, like the towers, fell into its foot print through a domino effect succession. In truth, though the south side was badly damaged, fire raged for a long time through practically the whole building. This is predicated not only on video evidence and professional testimony, but also several computer models done by NIST and independent enterprises, including the discovery channels "Conspiracy Files" show.

Ockham's Razor does the rest.

Your 'science' argument fails to factor in the difference between live and dead loads, and inertia.

20 floors may not be able to collapse 80, but they didn't need to. All they needed to collapse was the floor beneath them. Then those 21 floors, now with some inertia building up, smash the next one. And so on, and so on.

As for the drawing lines down the collapse, how can you determine how much debris was there with any accuracy, considering all the dust in the air?

I do not like the choices I was given, I do not think it was an inside job, but I don't really trust the current government much.

Sigh... all these conspiracy theories... I believe 9/11 was not an inside job (no matter how much I hate the government). I have yet to see valid proof that it was an inside job.

Hey Geoff, don't let the facts get in the way.

Ockham's razor is not proof or even evidence for either direction. It is merely a tool for finding the more logical answer. Your objection to it is invalid and misunderstands what Ockham's razor is. Ockham's razor would actually favour atoms molecules and pressure because those things exist, and to posit a magical force (or demolition explosives) is redundant; multiplies entities unnecessarily, and is therefore illogical.

About the domino effect, or progressive collapse. 9/11 "truth" websites, needless to say, make many unsupported assertions which people take as credible. One of these is the idea that progressive collapse is unprecedented. This is not the case. It's a very easy assertion to make because it doesn't assume a burden of proof, but the minimal level of research falsifies it.

The L'Ambiance Plaza is an example of progressive collapse. At the time they were only half way through construction of the 16 story building, but that half was structurally completed. When the initial collapse occurred, one floor slab fell onto another, which couldn't take the weight and collapsed onto the next, and so on.

Many other examples exist: the New World Hotel in Singapore; Bailey's Crossroads collapse of 1973; in 1985 a 21 story building in L.A.; the fire induced collapse of the Ronan Point flats in the UK. These examples aren't perfect, but are proof positive that this type of collapse occurred prior to September 11, 2001, and will occur again.

You claim that fire alone was not enough to cause a collapse in a steel building. "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. Jet fuel burns at burns at 800° to 1500°F. Perhaps the unprecedented part was that this was no ordinary fire. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." Inside were also many combustible materials that amplified the inferno. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. A predictable temperature considering the circumstances, and more than enough to elicit structural collapse. (source: Popular Mechanics)

Photographic and video evidence affirm this, including images of the dust resulting from the first pancake collapse, and the circumstantial evidence of the order the towers collapsed, due to the height of plane impact, all of which has been replicated in computer models.

first of all, I don't believe in conspiracy theories.

second of all, I believe terrorist were responsible for 9/11.

third of all, I don't entirely trust any government.

fourth of all, I believe that there are evil people on this world.

fifth of all, I believe that there are people bent on destroying America.

On the other hand, I have five more fingers.

If you take the position that the "currently held" view of 9/11 is a conspiracy, then I can't counter your argument that I believe in conspiracies because we are not even on the same plane. In order to have a rational, productive argument, both points of view need to reside in the same plane.

You are incorrect. the WTC collapses had to be controlled demolitions for the three core reasons- 1) molten metal witnesses and video evidence 2) free fall collapse acceleration (NOT pancaking) 3) vertical collapse of WTC7, overwhelmingly damaged on the south side, and hardly damaged on the north side at all.

Moving the goal post. I responding to you (or perhaps the other poster in this thread) who said that progressive collapse of a steal structure was never documented prior to 9/11. I showed that as false, and how you responded was irrelevant to the categorical fact that they have occurred in the past.

