This guy is very smart, he's directly on target. props for being the support structure of this topic.

YOu already lost, quit trying to shoot down little points, you're aegument has been pounded into cosmic dust. The fact that you will not even admit that a lot of this stuff points to government involvement can only mean one of two things. 1. You're extremely ignorant. Or 2. You are on a "mission". From the way you argue things, I suspect it's the seccond one, there's a sh** load of govt bloggers out there tying to sway oppinon away, because the people are SLAUGHTERTING the nwo is the intelectual battle. Got anymore nonsense?

Wow, that all you got? I expected more. Here I thought you had more than the usual repertoire of cheezy homepages and foriegn conspiracy links... But you don't. You lost and now your resorting to the "You must be teh goverment!" excuse in a mad effort to salvage something. Sad really. If this was the "owning" you referred to earlier in the thread I'm not impressed.
With all your bluster and pomp I really expected you to come through with something more substantial, I'm disappointed

Hopefully this doesn't mark the end of the thread however, I had a lot of fun in the discussion

PS: I don't blog by the way, don't even read 'em actually. Online logs are fun and all, but I prefer the dynamic of a forum anyday.

You asked for scientific proof and you sidestepped it - so here it is again. Galileo and Newton on my side. Dr.Eager the MIT lying butthead on yours!

planes were flown by remote control?explosives in the building?do you sit around and think of this sh**,or does it come to you natural?acid in moderation can be a good thing,but in the doses you have obviously taken it has really seriously given you some major friggin' problems.i think sabbath wrote the song"Paranoid" just for you!

Are you going for a record of some sort? I've never seen more posts totally devoid of anything even halfway intelligent. Why not at least spend as much time trying to support your position as you do on looking for junk images to clutter up your posts?

I touch on this later. But real quick... 9.8m/s/s is the rate of freefall. It took 10 seconds for the tower to collapse. 10*9.8m = 98m. 98 meters is 321.5 feet. The hieght of the south tower was 1,362 feet. This means in the last second of the collapse, the tower had accelerated to the point that it was moving at almost 25% of it's height per second. I'm not sure how this formula proves anything other than the fact that it abided by the laws of physics.



If this is referring to the south towers "sway 23 degrees, snap back upright, and collapse" scenario, it's irrelevant as none of that happened - see video links near the bottom of the post.



How often has a 110 story building been hit by a commercial jet liner? Great way to promote a book though eh?



The "melted steel" theory was paraded by the media. Current reports state the steel was *weakened* - not melted. This is entirely possible as I said before. Remember that man has been shaping iron since 500 BC with nothing but a forge, anvil, and a hammer. Iron has an even HIGHER melting point than steel and yet man can shape it with nothing more than his own strength and rudimentary tools.



An empty 707 weighs 122,552 pounds.
An empty 767 weighs 164,800 pounds.

That's an increase of 34%. That's a HUGE difference even before they are loaded. But regardless, and your quote even says as much - the impact of the planes didn't topple the towers.



If they were found bubbling five weeks after the incident, it's unlikely that the planes did it, don't you think?



This comment is so ludicrous it's funny. So if you crashed a 767 into a turkey, it would take 280 minutes to cook it? So apparently a plane crash only reaches temperatures of 325 degrees, since that's the temperature required to cook a 24 pound bird in 4.6 hours.



Already talked about above. The towers (and every skyscraper) is built to sway, and it never "reversed direction," it tilted (almost as if on it's axis) and collapsed without ever snapping upright. Watch the video here:
View from the east
From the south

I find it hilarious these video's are from a 911 conspiracy site

QUOTE(turbonium @ May 29 2005, 09:51 AM)

Demolitions does not "remove resistance." All that steel and concrete would still be there whether it was a bomb, plane, earthquake, etc. etc. Last I checked we don't have access to anti-matter bombs.

That said, I'll refer you to Newton's first and second law with the concept of terminal velocity. Drop an elephant and a feather from the same height, and the elephant hits the ground first, there is no such thing as "resistance-free" unless you are performing the experiment in a vacuum. Welcome to a world of physics beyond the base rules. Here's a nice site that outlines it perfectly:
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/newtlaws/efar.html

The WTC would have a FAR higher factor of air resistance than a football, and so would accelerate to a higher speed in the fall (ie. higher terminal velocity or in simpler terms, the state of zero acceleration) and would hit the ground before the football.



