Home / Be The Change / New Study / 15 Years Later, Physics Journal Concludes: All 3 WTC Towers Collapsed Due to Controlled Demolition

15 Years Later, Physics Journal Concludes: All 3 WTC Towers Collapsed Due to Controlled Demolition

Renowned Physics Journal Concludes in New Study: All 3 WTC Towers Collapsed Due to Controlled Demolition

journal

New York, NY – Over the past 15 years many highly respected academics and experts have come forward to challenge the official narrative on the collapse of the WTC towers forwarded by the U.S. government. The official government position holds that the collapse of all three towers was due to intense heat inside of the buildings.

But a new forensic investigation into the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11, published in Europhysics News – a highly respected European physics magazine – claims that “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.”

While many in the mainstream have attempted to label anyone questioning the official narrative as “tin foil hat” conspiracy theorist, many highly respected experts have come forward to lampoon the idea that the buildings collapsed due to the intense heat and fires following two terrorist-directed plane crashes.

“Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities,” the four physicists conclude in the damning report.

The new study is the work of Steven Jones, former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University, Robert Korol, a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, Anthony Szamboti, a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries and Ted Walter, the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers.

READ MORE:  New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile

The comprehensive study in Europhysics Magazine directly challenges the official narrative and lends to a growing body of evidence that seriously questions the veracity of the government narrative.

In 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology remarked that the case was exceptionally bizarre. There were no other known cases of total structural collapses in high-rise buildings caused by fires and so it is deeply unusual that it should have happened three times in the space of one day, noted NIST.

Official investigations have never been able to thoroughly and coherently explain how this might have happened and various teams tasked with examining the collapse have raised difficult questions about the veracity of the government’s story.

Perhaps most damning of all, the experts claimed that after a thorough forensic analysis of video footage of the building’s collapse, it revealed signs of a controlled implosion. Additionally, Jones has co-authored a number of papers documenting evidence of unreacted nano-thermitic material in the WTC dust.

The authors of the study note that the buildings fell with such speed and symmetry that they there was no other feasible explanation for the sudden collapse at free fall speeds – directly refuting studies that attempted to debunk the idea that the building fell without resistance. These respected experts’ new forensic analysis only adds to the growing movement of people calling for a new and impartial investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center.

Revealing the scope and breadth of public disbelief in the official government narrative surrounding the events of 9/11, even presidential candidate Jill Stein has recently called for a new investigation.

READ MORE:  Obama Administration Caught Conspiring to Destroy Key 9/11 Evidence in Trial at Gitmo

  • Natural_Texan

    But Obama said we have to look forward, not back!

    • 062014

      And Bush said getting bin Laden wasn’t important.

      • lori abeyta

        He wasn’t, he was a decoy. Yes bad, bad man. Not the reason for anything that happened that day!

  • Viride Faenum

    Duh. An interesting aspect of the event is that there have been ‘terrorist’ events both before and after yet, this is the only time the federal government choose to pay out death insurance with the condition the families don’t have legal action against the US government. You might say there was an outpouring of concern but the first responders in the same event are hung out to dry with spikes in cancer and the US government is shamed into doing the right thing. Concern for the families was clearly not the agenda, fear of truth was.

    Naturally we have other problems of the machinery of justice more concerned with protecting criminals and thugs on the payroll than prosecuting the same. Seen any free range war criminals lately?

    • lori abeyta

      Nice!

  • Real Truth stings

    2 tall objects, of equal height, construction and dimensions. 2 impact points, different directions, different shape of impact force. Result: the 2 tall objects fall straight down with no deviation to one side. Both objects descend, straight down, at freefall speed.

    because planes hit them and they burned for a few hours. An event circumstance result that has never happened before or since.

    • Ed

      But only after 1/3 of the building begins it’s collapse at the top!

      • Real Truth stings

        How does that change the outcome? How can both objects fall the same way, when hit from two completely different angles? The math is impossible. And nothing we have been told can explain building 7. Face it, we have not been told all the data.

        • junktex

          You mean about the thermite and nukes?

          • Real Truth stings

            I mean what is in my posts. We have not been told all of the data. It does not fit the outcome that we all saw. Nor does it begin to explain how building 7 mysteriously collapsed, straight down in the exact same manner. It does not make any sense at all. I think people are just too frightened of the possibilities that would get opened, if we demand a full accounting and full scientifically based analysis with it’s results peer reviewed/cross checked for accuracy. Just like all other crashes and incidents are.

          • A Nthony Fasano

            Where is the proof that a government cover up actually happened none of you can name names of people in government who were involved or why these unknown government people would want to do this horrible tragedy I mean what did the government have to gain by doing this it makes absolutely no sense they would benefit from this

          • Real Truth stings

            I haven’t discussed the who’s who. Only the known data that is in front of us. It does not add up to the result. Focus on the empirical before you lean towards conspiracies or anything else. The report that were given, the result that we all saw, the data at hand, make no sense. Once you have the science, then you can work on the people part.

          • notrupert

            We were hired by the 9/11 Commission to study this. Our simulation calculated every cc (yes, cc) of tower and plane at every millisec. It ran for many weeks, parallelized on ~20 SPARC workstations. The constant wind at that altitude above ground created a blast furnace effect softening the now bare steel just enough to begin the progressive collapse we saw. If the WTC had been built to the same standards as the Empire State Bldg. (with steel encased in a concrete core, how the new WTC is built) it would’ve been open for business within a week. In fact, that’s exactly what happened to the Empire State Bldg. in 1945, hit by a fully loaded B-25 one night in a fog. We, and me personally, were sued by a collection of failed academics and activists, including physics PhDs, in federal court. They failed to make their case. The nearly straight down mode of collapse was unanticipated, even by bin Laden who expected a toppling to one side; it was however borne out by our simulation.

          • Real Truth stings

            And it happened 3 times in a row. What luck…there is the door

          • notrupert

            What a lot of people don’t understand is the corruption over decades and resulting progressive weakening of NYC’s bldg. standards. The Citibank tower was built to an even weaker set of standards than the WTC towers. It was so flimsy, they couldn’t rent the top third for swaying in the wind. Tenants got seasick. The fix was to gut a top floor and fill it with massive weights and computer controlled hydraulic rams to counteract the swaying.

          • Real Truth stings

            So they hired your firm and its 20 old sparc stations but choose to leave the cray Jaguars on the sideline. I guess solving the mysteries behind the worst terrorist attack on our soil didn’t quite make the budget. Have a nice day

          • notrupert

            I’ve used the Los Alamos Cray. It’s not more accurate, just faster. Unless you suggest we use cmm, not ccm, and microsecs, not millisecs. Then, we would’ve needed a lot of time on the Cray, but not even NIST, the principle contractor, had the budget for that.

            I didn’t mention that there was enough wood, paper, plastic, etc. for all the hydrocarbons to become carbonized, i.e., charcoal which burns much hotter than jet fuel normally, esp. with that constant wind. And, the steel didn’t have to get near hot enough to melt with no pressure, just hot enough to soften and give way under enormous pressure.

          • dooglio

            How can your computer models make something impossible look possible? How can you account for free fall speeds of the towers, a physical impossibility in a gravity-driven collapse in the average of 10 seconds they took to fall? What of the undamaged bathtub? What happened to all of the 500,000 tons of steel and concrete that supposedly slammed down into the bathtub, pile-driving into the basin? Where did it all go? How do you account for the small seismic disturbances recorded compared to other collapses? Did your models take all of this into account?

          • notrupert

            Assuming you’ve made no mistakes, it’s all apparently very possible in the sudden collapse of incredibly complex and massive structures built under piece of $#@! building codes, standing, by the grace of God, at the ragged edge of near collapse. Pray for the current occupants of the Citibank tower. The bathtub was obviously just missed by all the falling debris, as were bodies recovered from the basements. I know bombproof baggage compartments in the holds of the airplanes were recovered pretty much intact, as the simulations showed.

          • dooglio

            So it’s possible for jet fuel to ignite a fire so hot that steel and concrete vaporize?! Because that is what you are talking about. There is no way all of that debris just magically “missed” the bathtub–just look at the video evidence–the towers fell straight down into their footprints. All of the surrounding non-WTC buildings, save for the Banker’s Trust tower, were undamaged.

            The bathtub, in fact, was so fragile, that they had to stop using earthmoving equipment because they were afraid of rupturing the slurry wall. They refrained from using explosives to take down WTC6 for fear they would compromise the integrity of the wall.

            If the basin could not withstand earth-moving equipment, how could it withstand the massive force of 500,000 tons of concrete and steel slamming down into it?

          • notrupert

            “steel and concrete vaporize”? I call BS on that. W.r.t. debris not hitting things, we know big catastrophes involve anomalies: accounts of tornadoes driving blades of grass end-on, straight into tree trunks; a baby sits unhurt, blown 100 feet out of a house.

          • dooglio

            Where did the 500,000 tons of steel, concrete and glass go?! Very little was found in the bathtub. The surrounding non-WTC buildings were left almost completely untouched. Where did the towers go?!

          • notrupert

            Reliable source for this? I doubt it.

          • dooglio

            I recommend reading Dr. Judy Wood’s book:
            http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/

            In it she carefully documents all of this in her well referenced book. There just wasn’t enough material at ground zero. The “bathtub” should have been destroyed by 500,000 tons of steel and concrete smashing down on it, but it was almost completely undamaged. The seismic data is inconsistent with that much weight hitting the ground. The physics are impossible for the free fall pancake theory.

            I highly recommend you get it and read it. You’ll never look at the events of 9/11 the same again.

          • notrupert

            OMG, that’s one of the failed academic/con artists who sued us and got thrown out of federal court.

          • moflicky

            the bathtub was damaged and the debris was holding it up.

            By the way, I’ve done a little bit more research on Dr. Wood and her book. Goodness. gracious… um. dustification? using ADS beams to heat up the people on the upper floors so they’d jump and take their clothes off at the same time? good lord man, that’s just crazypants. absolutely bat shit looney tunes.

            no wonder she’s a hero in the truther community.