I'll address your claims too. 1) molten metal witnesses and video evidence. Correct. It does seem to be molten metal. It is not indicative of steel, however, and fits the characteristics of melted aluminum "Visual evidence already discussed shows that significant wreckage from the aircraft passed through the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower on the 81st floor, i.e., at the location where the molten material apparently originated. Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 (NISTSTAR 1-3). The melting points for these alloys vary as the material melts. The Aluminum Association handbook (The Aluminum Association 2003) lists the melting point ranges for the alloys as roughly 500C to 638C and 475C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075, respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca. 1000C), and any aluminum present is likely to have been at least partially melted by the intense fires that had been in the area for nearly 48 min." (NISTNCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C

p.p. 375-376 (pdf p.p. 79-89)) Coincidentally, aluminum is an ingredient in thermite.

I highly recommend reading the whole report for yourself in the link below.

2) free fall collapse. Dr. Frank Greening's paper on this is probably the most thorough investigation into this seemingly baseless claim, however it can be refuted categorically with a few basic facts. One: in the videos and photos of the collapse one can see columns and other heavy debris far outpacing the collapse of WTC7. Two: one can also see dust debris falling at approximately the same speed of the building, which proves it was falling well below freefall speed. Three: Dr. Greens paper (which I will link below) give physical models of WTC7's collapse, and the energy transfer which increased its momentum with each "pancake", which is not possible if it was falling at freefall speed, and is conclusive proof of a progressive collapse.

So why does this ludicrous claim keep appearing? Deceptive video editing, and the memetics behind a useful rhetorical factoid. From debunking911 "Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high." Every report in existence refutes freefall including the videos themselves.

3) vertical collapse of WTC7, overwhelmingly damaged on the south side, and hardly damaged on the north side at all. You are beginning to strike me as a person who doesn't read the arguments against his claims. Multiple computer and physics models (as previously mentioned) show conclusively the cause of collapse at WTC7. Nevertheless, I'll reiterate some important facts verbatim from the mouths of 9/11 investigators and experts:

(the following is from the PM article. find the link below)

Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line.

Dr. Greenings paper of the freefall fallacy: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Another interesting page on the freefall fallacy. Includes several noteworthy calculations of freefall speed vs. the actual collapse.

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

WTC7 Collapse

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7

I made a response to your other post and will skip the parts I covered there. Therein I covered the "lava" like flow, the collapse of WTC7, freefall, and vertical progressive collapse.

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

That covers fire damage and provides, near the bottom, diagrams, models, and corresponding primary evidence of the extent of damage done to WTC7.

The rest of your post is a cynical red herring, ie. brushing off evidence because of its source. You also make some claims about the NIST report (which you clearly have not read) which are untrue. I liked the entire NIST report in my other post. It's a tough task to brush off the NIST report, which was completed with admirable rigor, objectivity, and scientific scrutiny. A tough task, but nevertheless typical of the cynical 9/11 truther. The whole movement is fueled off of a cynicism towards the Bush Administration, and a few lowly armchair intellectuals who's subsequent propaganda films have perpetuated the myths, lies, and downright stupidity that the typical truther displays. It wholly relies on a general gullibility and impotence towards look at conflicting evidence.

I freely admit, though, the videos and blogs (which I have read and seen all of; I've been covering the topic since 2003) are very persuasive at face value, and I was convinced temporarily. This, of course, had more to do with video composition and soundtrack, as well as my distaste for the Bush administration, than anything remotely empirical or scientific. I've since reformed, and proudly, for I can join the club of true critics. Like Chomsky, who rightly rejects the myths, while going on to chastise the present and past administrations for their true terrorist atrocities overseas.

What I meant was that I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I thought that was clear from the context.

Robbers clearly conspire to steal. A lier doesn't necessarily lie in order to steal. But to claim that some one lied in order to steal with little proof is clearly a conspiracy theory.

The government doesn't normally conspire to blow up their own buildings and kill their own people in order to have an excuse to attack a third world country (Afghanistan) that has no economic or strategic benefit. To claim otherwise and offer inconclusive proof falls in the conspiracy theory realm.