Seismograohic data like this?
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...TC_LDEO_KIM.htm

Unfortunately, no seismic recordings of ground motion are currently known to exist at or very close to the WTC. Plans are pending for an Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS; see USGS [1999]) that calls for increased urban seismic instrumentation, including New York City, and the September 11 events show that such instrumentation can be valuable to serve a purpose that sometimes transcends strict earthquake applications.

Perhaps, but everybody loves a conspiracy - the mundane story isn't nearly as exciting. Without proponents of the official story, there would be nothing to debate here and the thread would have died with the first post.



I agree, and I've said such before. That's why my original comment was saying that despite being a part of the intel community, I can see where it's possible that we indeed dropped the ball. In a perfect world threats would be detailed enough that we could place them in two boxes labelled "Threat" and "Hoax" - but sadly things aren't that cut and dry. Historically we had never had a foreign terrorist attack on our soil. Not that folks hadn't considered the possibility, but generally the public grumbles over resources that get wasted for threats that may never happen.



Sadly, truer words are rarely spoken.



Yup yup. Likely there were several other unknowns as well.



Good point. I would counter with the odds of a plane hitting a building increasing exponentially depending on area. If a plane dropped over Los Angeles or over NYC, hitting a building would be likely I think.



And there's the fact that essentially "Muslims" and "Radical Muslims" are almost seperate religions altogether. At the least two very seperate ways to interpret a religion.



You can't arrest someone because they have anti-American sentiments. You especially can't do it on foriegn soil without regard for local authorities.



And that's fine. Nothing wrong with analyzing a situation as long as they realize that someone with a different point of view may be just as legitimate as they are.



Honestly, I think it was high time Saddam was removed from power. I'm glad we did it. Everyone talks about the cloak and dagger evil things Bush does... But Saddam was a tyrant in the open, he made no attempt to remotely hide the fact that he was corrupt and cruel. I still don't believe the gov't orchestrated the 911 attack. At most we dropped the intel ball.



Doesn't mean we aren't still collecting intel and looking though.



lol @ data storage stock

There's also the element that the more human watchers you employ, the greater the risk of a leak. Best to keep things simple I think.



In order to work harder, we'd need more resources and more power. I don't see either coming down the pipeline anytime soon unfortunately.



I don't think the American government thinks it can pull it off, I think some people think the American government thinks it can pull it off.



Your not catching me unawares like that I'm not going to go into personal opinion on hidden information, because if I'm right and it comes out later, it's my ass when they decide to see how I knew!

What I will do is offer my opinion on why I think letting the public in on all the information is often a bad idea.

I think there's a point where hiding information from the public is a necessity, for various reasons. We have a system set up in the intel community where you don't even talk about unclassified stuff in public, because even though one piece of information is unclassified, if it is positively link to another piece of information it becomes something higher. For that reason, a lot of stuff is held back. We need to protect information that can in anyway out an informant, for example. While it would be nice to tell the public that Joe Blow that's undercover in Iraq heard something, it's not gonna happen if it get's Joe Blow killed and/or loses us that vital route of intel.

On another front, the public is especially skittish (and moreso after 911) - Let's say we acted on all threats by releasing them to the public. We get a threat in that says a building in Dallas is going to get attacked by terrorists in the month of May. We don't know *which* building, and we don't know *which* day. What happens? We have a city-wide panic, people are fleeing, some people are looting, people don't report to work and the city economy takes a huge hit. June rolls around and there was no attack, guess who gets the blame? The government.

That's essentially what it comes down to. We have to protect the public, and take our knocks. We are ALWAYS going to be taking knocks, but we decide whether to take them with various conspiracy sites, or by shelling out money to a failing economy due to over reaction to threats. It's a huge balancing act.

Unfortunately even information that really is "safe" to release, once classified is under the miles of read tape to unclassify it. Even those rules are for a reason though, can't be unclassifying something accidently... by the time the mistake is caught the damage would be done, and that damage could mean loss of life.