          • dooglio

            The bathtub damage was minimal. They had to stop using bulldozers at ground zero for fear of rupturing it. They pulled WTC6 with cables, because they were afraid that CCD on that building with rupture the slurry wall. How is it possible that the wall was so fragile that it couldn’t survive bulldozers and earth moving equipment, but it survived 500,000 tons of steel and concrete, per tower, slamming into it?

            “good lord man, that’s just crazypants. absolutely bat shit looney tunes.”

            When you are looking at a problem with the wrong model, the right one can seem crazy. But as Sir Aurthur Conan Doyle said: when we rule out the impossible, the improbably, however unlikely, must be the solution.

          • moflicky

            you haven’t presented any evidence that the debris in the tub and surrounding area wasn’t enough to account for the buildings.

            you also contradict yourself when you say there was minimal damage to the tub, yet they were afraid bulldozers would rupture it. As I said, it was all that debris that held the slurry walls up.

            you have not presented a single shred of evidence for your model – the musings and rantings of a crazy woman who never set foot on ground zero is not evidence. I’m going to stick with the model that makes the most sense and doesn’t require space rays that dustified steel.

          • dooglio

            I’ve presented plenty of evidence. Dr. Wood documents all of this. Instead of attacking me, why don’t you look at *her* evidence. It’s all there.

            “you also contradict yourself when you say there was minimal damage to
            the tub, yet they were afraid bulldozers would rupture it. As I said,
            it was all that debris that held the slurry walls up.”

            It wasn’t that they were afraid, the concrete was actually starting to crack due to the bulldozers doing their work. They stopped using them due to this.

            ” As I said,
            it was all that debris that held the slurry walls up.”

            How could the wall have withstood 1.2 million tons of steel and concrete slamming into it at free fall speeds in the first place?

            “you have not presented a single shred of evidence for your model – the
            musings and rantings of a crazy woman who never set foot on ground zero
            is not evidence. I’m going to stick with the model that makes the most
            sense and doesn’t require space rays that dustified steel.”

            I have, but you refuse to analyze any of it. You are content instead to shoot the messenger instead of addressing the refutations to your faith.

          • moflicky

            “faith”…

            I am an atheist. I don’t believe in things without evidence. I stand by my view that her entire premise is off base. the building looked like it exploded because of the kinetic energy produced by of the top portion of the building falling into the bottom part, and that all the debris was found at ground zero.

            a simple calculation of kinetic energy tells us that the part of the tower above the fires would have the equivalent of 64 times it’s own weight before the first couple seconds of falling and it would have again multiplied by a factor of 4 for every meter per second of acceleration. that’s like this:
            weight of building*4x4x4x4x4… every meter per second of acceleration until terminal velocity was reached. lets say terminal velocity was something very conservative, like 15 meters per second. that would mean the top of the building would have 225 times it’s energy standing still.

            it is, what it is, and it’s science.

          • moflicky

            http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf

            even the truther community dismisses Woods work – mostly because it makes their theories all completely wrong. blue on blue.

          • dooglio

            Hey, at least you provided a half-way decent attempt at rebuttal, which is more than I can say for others on this thread. I will review the PDF–thanks for posting it!

          • dooglio

            Just from a quick reading, he says that there should have been roughly 11.5% ratio, which is what Wood estimated *should* be left over from the WTC 1 and 2 towers. Of course there wasn’t. We are talking about very long beams, and lots of concrete. People are standing at ground level at the former entrance to the lobby at ground zero…that’s not 12% of the buildings. The “pile” that was left of WTC2 was not even 1% of the building’s former mass. And the material was not forced down into the bathtub, either, because subterranean stores directly under the towers survived with minimum harm. Also, the bathtub was intact with minimal damage–a force of 500,000 tons of steel and concrete slamming into it should have cracked the slurry wall and flooded Lower Manhattan.

            As for seismic readings, effectively, there is no seismic event for WTC7, according to the data. So I’m not sure why he’s comparing it to the other two towers. It actually does not make his case.

            “This shows that the energy released during the initial stages of the collapse was not coupled effectively into ground movement.” What it actually shows is that most of the towers did not hit the ground, because they were dustified.

            “No credible analysis or quantitative measurements have been offered by the proponents of the ‘missing’ debris hypothesis to support the claim that the Bathtub should have been catastrophically damaged.” If that were the case, why did they stop running earthmoving equipment in the bathtub, since there is no way that should have damaged the slurry wall (but the bulldozers did, and so they stopped). If there was no evidence that such force would break the wall, why did they refrain from demoing WTC6 (only 8 stories), for fear of damaging the wall and flooding Lower Manhattan? If the bathtub could not withstand the movements of bulldozers and a CCD of WTC6, how did it survive 1.2 million tons of steel and concrete smashing down on it?

            And the rest of the paper seems to gloss over a lot of other details. There is no evidence, for example, that toasted cars were towed all the way across the island to FDR drive. Why would anyone bother anyway? And how did the cars in the carpark get toasted? Many of them began to fume way the dust clouds from the tower ever reached them, and they were not fuming after the “planes” hit the buildings. Why are engine blocks melted but plastic and rubber intact? How can jet fuel do that?

            “The percentage of iron in dust samples shows that no significant amount of steel was dissociated into dust.” [citation needed]

            “The minimum amount of power required to dissociate the steel in one of the WTC towers is astronomically large” using conventional means (heat), yes I agree. But using the methods she suggested in the book, no. The Hutchison Effect and “Cold Fusion” have shown that dissociation can be done with very low power.

          • dooglio

            Besides, Jenkins is an establishment shill. Here he tries to ambush Dr. Wood and winds up looking like a dishonest troll:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izpuwfc_Hig
            http://drjudywood.com/articles/cc/Jenkinspanic.html
            http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/transcript/Jenkins_transcript.html

          • moflicky

            will you at least admit you’re wrong about the energy released by the falling top portion of the building?

          • dooglio

            You mean when it dustified? And then the floors below it began to dustify?

          • moflicky

            you said the top of the buildings didn’t have the energy to crush the rest of the buildings. I proved you wrong using simple and well understood physical laws of potential and kinetic energy.

            what you are describing is a technology no one has seen or understands because as far as the world of science is concerned it doesn’t exist, except in the fevered minds of you and Dr. Woods.

          • dooglio

            The floors would either have the kinetic energy to knock the next floor loose, or pulverize the floor, but not both. To quote Hugh Culliton in one of these threads:

            “A specific amount of mass cannot both accelerate to free-fall as well as
            destroy the structure underneath – because any force applied pushing
            down and overcoming resistance, is resisted by an equal force pushing
            up. To overcome that resistance is work – work which is then not
            available for the mass to use for acceleration.”
            http://disq.us/p/1c0g5e8

            So no, you did not “prove me wrong.” You are talking about something physically impossible.

          • moflicky

            Hugh is not a physicist, and neither are you nor I – but I do know this: energy is energy, and enough of it will do anything you want it to. If you multiply the potential energy of top of the building by 250 times in the first second of falling and increase by a factor of 4 each time you, that’s plenty of energy. These are simple and widely understood physical laws that you are ignoring because they’re inconvenient to your fantasy about space beams.

            You expect me to believe that (at minimum) 1.6 billion tons of energy wasn’t enough to collapse the building, yet you want me to buy your theory that some directed energy beam dustified it? that’s some stellar unicorn thinking right there.

          • dooglio

            I don’t want you to buy anything. I want you to explain how a building can collapse at free fall speeds if all of the supports are intact and the falling force has to break through those supports, which would slow the process down. As Wood calculated, it would take 90 seconds to fall because each floor has to fall and knock down the next one. Also, the energy it takes to pulverize the floor would be subtracted from the total energy being exerted. And the energy required to knock the floor down would not be available. So even at the most generous, were we assume all of the the supports have been weakened, the building can’t fall that fast.

            That kind of acceleration could only happen without any resistance. That’s the entire point. The striking of floor by floor will slow things down, not speed them up. And the mass is NOT increasing–that would be impossible. The mass is the same, and is being held up by the supports.

            Besides, looking at the design of the building, a collapse would happen with the concrete flooring dropping out, assuming the angle clips were somehow weakened. So we should have been left with a bunch of concrete at the bottom of the outer and inner columns, mostly still standing. There was no visual evidence of buckling of any existing columns, which is typical of a gravity-induced collapse. Why did the steel completely collapse when the theory is that the jet fuel just weakened the angle clips? Only the floors should have dropped down and, again, the outer and inner columns should have stayed mostly intact.

            Yet what we see is a disintegration floor by floor. straight into the footprint of the building. Only destroying buildings with the WTC prefix, leaving surrounding non-WTC buildings superficially damaged.

            Sorry, I just don’t buy the official story. It’s total bullshit. And this destruction is just NOT consistent with CCD.

          • moflicky

            “I want you to explain how a building can collapse at free fall speeds”
            — it didn’t.

            “if all of the supports are intact and the falling force has to break through those supports, which would slow the process down.”
            — it did slow it a little, but not much at all- and I proved scientifically that it could do what it did based on the immutable and absolute laws of mass in motion.

            “As Wood calculated”
            — If Wood calculated that it would take 90 seconds for the buildings to collapse, she is too high by a factor of at least 9, as I proved with the laws of kinetic energy.

            “Also, the energy it takes to pulverize the floor would be subtracted from the total energy being exerted. And the energy required to knock the floor down would not be available.”
            — you can add and subtract, right? let’s take some round numbers to make it easier. if you have 100 joules of energy and it takes 10J to do one act, and 20J to do another act, just because it does the first act does not make the other 90J of energy “unavailable” to do the second act which only takes 20J. What you’ve said is unsupported by 1st grade mathematics.

            “the mass is NOT increasing”
            — again, not mass, but energy. I’ve been trying to explain this to you forever. you want to understand power, do this simple test. 10 lbs weight can easily rest on a horizontal plate glass window forever and never break it. But drop that weight from 10 inches above it and it the glass won’t even slow it down. In fact, it would crash through a thousand plate glass windows every 10 inches without significantly reducing the ball’s acceleration. mass in movement is exponentially more energetic than mass at rest.
            Once you understand that simple and undeniable fact, none of the rest of your argument is valid.

            “assume all of the the supports have been weakened,”
            — The supports didn’t enter into it. all that had to happen was to dislocate the trusses from the supports – which were held on by a couple rivets.