I guess I'm guilty of assuming that people understood what I meant from the context. But now I realize that I have to guide the reader through each and every step, connecting the dots for them.

Governments don't normally conspire to blow up their own buildings and kill their own people in order to have an excuse to attack a third world country that has no economic or strategic benefit (like Afghanistan).

i agree that the 911 inside job "theory" or better put "argument" (as a lot of people do believe it) is just simply too big. waaay too big. im not saying that information wasnt distorted or that there wasnt ANY form of a cover up but come on...two of the largest buildings ever built being brought down by the government is just insane. insane for anyone to ever imagine.

Not only that but wouldn't there be a number of workers crawling all over the place? I mean, how do you explain that to the people who work there? Why doesn't some body say, "Hey, weeks before 9/11 I saw a bunch of workers doing stuff...."

it's amazing that besides not knowing shit about physics, these people also don't have common sense.

all your theories were crushed:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/ c.cgi?u=911_morons

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

you mean warped steel?

"Near free fall speed"

Yes, it wasn't free fall.

"can only occur where the resistance from the steel structure is removed by explosives."

That's a 'creationism' style argument from ignorance. "I can't think of any way therefore it's xyz."

"google William Rodriguez"

Yes, because his account is completely reliable and accurate.

"WTC7 could only have fallen vertically if both sides of the structure was taken out simultaneously by explosives."

There's absolutely no other explanation (until one is found).

"Streams and pools of molten iron and iron rich microspheres could only be caused by steel cutting incendiaries."

Or maybe the pressure of half a million tonnes or stuff crashing down.

"To think we have insufficient evidence"

There is insufficient evidence. Who do you think perpetrated this crime?

your problem is that melted steel would require more than explosions or jet fuels. it would require, i don't know, a giant welder (considering the size of the buildings). now, if the government created a giant welder, okay. but, more accounts (from actual legitimate sources) state that it is in fact warped steel (which actually looks like melted steel). hell, no one's actually ever seen a fallen building with melted steel (intentional or not), it doesn't work like that.

I say that is wasn't an inside job, not necessarily because I trust my government, but because I think that George W. Bush is too much of an idiot to pull off something that complex and not get noticed by his peers. I mean, just look at how Bush reacted when it happened, he panicked! He wasn't sure what to do, so instead he let congress and the house of representatives decide we should go to war! So with that, I restate that I don't think it was an inside job because Bush is not smart enough to pull it off.

So you expect me to believe that the entire congress and the entire house of representatives are against America? I don't think so! And there is not one person powerful enough in government other than the president who can pull off something that big! And you just agreed that he is a "retarded chimpanzee" so he is out of the list of people it could have been. The only other person could have been the VP MAYBE! but other than him, the congress as a WHOLE or the house of representatives as a WHOLE and it is doubtful that they could have contacted someone all the way in the middle east and set up this whole operation without us, the people of this country, knowing about it!

Here's a 3D animation created by Purdue University scientists that show the effects of a plane plowing into the towers.

I almost hate to write a comment on an argument that is so infiltrated with paranoid schizophrenics. Conspiracy theorists persist in magical thinking rather than accepting the obvious. I don't trust my govt. but I also know they are incapable of producing a conspiracy that cannot be easily uncovered. I can hardly believe that this is an actual debate. I'm so disgusted I don't even want to argue this silly postulate.

Even if the structures of the towers may not have failed due to the impact of the aircraft, they were both transcontinental flights. That means that even with the takeoff and travel to New York City, they still would have had a nearly full load of jet fuel. The fire caused by the fuel could have weakened the structure of the building to the point that the structure could not hold up the several floors above the point of impact.

As for Tower 7, there was structural damage caused by the collapse of the towers and fires burned on the inside. Inadequate fire suppresion systems caused the fires to burn out of control, weakening the structure of the building. If almost ANY building were allowed to burn uncontrolled, the frame would eventually weaken to the point of giving way, and in this case, it brought down the building.