Check the link below to see videos of implosions - only air resistance - just like WTC 1 and 2.
The Twin Towers each collapsed to ground level in less than thirteen seconds, basically free fall time as there would be air resistance because as we CAN agree
The time t required for an object to fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2) would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account.
Yes, welcome to the wonderful world of physics, indeed!
From this link
Implosion World
Therefore, the only time a building is truly 'imploded' is when exposures (other structures or areas of concern) completely surround it. When this situation exists, the blaster has no choice; he must make the building collapse in on itself. This is by far the trickiest type of explosive demolition project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience—and insurance—to perform these true building implosions.
When the excitement of the blast is over, a large, billowing cloud of dust is one of the most identifiable characteristics of a successful project.

But in your last post you cited the speed of the towers collapse as something that was caused by demolition. But here you just stated that they would collapse in 9 seconds in a vacuum. If they collapsed in less than 13 seconds, that's almost 45% slower than in a vacuum... Air resistance? Sounds like they would have collapsed in @ 13 seconds regardless of whether demolitions were the cause or just structural weakening.



Evidenced by these satellite shot of post 911 lower Manhattan, if it was a demolition done to protect the surrounding area they did a poor job.

http://lundissimo.info/wtc/sat/wtc_side_by_side.jpg

http://lundissimo.info/wtc/sat/Manhattan-091201.jpg

steel is forged at temperatures between 2,100oF and 2,300oF (1,150oC to 1,260oC). Forging


The collapse was NOT in a vacuum! As I already said, it takes a few seconds longer to fall when we take the air resistance into account. . 9 seconds plus air resistance equals the 11 - 12 seconds FREE FALL of the towers. Nice try though!

you call sitting around and thinking of conspiracy after conspiracy about remote controlled airplanes being flown into bulidings, and explosives being planted into buildings intellegent?why do'nt you wake up and smell what you are shoveling?
have you any proof that people were seen anythime planting explosives in the towers?how about building 7?how could you speculate you can actually sit and fly a plane by remote control?if we did(and we did"nt)destroy and carry out the terrorist attacks,then we must have trained the homicide bombers then aye?
that bullshit you are trying to spread is gonna be higher than the twin towers before long!

i know why the us government carried out the 911 attacks,like a good dump it hit me all of a sudden.the us blew up the towers,attacked the pentagon,and crashed a plane in a field near pittsburg to throw off all bad publicity from all the shark attacks going on that summer up and down the east coast.it makes perfect sense,or just as much sense as flying remote controlled jumbo jets into buildings,or planting explosives in a building and blowing it up does'nt it???

Remote controlled planes?? I made no statement on that as proven whatsoever! What YOU are shoveling is clear. They DO factually exist - do I need to post links on that or can you actually discover that on your own? As for explosives - all I can prove is that they WERE used - you can ignore that fact all you want - live in ignorance and denial of facts. Follow a monkey-puppet and his ridiculous lies.... you may one day have enough common sense to smack yourself in the head for having once believed in a traitor and his oil pigsters.
Now go help invade, um, find those WMD's and kill some civilians, er, insurgents- talk is cheap, and Shrub wants his sheep, um, supporters to fight for his greater glory, um, for the good ol' USA!!!

executive order w199i
operation tripod 2
operation vigilant gaurdian
operation northwoods
fbi special agent Rober Wright
Timothy McNiven
former deputy FBI director John O’Neil-leaked w199i
USAF Col. George Nelson
Karl Schwarz
Sibel Edmonds
Kevin Ryan


dropped the ball? more like -bush intentionally looked away while cheney came and slapped it out of his hand

find out who these people are

You're a waste of time, Turbonium has already sonned you. I don't have enough time to rip everything apart. But like I said I've got 600 peices of evidence, all u have is the passport, the travel bag, and the Bin Laden tapes, I've got the footage of buildings being blown up, and scientific documentation that bombs are the only way it can happen, any reasondly inteligent person would be able to see that, I know that w/ all the evidence you've seen it doesn't matter what I bring to the table you'll still argue. I don't have the time to read your posts, letalong respond to them all.

Thank you, men in 500 BC could weaken steel with coal in an oven, but a fire started by jet fuel and then kept alive by a wide variety of materials can't?

Steel is forged at temps between 2,100-2,300oF - But it begins to weaken *much* sooner. By the time steel has achieved a temperature of only 1,200-1,400oF it's yield stress can be reduced by over 1/2.

Link



That's *if* the extra 4 seconds were caused completely by air resistance. Part of it may indeed have been due to structural resistance. But we need to remember that the towers, while large in area, most of that area was air. That would be why all 110 stories culminated in a pile of rubble only a few stories high.