            “The striking of floor by floor will slow things down”
            — not if the energy in the floors above are sufficient to power through the floors below, and simple calculations prove it was. try it yourself – it’s easy!
            http://www.csgnetwork.com/kineticenergycalc.html

            “So we should have been left with a bunch of concrete at the bottom of the outer and inner columns, mostly still standing”
            — not with the kind of energy I proved the top portion of the building had when it started to fall. it had enough energy to take everything down with it and still had energy left over to pulverize much of the concrete.

            “There was no visual evidence of buckling of any existing columns”
            — are you blind? I showed you a video of the outer columns buckling inward (being pulled in by the sagging floor trusses). I showed you video of the outer skin being peeled away from the center of the building as the inside fell through it. once it started falling, the week links were the rivets and welds holding the prefab steel girders of the outer skin together and to the trusses.

            “Sorry, I just don’t buy the official story”
            — it is much more likely than energy beams from space vaporizing steel. but tomayto, tomahto.

          • dooglio

            Sounds like your mind is made up and is not open to new facts relating to this event. You have your official story and you’re happy with that, apparently.

            “not if the energy in the floors above are sufficient to power through
            the floors below, and simple calculations prove it was. try it yourself
            – it’s easy!”

            How can a floor power through when it’s been pulverized into lighter-than-air particles?

            “– it is much more likely than energy beams from space vaporizing steel. but tomayto, tomahto.”

            Physically impossible things are never more likely that the truth, even if you think it’s improbable.

          • moflicky

            “Sounds like your mind is made up and is not open to new facts relating to this event. ”

            ahem. you haven’t offered any facts. only wild speculation.

            “How can a floor power through when it’s been pulverized into lighter-than-air particles?”

            again, pure speculation. no evidence.

            “Physically impossible things are never more likely that the truth, even if you think it’s improbable.”

            these words should guide your intellectual journey, but they won’t. your theory is the one that is physically impossible.

          • dooglio

            >>”How can a floor power through when it’s been pulverized into lighter-than-air particles?”
            >>again, pure speculation. no evidence.

            Plenty of evidence, if only you would divorce yourself from the official conspiracy and pseudo-scientific theory and actually look at the evidence.

          • moflicky

            why would I want to divorce myself from reality?

            what you really want me to do is to completely ignore everything I see and everything I know and follow yours and Woods fantastical unicorn thinking without any basis in fact.

            no thanks.

          • dooglio

            You are not actually seeing the things you think you are seeing. You look at a building unraveling like a sweater and mislabel it a “gravity-driven collapse due to structural failure.” You are the one who is ignoring reality. As Dr. Wood says, your theory must mimic reality, and it clearly doesn’t.

            Suit yourself, remain ignorant. It does not matter to me. But if you want to debate me, I’d appreciate it if you’d actually confront the facts and the evidence and stop trying to make reality conform to your faith, and stop bullying others, who do not accept your dogma, with ridicule and derision.

            Otherwise, have a good day.

          • dooglio

            “these words should guide your intellectual journey, but they won’t. your theory is the one that is physically impossible.”

            I’m not the one maintaining the ludicrous and impossible “theory” of a gravity driven collapse and pancaking building. Those things clearly didn’t happen.

          • moflicky

            Citing Wood as the source that Wood was unfairly ambushed isn’t exactly dispositive.

            My view on not enough rubble – Woods has no way of knowing how much rubble was at the site – her entire premise depends upon analysis of video from a distance and examining photos of ground zero. This is no way to determine how much mass from the building is on the ground. There are no landmarks left to determine location or scope and no guarantee all debris fields are represented.
            One of the most cited photos to bolster her claim is seemingly of an undamaged ambulance sitting in the middle of the pile, with flat pavement covered with rubble below and around it and tower spires behind. it is assumed this is a photo at the base of one of the buildings, but there is no evidence this is true – the spires could have been, and most likely were, from the upper reaches of the tower – in all videos of the collapses, steel fell away/was expelled at great speed from the buildings as the pile driver pushed the floors down. that’s why WTC7 was so heavily damaged. my view, those spires weren’t at the base of the building, they were from the top and could have been hundreds of yards away from the base.

          • dooglio

            “Woods has no way of knowing how much rubble was at the site”

            Yes she did! She presented plenty of photographic evidence to back up her claim. What evidence does the establishment provide? Nothing but narratives, hot air and pseudo-science.

            “This is no way to determine how much mass from the building is on the
            ground. There are no landmarks left to determine location or scope and
            no guarantee all debris fields are represented.”

            No landmarks?! How about the still-standing wall where the lobby used to be, where you can see the entrance way and people standing right next to it. How about stairwell B? How about the tiny fragment left of the lower floors of WTC3? How about people being at ground floor in WTC6 in the big holes? The basement wasn’t full of steel beams either–the Disney store was perfectly intact, and so was the parking garage, not to mention the bathtub itself.

            She presents mountains of evidence and the establishment schills like Jenkins present nothing but personal attacks.

            “One of the most cited photos to bolster her claim is seemingly of an
            undamaged ambulance sitting in the middle of the pile, with flat
            pavement covered with rubble below and around it and tower spires
            behind.”

            Why isn’t the ambulance damaged? 500,000 tons of steel an concrete falling at free-fall speeds on top of it should have crushed it beyond recognition.

            Those aren’t spires behind. That is the outside wall of the building–a tiny fragment. The “spires” were the core columns–they are gone. They were never accounted for. In fact, what you see lying around is mostly aluminium siding. Very little iron was left over. Where did that 100,000 tons of iron per building go? Because it’s clearly not on the ground.

            “it is assumed this is a photo at the base of one of the
            buildings, but there is no evidence this is true – the spires could have
            been, and most likely were, from the upper reaches of the tower”

            The “spires” you refer to are, again, the still-standing lower portion of the outside wall.

            “- in
            all videos of the collapses, steel fell away/was expelled at great speed
            from the buildings as the pile driver pushed the floors down.”

            No, the steel did not fall away. She clearly demonstrates that it could not have “fallen away,” because it wasn’t on the ground. All of the adjacent, non-WTC buildings were relatively undamaged (and the damage sustained was superficial). If 1.2 million tons of concrete and steel slammed down at the WTC plaza, why did the Winter Garden, a structure made entirely of glass, still have almost all of its windows intact?

            “that’s
            why WTC7 was so heavily damaged. my view, those spires weren’t at the
            base of the building, they were from the top and could have been
            hundreds of yards away from the base.”

            The WTC7 didn’t fall until 5 hours or so later on. It is sandwiched between the Post Office and the Verizon building. Why weren’t those buildings damaged? Nothing fell on the WTC7–it was still standing after the towers came down. The official story doesn’t add up.

          • moflicky

            I don’t even know where to begin…. so I’ll just leave you alone to live in your fantasy world of space beams and dustified steel.

          • moflicky
          • dooglio

            Where is the rest of the building? You’re telling me that’s 500,000 tons of concrete and steel? All on the first floor?! If the building had pancaked like the official theory said it did, you’d have at least 12% of the building’s size piled up on the ground. That does not look like 12% to me. Does it to you?

            And what you mislabed as the “spires”, again, is all that is left of the first floor siding. No iron beams are anywhere to be found with the exception of a few of the “wheatchex” and a few beams. Most of that material strewn around is the aluminum siding.

            Also, I never said “no damage” to surrounding buildings. I said that buildings without the WTC prefix were relatively undamaged. All WTC buildings were destroyed–and the remains, like the towers, are all missing most of their mass.

            The only non-WTC building that got it the worst was Banker’s Trust, and that was a small gouge out of the front. Don’t you find that an amazing coinicidence? 1.2 million tons of steel and concrete slam down to the ground, but only the WTC buildings have significant damage?

            Compare this photo: https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/WTC-Overview1.jpg

            With this one:
            https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/WTC-Debrie2082.jpg

            The first was taken 9/17, the second 10/12. They have cleared a lot of the debris out. Notice that debris is at ground level, and it doesn’t even clear the first floor.

            Here it is prior to 9/11:
            https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2522/3832346856_161cc44a53.jpg

            That is not even 10% of the height of that building.

            You can see that almost 2/3s of the building is gone, yet nothing has fallen to the ground yet:
            http://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/72565/images/wt2sor%20(2).JPG

            Most of the building, not on the ground, and most of it missing before a single piece hit the ground.

          • moflicky

            look again at your second photo. the one with the workers sitting at the bottom. now look behind them (below on the picture). the ends of steel beams sticking out of the ground. in other words, you aren’t accounting for the tub. they are sitting on 7 stories of rubble.

            (edit – that’s after an entire month of rubble removal (10-12-2001)

          • dooglio

            Yes I am accounting for the tub. The material didn’t bludgeon its way into the tub as they want you to believe. If it had, it would have ruptured and Lower Manhattan flooded (which didn’t happen).

          • moflicky

            Last question. If, as you say, large portions of the building were “dustified” at the molecular level, then there should be evidence of partially dustified steel beams. beams that passed through the beam quickly and were only effected on the fringes – because obviously, lots of beams made it to earth with only breaks and bends. So, unless your super weapon can pick and choose which beams to reduce to molecules and which ones to leave untouched, there should be evidence.

          • dooglio

            There is a lot of evidence of this, actually. It explains the steel that was twisted into strange configurations (Wood calls these “rolled carpets” and “tortilla chips”), not to mention the inordinate amount of rust.

            So most of the material that was at ground zero doesn’t add up to the actual amount that should have fallen. It had to go somewhere, and if it’s not on the ground, it must have been in the air.

          • moflicky

            it is not remarkable to see twisted steel in a building collapse and rust is not evidence of molecular dustification. it’s evidence of iron oxidation.

            and you can say it a thousand times, but it doesn’t make it true. The photographs cited by you and Wood are not proof that the mass doesn’t add up. It’s nothing but pure speculation. Just like this heretofore unknown all powerful weapon that can disintegrate 110 story buildings in seconds.

            wild and unsupported speculation. in other words, crazypants.

          • dooglio

            Where is your proof that the mass *does* add up? Yours is the pure speculation.

          • moflicky

            but I did provide the proof. see the link to the kinetic energy calculator.

            Potential energy (mass at rest) and kinetic energy (moving mass) are inviolable and well understood laws of physics. immediately after they began to move downward, the tops of the buildings began converting their potential energy into kinetic energy – increasing exponentially – and the building below had no chance at resisting.

            On the other hand, you believe in energy waves that can ‘dustify’ 100s of tons of steel and concrete. as long as you believe in fairy tales, I can’t help you with the science.

          • dooglio

            “but I did provide the proof. see the link to the kinetic energy calculator.”

            So you’re maintaining that the kinetic energy of that fall was enough to dustify steel and concrete?

            Sorry, that’s not proof. None of the evidence from any of the photos supports your theory that 500,000 tons of steel and concrete per building hit bottom that day. The bathtub was relatively undamaged, and the huge missing mass did not go underground. The evidence is telling you that you are wrong.

          • dooglio

            “it is not remarkable to see twisted steel in a building collapse and
            rust is not evidence of molecular dustification. it’s evidence of iron
            oxidation.”

            Very true, except if the support structures were subjected to load-bearing problems, you would expect to see support struts bent consistent with that. Yet there is no evidence of that.

            How can steel rust? What would change the composition of steel back into being iron? Jet fuel?

            Just watch Dr Wood’s presentation here. She goes into more detail in her book (which is excellent, by the way).

            https://vimeo.com/63810454

          • moflicky

            btw, the “Jenkins exposed” video is just about as dishonest a representation of that interview as you could get. they cherry picked about 15 seconds where he looked uncomfortable out of 15 minutes of video. even you can’t fall for that kind of deceptive editing, can you? here’s the whole interview, uninterrupted. (btw Jenkins is not establishment, he’s part of the truther movement.)
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qYm1AnUKi8

          • moflicky

            lol. “smoke bombs”…. the lengths of her stretches to explain visible phenomena is remarkable. the photo she’s going on about clearly shows the building falling and the smoke following it – all you have to do is watch the video.

          • moflicky

            you keep talking like your theory of ‘vaporized concrete and steel’ is proven fact, when in fact I’ve never heard anyone claim that but you. perhaps you could provide your source for that? Who is claiming that anything vaporized? who is claiming that somehow, there was less concrete and steel than what was in the buildings?

            as far as the bathtub damage, there was plenty – but it was the debris that was actually holding the walls up. they had to remove debris a little at a time, putting in new walls and using cable tie backs. The floor was bedrock, so they didn’t need to do anything to that.
            See the 12:00 of this video.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9FnJCMtOYs

          • dooglio

            You are implying that it must have been vaporized with your jet fuel theory. Because that would be the only explanation as to where all of that material went (it just wasn’t on the ground). I didn’t realize jet fuel could do such amazing things.

          • thecyberczarina

            Bombproof baggage compartments of a plane survived AND conveniently fell into the belly of a collapsing building but an entire building was “melted” and “twisted” but still “fell into itself”?!

          • notrupert

            No, many blew through, intact. Otherwise see my tornado comment elsewhere here.

          • thecyberczarina

            “not even NIST, the principle contractor, had the budget for that.” – ROFL… Plenty of BUDGET for a fake war, just “no money to investigate” BEFORE going to war. Yeah, everything carbonized, with the exception of passports….. BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

          • notrupert

            You don’t seem to understand what the Pentagon and NIST really think of each other. Also, only a small part of the WTC towers experienced hydrocarbon carbonizing, where the blast furnace effect developed high up in the floors struck by planes. Also, much light debris from the planes blew through the bldg. or otherwise became widely scattered in the collapse.

          • thecyberczarina

            Well, we KNOW about the “corruption at the Pentagon and the loss of $2.3 TRILLION dollars, reported on 9/10”. We KNOW about Bush/Cheney’s corruption and willingness to kill Americans for profit by sending them into a fake war, knowing the intel was fake. Seems quite plausible they’d kill Americans for $2.3 TRILLION dollars, doesn’t it?

          • notrupert

            You’ll get no resistance from me on “corruption at the Pentagon” and “Bush/Cheney’s corruption and willingness to kill Americans for profit by sending them into a fake war”. Obama’s refusal to do anything about those war criminals is dumb-founding.

            W.r.t. to 9/11 we should apply the same Occam’s Razor used to refute climate change deniers. What’s more plausible: a big conspiracy involving a huge number of relatively disconnected people, or a small one involving a small number of tightly connected people?

          • dooglio

            Yes speaking of Occam’s Razor. What is more plausible? 19 thugs with box cutters led by a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan somehow stole a couple of planes, guys who were demonstrated incompetent to fly big planes, masterfully slammed them into WTC towers, and ignited jet fuel magically weakened the structure and somehow caused a free-fall collapse, vaporizing nearly 500,000 tons of steel and concrete, in the process, while the most sophisticated air defense system sat idly by with its thumbs up its butt because “no one saw this coming!”, even though they were actually doing drills that day on the subject of planes being used as terrorist weapons and crashing into buildings?

            Or, the buildings were taken down by either controlled demolition or some other unspecified technology, either by the gov’t or the gov’t was complicit, and it is a massive cover up? The Federal gov’t had the means and the motive.

            Because if it’s Occam’s Razor we are going with, then the simplest solution is the cover up story, not the “official” conspiracy story which doesn’t hold up to even casual scrutiny.

          • notrupert

            World opinion has spoken on this. You (even including over 1 billion Muslims) represent only a 15% minority.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories

          • dooglio

            What does opinion have to do with science? Why do you stick with this pseudo-scientific nonsense? When will there be a *real* investigation where the actual facts of what happened on 9/11 are analyzed instead of the fiction peddled by NIST?

          • notrupert

            Large scientific surveys and simulations are vastly more scientific than your blathering without any backup or citations.

          • dooglio

            They don’t impress me when the actual questions of what happened that day are not addressed. Specifically, where all of this material that supposedly slammed into the bathtub that day went. Because it wasn’t on the ground.

          • notrupert

            What impresses you, or fails to, is part of your problem.

          • dooglio

            Except what was written in your wiki entry was nothing more than a bunch of personal attacks, and none of her evidence was rebutted. Complete with a stale link to this other person’s “rebuttal.”

            In her book she overwhelmingly rebuts the official conspiracy theory and the controlled demolition theory. So what is left? Where did the towers go? No one can answer that without ad hominem.

            Have you read her book? Have you analyzed her theory? Can you account for the hundreds of thousands of tons of missing material? Can you account for the nearly pristine bathtub? Can you account for the inconsistent seismic readings from the “collapse?”

          • notrupert
          • dooglio

            When you rule out the impossible (jet fuel caused the towers to disintegrate, conventional demolition and limited nukes), then the improbable, however unlikely, must be true. Some *other* kind of tech was used to bring down those towers.

            Were they space beams? I don’t know. Who did it? I don’t know. But you can’t start a proper investigation until you determine *what* was done, which NIST and your analysis utterly failed to do.

            Just look at the evidence. Where is the material that supposedly crashed down into the bathtub that day from not one but two towers each weighing 500,000 tons? Do you have an explanation? Or are you just going to ridicule the people who point out the glaring holes in your story?

          • notrupert

            You have not adequately considered the blast furnace effect of constant wind and carbonized hydrocarbons in the immediate vicinity of the airplane strike and resulting bared metal. You have not documented an unexplained loss of half a million tons of material. Disreputable failed academics are no reliable source.

          • dooglio

            So blast furnaces can vaporize concrete and steel? Did you address her evidence and refutations, or will you continue to assail her character and remain immune to what physics is trying to tell you?

          • notrupert

            I do physics for a living (among other things), and she is no reliable source for the claim that half a million tons of material was “vaporized” — least of all, by a space ray.

          • dooglio

            Yes, yes, yes, keep up the ad hominem, appeal to your own credentials, and sidestep the burden of proof you have to show that jet fuel vaporizes steel and concrete. Please continue to ignore her massive refutation of the official conspiracy theory.

          • notrupert

            The burden of proof is on whomever makes wild claims, i.e., “500,000 tons … vaporized” (not to mention the space beams).

          • dooglio

            You are the one making wild claims, insisting that jet fuel started fires that brought down the building. But where is all of the material that supposedly hit the ground? You are the one refusing to address the refutation of your faith.

          • notrupert

            I was one of a large group of scientists who studied it in immense detail. You are a BS artist who can’t back up any claim you make.

          • moflicky

            I’m pretty sure doogie is just as batshit crazy as Dr. Woods.

          • MileHigh

            Doogie Howitzer and his “new” physics.

          • moflicky

            Howitzer is so WW2. Space Ray Guns for the new millennium baybee! 🙂

          • dooglio

            Again, you appeal to your own credentials and authority and fail to address any of the refutations of your faith.

            Be an actual man of letters and CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE. Stop assassinating the character of the messenger and actually look at the message.

          • notrupert

            I’ll rest my case with others reading this as to whether I’ve done that already.

          • dooglio

            Seems more like your mind is made up and is resistant to new facts that contradict your narrative.

          • notrupert

            Your claims have a long way to go to be facts.

          • dooglio

            Suit yourself. Remain ignorant.

          • notrupert

            Claims aren’t facts.

          • dooglio

            You’re right. So you should stop claiming things that aren’t true.

          • notrupert

            More unsubstantiated claims by you. Hundreds of scientists in good standing on my side. Only failed academics and wackos on yours.

          • dooglio

            You are completely strawmanning me. I have been talking about the research of Dr. Judy Wood the entire time. I think that both the official, establishment story and controlled demolition story is conspiracy theory and I dismiss both of them for not being supported by the evidence.

            Only molecular dissociation and the Hutchison Effect can explain what happened that day.

          • notrupert

            This article is about another article by sketchy physicists. Judy Wood is so sketchy, I doubt even that magazine would touch her stuff. Quoting theory names without tying them in (a lot of work) is useless.

          • dooglio

            Lots of personal attacks, always avoiding discussing the actual refutation of your faith. You are not very interesting to talk to.

          • notrupert

            Since this is not the place to do computer simulations or detailed experiments, professional standing has to mean something.