You don't have 600 pieces of evidence, you have 600 links all saying the same thing. That's hardly "evidence."

The only waste of time in this thread is you. We have two kinds of people posting in the thread that I can see:

1) Those that are actively debating, doing research, contributing information and counterpoints.

2) Those that just post up conspiracy information they found elsewhere, and are unwilling to do any other research on the matter, and instead defend their points with personal attacks.

Turbonium, Narafa, Sonofone, and a few others are of type 1. I actually look foreword to their posts, they know their stuff and the debate is enjoyable. I know I won't change their minds, and I know they are intelligent enough to know they won't change mine... But still we spar and it's all good fun. While me and Turbonium have been going back and forth in this thread, I have the utmost respect for him and his posts. Unfortunately you are type 2 and I'm not sure why you bother posting - Turbonium is doing a far better job at arguing your theory than you did... He's actually going outside the geocities and other cheap/free sites and is coming up with some damn good info, it's keeping me on my toes. You should just sit back and let him at it... grab some popcorn and enjoy the show, and don't take it so personally that I don't agree with your view.

I said we dropped the ball in regards to not giving terrorist threat info the credit it was due in regards to WTC (which IMO is largely due to having no historical precedent of a foreign attack on the continental US in modern history). Outside of that, yes we've made mistakes - there is no intel agency in the world that operates at 100% accuracy... If know of anyone that can do a better job, NSA is always hiring and you can submit your resume through their web site

Actually, from your own link it states: The molecular structure remains unchanged at temperatures below the transition temperature of about 1330F (723C).
Kevin Ryan of Underwriter Laboratories, the company that certified the steel used in the towers, wrote this letter to Frank Gayle of NIST...Ryan letter

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. ..
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C. However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

From the FEMA report FEMA
The FEMA/ASCE Study (2.2.2):

"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes (SFPE 1995) provided sufficient air for combustion was available. In reality, the jet fuel would have been distributed over multiple floors, and some would have been transported to other locations. Some would have been absorbed by carpeting or other furnishings, consumed in the flash fire in the aerosol, expelled and consumed externally in the fireballs, or flowed away from the fire floors. Accounting for these factors, it is believed that almost all of the jet fuel that remained on the impact
floors was consumed in the first few minutes of the fire".

So, we can conclude that 500F (250C) was the temperature level in the WTC fires, as is to be expected from such a fire. And, as I first noted, the molecular structure does not even begin to change until about 1330F (723C). We also know that the fires were not widespread from the videos, photos, and firefighters tapes.
Add it all up and we have proof beyond any doubt whatsoever that the towers could not, and were not brought down by the fires and/or plane impact.

I didn't catch that, obviously we all know that's a false statement as it doesn't take near that much heat to change the way the molecules are reacting. I'm not sure why they made that statement, unless it's a broad reference that there needs to be at least that much heat to achieve the molecular reaction needed for straightening.

Here's another link, note they say that a steel bar heated up from 0oF to 80oF gains .075 of an inch in length. That defenitely shows some molecular reaction (increase in molecular vibration).

Link



Kevin Ryan was then fired from Underwriter Laboratories because he was neither qualified nor authorized to speak on UL's behalf on the issue. Probably because he was the site manager for the Environmental Health Laboratories and may have been speaking out of his area of expertise.

Link



Not disagreeing here, I've said a few times in the thread that the jet fuel would have burned up pretty quickly and any long lasting fire would have been fueled by other sources (office furniture, paper, plastics, etc.)



I'm not convinced we can conclude that 500F was the limit for the WTC, Kevin Ryan was fired despite the fact that his email was defending the UL... I think that has to account for something. As far as molecular change, I learned in high school that molecular aggitation increases with heat, I'm not sure why that source cites 1330F as some magic molecular changing number but I'm pretty sure it's incorrect, kudo's for catching them out. I'm in total agreement that the plane impact didn't bring down the towers, but I'm still unconvinced that the fires didn't weaken steel that may have been already stressed (ie. no longer "straight") due to the impact.

i voted for bush,he was the lesser of 2 evils,imo.why do'nt you go to a quiet room,plug your nose,plug your ears,cross your legs and fart?maybe that will clear your so called mind okay?