          • dooglio

            We can still discuss the logic of what is being advanced by the NIST and the general establishment, right? We can still say, “hey, what they say happened is not consistent with physical laws.” And Dr. Wood has excellent credentials–she’s no slouch. That she’s been attacked and smeared after she came out with her book does not take away her background as a physicist.

            So put aside the ridicule and discuss the actual facts and the actual arguments. That’s all I’m saying.

          • notrupert

            Our simulation was entirely physics-based and only physics-based. The behavior of each cc of plane and tower was determined, at each millisec, by a large number of physical laws included in and driving the simulation code.

          • Mormont Telamon

            Occhams razor has no real bearing in science, otherwise we would still call the stars “holes punched the sky roof”. Its the simplest answer, right? Lol. The comission report has less evidence than bollyn! The CR also left out wtc 7. They never even explored the possibility of secondary explosives, never even tested the rubble for it.

            Has anyone seen footage of a plane hitting the pentagon? Why wouldnt the government release that? If you cant debunk bollyn…

          • notrupert

            You don’t understand Occam. Fewer words do not a simpler answer make. (Who punched them? How does light get through the roof?)

          • Mormont Telamon

            Exactly. So why havent we seen a video of a plane hitting the pentagon? How did all the columns in wtc 7 fail at once from office fire? Why didnt the cold steel underneath the impacts of the planes in wtc 1 &2 hold up the parts above the impact? Why did ground zero burn for months without oxygen and while water was poured on it? Who let the terrorists on the plane? How did the terrorists passport survive the crash without being burned? How was it found two days later? Why isnt there footage of the flight 93 crash? Why were we having hijacking drills at norad that same day that slowed our response time? Why did bbc say wtc 7 fell before it did? Who benefitted?

            We see that WMDs in iraq was a lie to get us into a war that has killed 1 million+ people…but you trust them about 9/11? Why? Watch the full christopher bollyn video, any of the 1-2 hour presentations he does

          • notrupert

            In order: doesn’t exist – only stop action surveillance pix. piece of $#@! bldg codes keeping them barely standing. dynamic loads over spec. same reason below ground fires burn forever elsewhere. everyone who should’ve known better. same way teddy bears did – blew through. people looking for other things, like live people. no cameras in a corn field. bad luck. bad info. people in the Middle East who shorted airline stock a few days before.

            no. I trust my sims. …

          • Mormont Telamon

            Why isnt there footage from pentagon? Why no footage in shanksville AFTER the crash? (There wasnt a cornfield, shows how little you know about 9/11). An israeli security company icts let them on, then judge hellerstein, whose son is an israeli lawyer who works for icts, prevented 9/11 victims families from suing icts. No one on the plane had a teddy bear that survived. Explain how the passport survived but the victims bones were vaporized. Now thats a wacky conspiracy theory! The cold building underneath the impact site was strong enough to support the weight above it. The computer models nist used have not been released, why not? Israel, saudis, and american warmongers benefitted. We knew saudis funded hijackers so our government covers it up, sells saudis record amounts of weapons, and invade their closest enemy, iraq. Wtf is wrong with you anyway? You go to a nitwit school or something?

          • notrupert

            to repeat: only stop action surveillance pix, no video cam. there is news footage and others are probably classified. Jews under the bed. (2x) the plaza outside contained bodies (some still strapped into seats) and body parts that had blown through, so it’s reasonable to expect many smaller things did as well. only static loads and very small dynamic ones. they’re proprietary. yes. I agree, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, etc., are all war criminals.

          • Mormont Telamon

            But WHY wouldnt yhe government let us see the footage from the Pentagon that actually shows a plane crashing? Why havent we seen the crash site in PA? you know nothing about 9/11 anyway. Youre just a Zionist troll. Go watch the video

          • Mormont Telamon

            God punched them, the light is the sun. Simple. You believe yet?

          • notrupert

            red shift?

          • Mormont Telamon

            Red shift is too complicated to be true. Occams razor. See how easy it is to obfuscate? Israel was involved in 9/11, refute me with facts if you can. Have you even watched the two hour presentation by Christopher bollyn?

          • notrupert

            It’s no more complicated than a vehicle horn changing pitch in passing. You’re in a small minority. Vox populi, vox dei.

          • Mormont Telamon

            God makes the train whistle, duh! Its the simplest answer. God did it. I must be right because some simpletons rule of thumb says so! Also, have you ever considered how unlikely the official 9/11 story really is? Heres a video explaining what the “accepted theory” really entails.
            https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

            Heres a bollyn vid
            https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=Cut1L_d9Q_8

          • dooglio

            Then your simulation was broken, because the floors could not have fallen at free-fall speeds. See Wood’s Billiard Ball example.

          • Mormont Telamon

            Israel did 9/11, look up christopher bollyn on YouTube

          • notrupert

            Jew under the bed.

          • Mormont Telamon

            Did you even watch the presentation? Of course not. You just want to insult everyone. Is saying muslimns did 9/11 racist? No,so why would it be racist to some jews were involved too? I think some muslims jews and christians did it. Multiculturalism run amok!

          • MileHigh

            I don’t get the sense that you have a good instinctive gut feel for physics and everything technical that goes with that. My sense is that it is perfectly plausible for the two towers to have collapsed and the same goes for Building 7. It all makes perfect sense.

          • dooglio

            Because you believe in the official conspiracy story, and you haven’t actually bothered to look at the evidence. You just take what the authorities tell you as gospel.

            It’s okay, I did too, until I actually started asking questions. Don’t take my word for it–do the research yourself. Read her refutations of the official conspiracy story. Ask yourself how plausible it is that jet fuel can burn cars as far away as FDR Drive (on the east side of the island). Where did all of the material go that supposedly hit bottom? How come lots of paper survived the supposedly high temperatures of the building “collapse?” If the temperatures were so hot at ground zero, how come the hydraulics of the earthmovers didn’t seize up? How could people walk through this hot steam? How can boots melt, but the feet inside them are unburned? Why wasn’t the bathtub damaged and Lower Manhattan flooded? Shouldn’t 1.2 million tons of steel, concrete, glass, etc leave a huge pile and why wouldn’t it have ruptured the basin? Why was the winter garden’s glass mostly intact, with very few broken windows? How come there was so much fine dust and very little debris on the ground floor? How could Building 7 have been effected by jet fuel? Why is it that the only buildings that suffered irreparable damage had the prefix WTC?

            There are lots of unanswered questions that the official story fails to address. They are lying to us–don’t believe them.

          • MileHigh

            Any spray on cladding is not a magic bullet to prevent the metal from heating up. It’s a thermal resistance to heat flow. If the external heat is there for long enough the heat will flow through the spray-on cladding and heat the metal. There is a time constant associated with the insulating cladding and the thermal capacity of the metal beam and it can’t be all that long. I am going to guess perhaps 25 minutes.

          • notrupert

            Besides, the 500 mph storm of aluminum confetti instantly stripped off whatever spray on cladding there was, leaving bare steel exposed to the blast furnace effect.

          • Martin van der Wal

            You’re full of sh*t!

          • notrupert

            That’s what true believers said to Galileo.

          • MileHigh

            I am just reading the thread now and you sound like the real thing. It’s very impressive that you ran such a fine-grained sim on this. I fully agree with you that modern tall buildings are like “snowflakes” just strong enough to stand up and meet building codes. They are “material reduced/cost reduced” structures. Like you said, the rolled the clock back for One World Trade Center.

          • James R. Olson

            No, actually he is full of facts. Facts which you keep twisting to say something he did not.

          • thecyberczarina

            What is your real name and the name of your company so we can review the court documents and the “simulations” provided to the courts?

          • notrupert

            I expected this, but this is not the forum for that. I’m tired of threats. You must do that work yourself.

          • Brian Mcleod

            There are a multitude of reasons. #1 Being increased funding for the war. #2 Oil. #3 Opium, #4 insurance $. #5 High cost for necessary upgrades to all 3 towers. #6 Increased Security/security measures. #7 $300 Million worth of gold. I am sure i can add some to the list but this was 7 examples without having to even think more then 30 seconds.

          • herelearning

            8. AUMF

          • Al Lawrence

            My point exactly Brian, some people don’t get it. I know for a fact that are great country has let one issue happen for the supposed better. I don’t think it’s for the better of the people but the better for politicians.

          • thecyberczarina

            Add the $2.3 TRILLION Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had to admit on 9/10 that the Pentagon “misplaced”. The NEXT DAY the very building where those records were allegedly kept were ALL attacked.

          • Shawn Spencer

            Supposed benefits connected to a tragedy still do not prove the tragedy was caused by those who benefitted.

          • James Kolar

            The point is that we DON’T know who did it or why for sure (which I’m sure some people will disagree with) although there are some pretty intriguing ideas out there. The fact is we need to finally get answers about what actually happened that day to the buildings themselves scientifically, which the official report/story does not give us. I’m not saying that it was the government but you’ve missed some pretty big things in our history if you don’t think we’ve committed false flags in the past or allowed tragedies on our own people in order to further our leaders political agendas.

          • junktex

            Endless wars for resources and profit for banksters.Smedly Butler said it best

          • Morgan

            Justification for war, which soon followed, with a country that did NOT do this being the target. Shrubya just wanted to finish what his daddy left undone with Saddam Hussein.

          • Al Lawrence

            What did the government have to gain, where would you like to start. 1 , taking a terrorist attack and making it into a huge tragedy gets the public completely on board with the government giving the government cart blanch on going to war on terrorism. Our government has been covering things up for there own agenda for decades. You must be ignorant or enjoy drinking the kool aid if you think our government could not be behind this huge tragedy for public manipulation. It isn’t the first time nor will it be the last.

          • Kevin Mitchell

            who did it is not known, but as the article points out, the science is saying demolition was the method. this would be the work of the folks running the govt ( not the govt),

          • Shawn Spencer

            That is speculation.

          • Shawn Spencer

            That is still not evidence. We can speculate all we want and still be wrong.

          • estivito

            I think 9/11 allowed the uncontested passage of the Patriot Act, as intended.

          • thecyberczarina

            Name names?! How about Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stating in a Press Conference the DAY BEFORE that the Pentagon couldn’t account for $2.3 TRILLION dollars? The next morning, the buildings where those Pentagon financial records were kept were DESTROYED and with war looming, the American people, patriots that they are, didn’t dare question how or where the money went, they wanted revenge.

          • junktex

            Investigation was not allowed

          • Real Truth stings

            we agree. but its not that it wasn’t allowed. It was done with very little in the way of resources and actual targeted goal of finding out what really happened. The 9/11 report was designed to quickly end the discussion and start the war. That is my opinion, based on the data. We spent far more looking into clinton’s affair with lewinsky, far more on the space shuttle challenger, far more on benghazi….but the worst terrorist attack in our history was done on the super cheap. That is not logical unless the flaw is there by design.

          • junktex

            And as George Carlin observed,”These guys don’t investigate themselves”:

          • CherMoe

            I read that Bush refused to allow an investigation for over 400 days. He had the debris and all the “evidence” carted away on barges and destroyed before they could “investigate.” And he only agreed to testify IF Dick Cheney were right at his side, otherwise he wouldn’t appear before the 9/11 Commission. Much to think about. They say there was a “security blackout” the weekend before the attacks. They also said a member of the Bush family worked for or with the security company. The new owner of the bldgs. had just taken out some huge insurance policies. Then there’s the matter of the “insider trading” that took place the day before. To top that all off, there were people all over the world who were “warned” not to fly that day. Even my husband who worked a 2nd job in a gas station where cops came in for coffee all the time, told him that they were warned to not let their families fly that day. A friend all the way over in Norway said that they were warned and his mother did not take the grandchildren on a trip because of the warnings. So many questions, and the perpetrators basically got away with the crime of the century, the way it sounds.

          • junktex

            And they were not to testify under oath.Anyone who beleves the official story is braindead.

          • Martin van der Wal

            The clue is in the name ‘ground zero’: ‘the point just under or above the center of a nuclear explosion(zero box). The emperor has no cloths!

        • Gary Pulley

          one of the buildings that was hit on the corner, actually started giving way at it’s weakest point. Then miraculously it straighten up again and the building fell straight down. This can be seen on any footage. How the hell is this possible. If you cut a wedge out of a tree and it starts to fall it wont suddenly stand back upright. Gravity will pull it towards it’s weakest point.

          • Real Truth stings

            it should have “leaned” to one or another direction but straight down would appear to be mathematically and logically impossible.

          • moflicky

            “it should have “leaned” to one or another direction but straight down would appear to be mathematically and logically impossible.”

            actually, the top of the 2nd building to fall did lean – you can see it in all the videos. one corner of the building at the fireline failed first, causing the 10-15 stories above it to tilt. But the energy required to cause a building of that size to tip over like a ladder – moving thousands of tons of concrete and steel horizontally – is hundreds of times greater than the force needed to pancake the floors below. Gravity only pulls down, not sideways – and physics dictates that once it started to fall, down was the only direction it could go, taking the rest of the building below the tops with them.

          • Real Truth stings

            🙂 lol. sure. gravity autocorrected the collapse so that it would fall straight down? lol. this inability to see how absurd what you are writing is, is beyond me. Fires have been burning in skyscrapers for days, weeks in some cases without the building collapsing and falling straight down. 3 different buildings went down in exactly the same manner in the space of under 6 hours. Believe what you want. Don’t bother wasting your time trying to sell such nonsense to me.

          • moflicky

            lol. the guy telling me that thousands of tons of concrete and steel falls sideways when down is an option, is telling me that my physics is absurd.

            seriously, there are a thousand more important things going on in the world you could be focusing on.

          • Real Truth stings

            don’t worry about what I do with my time. unless it’s your job to attempt to discredit those who question the ridiculously incomplete report that the government created. if that’s your job then Ill just block you.

          • moflicky

            we certainly can’t have any dissenting voices, now can we?

          • moflicky

            fine, you can block me. you guys are a waste of energy anyway. evidence, science and reason are not something that dents your perceptions of the world, so how could I possibly make a difference>

          • MileHigh

            Right on, brother! lol

          • Stentor7

            Moflicky, they’re hopeless, they don’t want to let pesky things like facts get in the way of their dearly cherished opinions.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c2b6393d50928e132e24077c784d65df6f75f17c6402a568edefb4b74f581270.jpg

          • moflicky

            The thing is, there are varying amounts of truth in all of the theories – just enough to hook the gullible – and make no mistake, I do NOT trust ours or anyone else’s governments to do the right thing all the time. there is coverup and corruption throughout all bureaucracies.

            But this conspiracy would have had to involve thousands, would have had to be flawlessly executed with amazing precision – and no one has leaked? no one has blown the whistle? We’re to believe a small number of people who weren’t there and had no involvement in any way over the hundreds of thousands of witnesses, first responders and experts who investigated it?

            none of it makes sense. even the truthers own arguments are often contradictory.

          • Annie

            The Mafia, the Manhattan Project, Watergate, Tuskegee, Nayirah, Iran Contra affair, Gulf of Tonkin incident, and so on. All thought of as “conspiracies” all mocked, and yet, all true.

          • Stentor7

            There’s a distinction, & an important one. Those were all warranted conspiracies because compelling evidence proved them to be so. This is an unwarranted conspiracy because there is no compelling evidence, only a lot of half-baked assertions, lies mixed in with the truth, & people who don’t understand physics, dynamic versus static loads, metallurgy, pyroclastic flows, structural mechanics, demolition, gravity, orders of magnitude, optics, concretions & colloidal substances, melting points & tempering points of metal, as well as the carbon-iron phase diagram of steel.
            The real conspiracy, born out by the facts, is that a group of terrorists, aided by a nation-state of fundamentalist muslims that aided them, managed to insert four teams of terrorists onto four aircraft which were all hijacked, then directed into suicide missions by crashing into various targets, two of which were the World Trade Center Towers 1 & 2, which then collapsed because of the massive amount of damage induced by the crash & the jet fuel which caused a conflagration within the towers which substantially weakened the central tower support structures. Not some bullshit false flag hypothesis which has not been borne out by any substantially compelling evidence whatsoever.

          • Annie

            No one believed those conspiracies either for lack of proof.
            So you are saying that since evidence is not present yet, we should stop talking about it? Stop looking into it?
            I think there will be details that come out, maybe not in my lifetime or yours, that would blow our minds.

          • Stentor7

            Keep dreaming Annie, it’s not going to happen. The conspiracy was the terrorists, not all that 9/11 Truther bullshit.

          • Annie

            Have you considered that there might be a middle ground?

          • Stentor7

            The middle ground is that President Bush & his idiot administration let the damn attack happen through their deliberate indifference to any intelligence warnings from the previous administration, & their careless stupidity in not heeding the warnings from several government officials. If I had it my way Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, & George Bush would all be in prison for high crimes & treasonous conduct for their actions when they were supposedly in charge of keeping the American people safe. But the attacks were the result of Osama bin Laden & Al Qaeda being sheltered by the Taliban from within Afghanistan, & not anything, or anyone, else.

          • Annie

            That is 100% for certain!

          • John O’

            Building 7 went down the same way, Stentor – why leave that out?

          • Stentor7

            Building 7 had a large power plant about 4 stories tall that was on fire for several hours, this damaged the internal superstructure by weakening the beams in the same way the steel support structure was weakened by the fire started by the jet fuel & maintained by all the flammable materials on the floors surrounding the point of impact of the aircraft in WTC1 & WTC2. The power plant fire in WTC7 damaged the building internally, & it was damaged externally as shown in the picture. That was what caused the collapse of WTC7. After all, WTC5 & WTC6 didn’t go down because they didn’t have any internal damage despite being heavily damaged externally. That is the difference, the internal damage is what ultimately caused the collapse of all three buildings.
            http://www.attivissimo.net/11settembre/recensioni/bankers-trust-02.jpg

          • Hugh Culliton

            Even if that were true, and from the data I’ve seen neither the fires nor structural damage was enough to cause the building to collapse, nor does it account for the evidence of foreknowledge of the collapse, nor the explosions heard minutes before the total collapse…how do you account for the verified and documented free-fall acceleration of the collapse or the total summitry of the collapse?

            Simply, without the use of explosives, explain this:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU

          • Stentor7

            That’s bullshit Hugh & you know it, lies are simple, the truth is complex, but by Occam’s Razor the simplest explanation is usually the truth, not some hocus-pocus conspiracy theory. There was no foreknowledge, only an uncertainty that the building would remain standing given all the damage. The BBC erroneously announced it had collapsed when the building was still visible behind them.
            Steel begins weakening around 400 degrees, it doesn’t need to melt. The fire inside the building burned for hours, that significantly weakened the internal superstructure. While the idea of a giant building toppling over like a felled tree is popular in fiction, in reality the structure is designed to bear its weight straight down and in no other direction; throwing a massive building severely out of equilibrium would cause it to fall almost vertically, no matter what direction the initial force was applied from. Although it wasn’t completely obvious to the untrained eye at the time, WTC 7 had been seriously compromised by a 20-story gash in one corner facing Ground Zero, and by the time the evacuation order was given was visibly sagging. Conspiracy theorists have also tried to claim that “pull” is standard jargon within the demolition industry to fire off demolition charges within the building; demolition experts have denied this; the usual term would be “shoot it” or “blow it.” “Pulling” refers to a procedure of attaching hauser cables to a building and using heavy vehicles to pull it over, something that would have been fairly easy for observers to detect
            It is possible to fell a tall structure like a tree by selectively removing large amounts of support at one side or corner, near the base, but this requires a specific, well-prepared, and overt demolitions plan and either the intent to do so or a massive dose of failure.