I guess from bad mojo's idea, we have to add a third type - those who post nothing BUT garbage.
Bad mojo - I respect your opinion as well - but you have some really bad post wasters on your side of the debate

UL did say he was fired for those reasons, but it's funny that UL or NIST never said he was wrong! It's a case of a whistleblower getting the boot for rocking the "official story" boat.


The 1991 fire One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia documents one of the most significant high-rise fires in United States’ history. The fire gutted eight floors of a 38-story steel-framed building and was much more intense and lasted much longer (19 hours) than the WTC fires(1 to 2 hours), but did not come near to collapsing. The recent Madrid fire completely engulfed the Windsor Building but almost the entire structure remained standing, even though it was NOT as fire resistant as the WTC towers, since it had only steel reinforced concrete framing.
This NIST report NISTstates that temperatures in"two core columns in impact area...<250C"

There have been MANY model demonstrations of intense fires within steel framed structures - NONE of them resulted in a collapse of the structure!! It would be quite simple to build a scale model that simulates the WTC towers to see how it reacts to the fires after the structural damage. But I would bet my life on them never doing so, at least in public view!

If fires can do what they are telling us they did on 9/11 (that fire can weaken steel to a point of collapsing a building - despite never before, not since) then millions of us with fireplace grates and barbecues must be beyond lucky that they have not yet deformed or collapsed!! That example should make the absurdity of their claims more than obvious. Cripes, even blazing building fires with little or no steel have survived countless times throughout the past. But on 9/11 it all comes down after about ONE HOUR? At nearly the SPEED OF A FREE FALL? 90% OF THE TOWERS NOT EVEN DAMAGED?

pardon my stupidity,
but i thought the government also said something about the jet fuel from the plane causing an explosion?
maybe its just me-
would anybody out there know how much jet fuel a typical passenger jet carries? and what kind of explosion that much fuel might cause?
just wondering...

The fuel capacity of a Boeing 767, the type which hit the Twin Towers, according to this site http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2001/20...1.11block.shtml

is . A 757's (which did or didn't hit the Pentagon) is . Hope that's some help.

hmm. thanks for the link,747400.
but wouldn't that explain the conspiracy theories a bit?

Nothing prevents it from eventually becoming fact, but the *fact* remains that it's essentially a nationwide drivers license. Let's think about the resources required to biometrically link a card to an owner nationwide, and then keep tabs on the entire population via satellite. I don't see it happening anytime soon, if ever.


UMM didnt they pass a law about 2-3 weeks ago stating they were implementing the National ID by 2008. it passed with no problem.

It sure seems to fit into the big picture people of why people are saying the government was behind it.

You guys keep forgetting about one crucial element- the plane crash itself may not have destroyed building 7 or the WTC, but the FUEL on the other hand......

The fuel melted the steel. the WTC was "explosives proof" (no idea about building 7 though). The WTC had steel frames made to support the structure in case of an explosion. It was all thought out. The fuel melted these, causing the collapse. Ground temperature was scorching hot, and destroyed building 7's foundations. No explosives, no conspiracy bs. A mixture of human malice and bad luck. That's all. Most of what you people attribute to conspiracy is actually the product of human stupidity and error.

Please provide even one provable source for even one thing you have said.
Fuel melted steel? Explosives proof? Sorry but ... Read some of the posts with links by myself, Sunofone, sub-zero just to get a grip on what really happened.

the truth behind 911 is really we'll never really know.it could have been mr spock who beamed down from lonestar1,spocked the crew and flew the plane most illogically into the towers,or it could have been 19 islamic assholes bent on ruining the lives of millions of people worldwide by attacking the world's most known nation,and freedom everywhere.or it could have been a vast conspiracy by the american government to royally stump f**k its people,just for a few bucks.truth is we'll never really know,and maybe really do'nt want to!

This time I can actually agree with you on that assessment. IMO the truth is not something many people want to face, especially if they deep down know the truth would show their own gov't is against them, and will even kill them to advance their own sick friggin' angenda. It's classic psy-op tactics - the bigger and more horrific the event, the less likely the citizens would ever fathom it would ever be done by their own leaders.

one thing about this all amazes me.they are going to turn around and put an almost 2000ft tower right back to replace the twin towers.i think replacing the towers with an even bigger target is plain out ignorant!they may as well go around and raffle off a chance to knock the building down again i think.

So where is the proof about all this??

Nothing is clear or 100% sure of in this issue. No Body knows the real truth, it's just hidden and won't be shown now or maybe ever.