          • Hugh Culliton

            OK – let’s stick to the hard data and physics. Chandler says it better than I can. Have a look at his interpretation. If you can explain how the building fell symmetrically and at free-fall for several seconds, I’ll concede.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-jWUzhtTIY&list=WL&index=45

          • Stentor7

            Would it interest you to know that David Chandler has recanted his earlier positions about these truther theories & now states that the official accounts of what happened are true? David Chandler is a physics teacher, he’s not a demolitions expert, structural engineer, or mechanical engineer. I’ve said it before, the weight of any building is designed to bear straight down & large buildings don’t topple over on their sides absent any sufficient force to give it the kinetic energy to push it in that direction. In physics we talk about potential energy & actual energy, as well as the kinetics of angular motion. In any angular motion, there are horizontal & vertical components of the motion given by the sine & cosine of the angle with the ground. Given the extremely large weight of the 1 & 2 buildings, over a billion tons apiece, with 7 probably being about 2/3s that number because of shortened height but larger width, what is going to give it that sideways motion? Picture this for the issue of free fall, if you were to suspend a very large boulder weighing several thousand tons, then cut the cable suspending it, what kind of lateral force do you think it would take to impart some horizontal motion to the very large potential of vertical motion that it already has because of gravity? Building 7 fell straight down because the damage to the steel superstructure was near the bottom due to the power plant fire & the large gash in the side of the building from the falling debris. I’ve looked at several videos of the WTC7 collapse, it did not collapse at free-fall speeds. It took more than 15 seconds to fall completely down to the ground, & if we use the force of gravity as a starting point, 9.8 meters per second squared or 32 feet per second squared, you can see that a free-fall collapse would have taken place somewhere in the neighborhood of 9 seconds. There are many videos on YouTube analyzing this motion, I suggest you do a search for some of them. But people who seem to believe that the sounds of the explosions were demolitions are completely ignoring the large amount of pipes filled with water that went off like bombs when the building began collapsing. Remember that before the actual collapse began, there is a lot of downward pressure from the weakened girders not being able to support the upper floors. So the water pipes going to the upper floors, as well as the glass panes on the outside were under compressive force. A good number of those pipes & large sections of glass would have broken before the actual collapse of the building, it’s only natural to assume that some pipes would be weaker than others, & some panes of glass would be thinner than others, therefore they would break or explode sooner. One of the central premises of truther mythology is that “free fall” must mean demolition and that free-fall cannot occur in “natural” collapses, this is not true. Additionally, Chandler made some basic errors in his calculations for the ejected material which have never been corrected with a newer video. Chandler even admits that he does his math in his head, here is a snippet of a quote of one of his comment replies about an error in vertical velocity “I probably divided by 2 instead of multiplying by 2 inside the radical. I probably shouldn’t do these things in my head. Let’s make a deal. I’ll concede when I’m wrong and you concede when you’re wrong. That could lead to civil discussions.” So the guy is a high school physics teacher, & he’s doing these calculations in his head? It doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence in his methods. The fact that he’s recanted on a lot of this had vindicated earlier demonstrations that despite the large horizontal velocities of the ejected material, their vertical velocities were identical to the building material descending straight down, which is in line with the idea that the girders were under compressive force & when released had great sideways velocity but nearly zero vertical velocity.
            I still stand by my assertions that the building collapse of WTC7 was caused by the massive internal power plant fire & the large gashes on the exterior of the building.

          • Hugh Culliton

            I appreciate the time and detail you put into replying. I need some time to go through it careful before I can reply – give me a couple of days. Thanks!

          • James R. Olson

            You keep saying, and in fact everything you say depends on the buildings falling in free fall, but the buildings do not free fall, as is plainly visible in multiple videos. If the buildings were in free fall, why did tons of debris ejected fr0m the upper reaches of the building reach the ground before the building collapse did?

          • dooglio

            This is a photo of Banker’s Trust, not WTC7.

            Banker’s Trust is interesting because they had to rebuild the building. When they got into the internals, they found that most of the columns were rusted. How can jet fuel rust steel columns?

          • Stentor7

            My mistake, sorry, both the Banker’s Trust building & WTC7 sustained extensive exterior damage from the 1 & 2 collapses, it’s easy to mix them up if you’re not looking carefully. But here’s the thing, the Banker’s Trust building didn’t collapse, even though it had worse exterior damage. This proves the central assertion that the main cause of the weakening of the superstructure was the large interior fire in WTC7 that caused the collapse, the exterior damage was merely an aggravating factor.
            The girders were most likely rusted before the collapses, even steel rusts, albeit at a much slower rate than iron because of the presence of carbon. The rust found on steel girders is surface rust, the iron in the steel exposed to the atmosphere will form a fine coating over decades in very old buildings. Mixing carbon in with the iron to form steel doesn’t stop the oxidation process, it merely slows it down significantly. The jet fuel didn’t have anything to do with it, but when the steel was on fire because of the coating of jet fuel, the carbon inside the steel was burning along with the fuel, & tempering the steel from a harder Martensite-type steel, to the softer Austenite-type steel which has much less iron in it. This may also have been a reason there was rust on the girders as they weren’t examined for many months after the collapses of the other buildings.

          • dooglio

            Except the building didn’t collapse from fires, and the steel didn’t rust because of fires.

          • Stentor7

            I never said the steel rusted from the fire so that’s a non sequitur on your part, but the building did most definitely collapse from the fire, because the steel superstructure was weakened at the lower points of the building. Look at the model of the buckling of the steel superstructure support on the lower floors around the interior power plant. You’re going back & forth between WTC7 & the Banker’s Trust Building which are separate cases, I’m referring to WTC7 when I refer to the collapse, but if there were steel girders in the Banker’s Trust Building that were rusted as well as steel girders in WTC7 that were rusted, wouldn’t that give credence to my assertion that even steel rusts, albeit at a slower rate?

            http://i36.tinypic.com/25jbody.jpg

          • dooglio

            The small amount of steel beams recovered did not show signs of buckling due to collapse, though. They were in very strange configurations, and also many were critically rusted as if they were exposed to weather for a very long time. If it were a question of the clips being weakened by heat and then failing, the floors would have fallen only, within the structure. We should have seen most of the structure still standing, and the stacked and broken floors within the cage of the building. Only the top level of the building was exposed to continued fire.

            The video evidence is not consistent with the lower part of the building failing and buckling. Watch the videos of the collapse. The lower part of the building is perfectly rigid and intact. The upper floors are being disintegrated top-down as they fall.

          • Stentor7

            One, are you a structural engineer? Two, how much expertise do you have in building demolitions? Three, there was a massive fire in the power plant, that is a fact, no matter how much you try to dispute it. Fact heat weakens steel at 400 degrees. Dynamic loads are not the same as static loads. You make a lot of assertions, but so far I haven’t seen any photographs, or links to photographs that provide any evidence of what you are stating. So let’s see you back up your hypotheses & assertions with some factual evidence.

          • dooglio

            Just watch Dr Wood’s presentation here:

            https://vimeo.com/63810454

          • Stentor7

            dooglio, Dr. Judy Wood is even more cuckoo than the other 9/11 Truthers. I’ve debunked her many times before, & so has Dr. Greg Jenkins, she is considered to be a purveyor of junk science since her methodology clearly ignores data inconvenient to her narrative, & she cherry-picks other data that is, showing a complete lack of a a consistent scientific methodology.
            It is true she has a PhD in Mechanical Energy, but her theories are even more out there than some of the others. She claims that the towers were brought down by energy weapons, a hypothesis which has no credible evidence. One person is not any sort of consensus, & she is a fringe outlier. Plus she has an agenda, On 25 April 2007 Wood was Plaintiff/Relator in a qui tam petition to The United States District Court, Southern District of New York. In the nature of the Qui tam process, she was acting on behalf of the United States of America. She named a list of 23 respondents headed by Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA) and Science Applications International Corp.(SAIC).
            The petition claimed that the respondents acted fraudulently in giving advice to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) during their investigation of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers.
            The Statement of Case included these words:
            Those who performed work and received payment from NIST are alleged to have engaged in scientific fraud by petitioner, Dr. Wood, a materials engineering scientist, based upon a process of fraud (emphasis mine) documented by Dr. Wood’s original source research and findings that concluded that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were destroyed by an unconventional energy weapon that can be directed and thus is referred to as a form of what are called “directed energy weapons” (DEW).
            “Dr. Wood has demonstrated that the Twin Towers did not burn up nor did a significant portion of them crash down; they turned to powder in mid air and fire cannot turn a quarter-mile tall building to powder in 8-10 seconds. The respondents herein knew or should have known this and they therefore engaged in actionable fraud within the meaning of the False Claims Act.”
            After a prolonged series of hearings, addressing the question whether Dr Wood’s status was or was not an “original source“, the District Court dismissed the petition on 26 June 2008. Wood filed an appeal which was denied by Judge George Daniels on 11 July 2008.
            On 14 October 2009 Wood filed a petition for a writ of a certiorari (plea for judicial review) in the US Supreme Court. Briefs on behalf of two respondents were filed during December 2009. The petition was denied on 25 January 2010.
            Wood potentially stood to cash in big-time if her petition had succeeded, since successful qui tam relators are normally granted 15-25% of the final settlement. In fact, in this case, since the Attorney General declined to intervene, the relator’s share could have been boosted to as much as 30%. The original petition sought to recover “all available damages and other monetary relief under the common law or equitable theories of unjust enrichment, payment under mistake of fact, recoupment of overpayments and common law fraud.” The suit also claimed “[T]he amount of the United States’ damages, multiplied as required by law, and such civil penalties as are required by law, together with all such further relief as may be just and proper.

            So I don’t hold her as being any serious sort of credible source. Follow the money dooglio, follow the money.

            You can talk about this all you want, but I’m finished, I’ve debunked these claims many times before, & at some point you have to walk away from the comment exchange because the people pushing the truther rhetoric have already made up their minds, & will not be swayed by any amount of evidence. That is not a discussion, see the handy flow chart below for an example of what actual discussions consist of: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/db2ace3c82656337bd9616d366aff04563b4c992ba847cc3fc426bc6c8883b6d.jpg

          • dooglio

            You haven’t debunked any claims, and all you’ve done is appealed to authority.

          • Stentor7

            Dooglio, I don’t have to debunk any of her claims, she’s already been debunked by others, so I find it unnecessary to repeat their work. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to prove them, you should know that by now. The burden of proof isn’t upon me, it’s upon her, you can’t prove a negative. You want a thorough debunking of her claims, Google Dr. Jenkins

          • dooglio

            “Dooglio, I don’t have to debunk any of her claims.”

            And this is why you are terrible at debating. If you aren’t going to even confront the evidence and actually tell me *why* she’s wrong, what is the point of even talking to you?

            “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to prove them, you should know that by now”

            I do in fact. And there is lots of extraordinary evidence to consider, but you refuse to accept it.