Now, who told you that the fuel burning melted the steel???? This is not 100% correct. If you took some more time and watch the videos once again, you will notice a very nice thing, a huge amount of fire blew out when the plane crashed the building, which means that a large amount of fuel actually burned outside the building due to the crash, which means that the heat effect of this outburned quantity was minimum inside the tower, which again means that there were not enough heat inside to melt the steel.

Another very important thing, most experts are sure that 80% of the jet fuel got burned right after the plane crash, so it is supposed that the maximum temperature occured just right after the collapse, so the building should have collapsed just after the crash, which didn't happen, it took some time for the towers to collapse, in which it is supposed that the temperature was below the moment of crash. So WHY in your opinion the buildings crashed like that ?

The steel frames you are talking about in the building are not the main steel component in the tower, because if it was, strong wind would have collapsed the tower long time ago. All skyscrapers have a huge centered steel core in the middle of the building to minimize the wind effect and to strengthen the tower.

on the cbs documentary 911,there was footage of firefighters inside the wtc,and all of a sudden there were explosions around them.they detrmined it was jet fuel running down the sides of the building,and catching on fire,which was blowing the windows out.

this remark is so ludicrous im going to assume its sarcasm or satire--if not please include a link to the scholar that deduced this--its a joke to think that fuel "running down the side" of the building and suddenly igniting would cause them to blow --"out" at that ha lol --i would love to hear an explanation for the image i put in the "debunking the in plane site" thread of the wtc lobby which contained cracked walls and broken glass--was that from the jet fuel too? the fact is there were secondary devices used to bring down the wtc towers and the evidence is in the video--there was not one angle that didnt include incriminating demolition evidence--from rows of windows blowing out,balls of fire,flashes from detonators,and even distinct high velocity ejections from shape charges the wealth of video evidence is under estimated-- i "know" you "all' have seen every example of the specific type of evidence mentioned--if not ,i can start another thread focusing on the demolition evidence exclusively--wtc 1,2,7 and even the pentagon contain evidence of demolition charges--the pentagon ring supposedly collapsed due to the extreme heat yet in one of the photos you can clearly see a book laying open and unburned inches from the edge of one of the collapsed walls --clearly if fire caused the collapse the book would have been burned--

some people say that the "plane" that hit the pentagon was actually a missile

A couple of links showing more evidence pointing towards a commercial plane.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pe...e_evidence.html
http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen06.html

Ya nice write up. I'm not going to loose sleep over it, as I had the "feeling" but its good to see a one stop source for videos and stuff. Thanks!

This thread deserves its own Domain name lol, good work. The truth will come out one day, no way they can get away with this.

Awhile ago I posted on this topic wondering what happened to the reported 266 passengers aboard those planes. Well I happened across an article at the http//www.rumormillreadingroom
that reported that of the total passengers, only about 30% were actually found on the Social Securit Admin's list of deceased people. One Sam Martino did an exhaustive search and found not only this figure but also that only about 50% of the victim's relatives filed claims for compensation. Hmmmm????

I just have some questions about this theory, and I'm not trying to be rude, I just want to know your answers. Didn't Osama Bin Laden and al qieda admit to be the ones who brought the towers down? Does the U.S. government have ties to them? Why would they do this if your theory is true? Who is benefiting from bringing down the towers? What does president Bush have to gain from this big conspiracy? If those truely are squibs on the side of the world trade center, do you have any footage of them blowing up? Has anyone come foreward admitting that this was infact a cover up? Again I'm not trying to sound rude, and I dont necessarily believe there was no cover up, I'm just looking for answers.

i recently watched a documentary about the collapse of the twin towers it wasn't to do with conspiracies it was just about the structural damage and why they collapsed and to basically keep it short and simple as i am not an expert on this they basically showed that the steel did not melt it was heated and became slightly flexible which weakens the steel. they also went into detail about how they floors were made and that the fire proofing on the steel did not cover all the steel and was due to be re-applied (it obviously went into more detail with experts etc). until watching this i didn't know what to think because the evidence of charges etc seemed pretty viable to me but after watching this programme it seemed to make sense what they were saying. the documentary was on the discovery channel and it was called "how the towers collapsed" anyone who hasn't seen it watch it & see what you think.

No conspiracy. Bush is an idiot.