            “The burden of proof isn’t upon me, it’s upon her, you can’t prove a negative.”

            And she’s shouldered the burden. Now the burden rests on you to address the refutation of your faith.

          • Stentor7

            No, there’s not, that’s the point you fail to see, which is why you address the topic of science with the rhetoric of religion (i.e. “faith”). I don’t have to specifically refute her points, she has to prove she is correct, which she has failed to do, but other engineers & scientists have pointed out her bad science & data methods, as well as a proven accusation of altering a graph to conform with her conclusions. That is bad science, there is no proof of any energy weapons other than in her opinion. There’s nothing extraordinary about her evidence, she has no proof of any sort of radiation from this supposed-energy-beam-weapon, there were no witnesses, the video & photographic evidence doesn’t back up her story in any way.
            My opinion isn’t based on any sort of faith, it’s based on careful examination of the facts & the data, under the scientific method, not some opinion, which is an outlier. One opinion is not a consensus, regardless of how many qualifications someone has. There have been physicists & other scientists who have proposed crackpot hypotheses, & attempted to build up a body of evidence to support their theories, which have been shown later to be entirely false, exemplia gratia, Igor Velikovsky, & Alton Harp.
            Again, I don’t have to prove anything, she hasn’t proven anything, & the majority of engineers & scientists disagree with her, that is a consensus. Her opinion is an outlier, a fringe theory, & thus can be safely disregarded.
            I am an engineering physicist in laser/optics, & solid-state physics, with 2 degrees from UC Berkeley & over 16 years in the industry. I have worked on several energy-beam weapsons projects, & I have nearly as much knowledge about this subject as she does, but her ideas & hypotheses hold no merit, are not backed up by any sort of credible evidence, & have been soundly debunked by other engineers, physicists, & scientists. I don’t have to do jack squat, it’s already been done for me. Discussion over.

          • dooglio

            Don’t lecture me on this shit. *You* are the one who has to prove that your conspiracy theory is correct. Namely, you are the one who has to explain all of the missing material from the collapsed towers (including WTC7), the lack of a seismic signal, no P or S waves, only a surface wave, the toasted cars, all of the paper yet 1 recovered filing cabinet, the utter lack of anything resembling office equipment like phones and even toilet fixtures, the fact that people actually survived in stairwell B under the North Tower.

            The burden of proof lies with you to refute the evidence and prove your conspiracy theory that 16 thugs with box cutters crashed planes into the WTC buildings and jet fuel somehow dustified the buildings. Explain how a buildings can supposedly collapse without actually hitting the ground.

            She has presented all of the evidence that refutes the official conspiracy theory and even CCD theories. She has shouldered the proof, and no one else has “debunked” it. They have just ignored it.

            Instead, you assault her character and credentials, and appeal to authority.

          • Stentor7

            No, I don’t. Burden of proof lies with the one who made the initial claims, she has refused to do that. Fires burn shit, the incredible amount of concrete that the WTC towers were composed of ground up the rest into a fine dust & fiber mixture. I don’t have to prove that 19 (not 16) terrorists hijacked 4 airliners & crashed them into various targets, it’s there on video camera, audio recordings, voicemail recordings from passengers, & the remains of the aircraft themselves in the four areas, it’s public record. You can claim appeal to authority all you want, but I think you need to look it up because it doesn’t mean what you believe it does, here’s a formal definition
            It’s important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.
            https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

            I have a similar level of understanding because of my educational background as an engineering physicist, you do not dooglio. I have access to empirical evidence because of my accounts with databases of peer-reviewed papers on the subjects. You may or may not have access to that information, it all depends on if you’ve tried to access it or not. Dr. Jenkins has already debunked her, the others just ignore it because her claims have no valid merit or credibility, & she hasn’t provided any conclusive evidence to prove her points. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, you keep ignoring that, so I’ll pound it into your head like a nail once again. I don’t have to attack her character or record, the proof is in the evidence that she has altered a graph, ignored facts inconvenient to her narrative, & cherry-picked data, all things no credible scientist would do.
            Discussion over dooglio, keep repeating your mindless mantra to yourself from now on. I’ve proven my points, whether you want to admit it or not.

          • dooglio

            “Burden of proof lies with the one who made the initial claims, she has refused to do that.”

            She, in fact, did. Very well. I recommend you read her book, which I know you haven’t because many of the points you brought up are addressed in her work. The official story has been completely refuted, and those supporting the narrative have nothing at all to say except personal attacks.

            “Fires burn shit,” but they cannot have burned away steel and concrete, nor glass, filing cabinets, toilet fixtures, etc.

            “the incredible amount of concrete that the WTC towers were composed of ground up the
            rest into a fine dust & fiber mixture, it was pulverized.” No, it was dustified. There is a huge difference.

            “I don’t know where you get this cuckoo idea there were no burned cars, there are pictures of burned cars covered with debris, (here’s some right here)”

            I never said there were no toasted cars. I said there were *plenty* of toasted cars too far away from the towers to have been burned by high heat and jet fuel. The establishment-fans get very quiet when they are brought up, because high heat cannot explain most of their damage. Not to mention massive amounts of completely unburned paper nearby all of the toasted vehicles, yet never catching on fire.

            “plus there were clearly recorded seismic signals during all three collapses, you are just spouting nonsense now because there is clear evidence contra-indicating & contradicting your claims. Just for shits & giggles, here’s a link to the seismographic readings recorded that day
            at Columbia University disproving your assertion:”

            You’re good at strawmen, because I never said there were NO seismic signals. I said that the signals that were captures were too small to account for 500,000 tons of steel, concrete and other materials to have hit the ground per tower. She showed that was was missing were P and S waves, not surface waves. This is consistent with a lot of weight being lifted from the ground, not slamming into it.

            “I don’t have to prove that 19 (not 16) terrorists hijacked 4 airliners & crashed them into various targets, it’s there on video camera, audio recordings, voicemail recordings from passengers, & the
            remains of the aircraft themselves in the four areas, it’s public record.”

            You have to show what happened to all of the material that didn’t slam into the ground as you claim it has. You have to show how these 19 thugs who could not even fly small planes managed to execute precision flying. You have to explain how paper passports can survive a airplane impact where the black boxes could not, and why it was not burned by all of the supposed jet fuel. The burden of proof is on you, again, to account for all of the missing material and a relatively undamaged bathtub, and explain why earthmoving equipment did far more damage to the delicate slurry wall than two 500K ton towers slamming into it at near free-fall speeds.

            “You can claim appeal to authority all you want, but I think you need to look it up because it doesn’t mean what you believe it does, here’s a formal definition…”

            You are appealing to authority, rather than addressing the specific refutations of your faith. You parade your credentials around and scream, “STOP ARGUING WITH ME! I KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT AND YOU DON’T BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE A DEGREE IN MY FIELD!!!!” It isn’t about me, nor about Dr. Judy Wood, nor any one person–it’s about the evidence, that you REFUSE to address. You think hand-waving away with appeals to authority make an adequate substitute for addressing the refutations.

            “I have a similar level of understanding because of my educational background as an engineering physicist, you do not dooglio.”

            See my above comment about appeal to authority.

            “One of the reasons I know her theories are absolute crap is that lasers or directed-energy beams can deliver a lot of energy to a small space, but for long distances on earth their effectiveness as weapons is limited by the atmosphere. Particle beams are even more limited on the Earth’s surface because the particles would interact with atoms in the atmosphere, & while there are laser weapons powerful enough to damage human sight, lasers powerful enough to cause physical damage to materials at a long distance would have ionized the air, making it opaque (“blooming”), & there is no evidence whatsoever from witness accounts & recorded video that anything like this whatsoever occurred. That’s my proof.”

            So actually read her book then, because that is not what she is talking about. See, what she did was not start out with a conclusion, then try to fit her evidence to that conclusion. What she did was start her investigation with an open mind. Knowning that there was no way the official story was physically possible, she started looking first at *what* happened. A tiny amount of material from the buildings at Ground Zero, a relatively undamaged bathtub, inadequate seismic signals, unexplained toasted cars, some as far away as FDR Drive, remaining steel beams bend in ways not consistent with load-bearing failure, unexplained rusted steel beams in buildings like the Bankers Trust building, people taking off their clothes and hanging out 105 stories above ground, and being ejected out, an impossible airplane-sized hole in steel beams, complete with wing cutouts, buildings that fell at free-fall speeds, which is impossible (see her Billiard Ball refutation), fires that don’t burn paper, red glowing steel that does not cease up bulldozers, the low temperatures reported by first responders, the survivors in Stairwell B of the North Tower and of WTC4. Dr. Wood didn’t know *what* could do this, all she knew is that what people were saying happened was impossible.

            She discovered the work of Nikola Tesla and John Hutchison, and could see the parallel of how it could be possible to take down the buildings. The conclusion: it has to be some kind of free directed energy using interfering waves that could do that kind of damage. That is how she came to *how*. You, of course, have your mind so closed to the evidence and are married to your predetermined conclusions that you refuse to take it in and instead call her a kook.

            “I also have access to empirical evidence because of my web accounts with online databases of peer-reviewed paperson the subjects. You may or may not have access to that information, it
            all depends on if you’ve tried to access it or not. Dr. Jenkins has already debunked her, the others just ignore it because her claims have no valid merit or credibility, & she hasn’t provided any conclusive evidence to prove her points.”

            Dr. Jenkins utterly failed to debunk her. I’ve read his sorry excuse for a “refutation” of Dr. Wood’s damning conclusions. She’s provides a fuck-ton of conclusive evidence. It’s the establishment who has provided nothing when asked where the towers actually went.

            “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, you keep ignoring that, so I’ll pound it into your head like a nail once again.”

            And I will continue to redirect it where it belongs–on you. You are the one who has to explain how the impossible can actually happen.

            “I don’t have to attack her character or record, the proof is in the evidence that she has altered a graph, ignored facts inconvenient to her narrative, & cherry-picked data, all things no credible scientist would do.”

            I have never seen any evidence that supports your wild accusations. Instead, I hear you doing what you claim to not be doing: attacking her character and reputation instead of addressing her refutation of the official conspiracy theory.

            “Discussion over dooglio, keep repeating your mindless mantra to yourself from now on. I’ve proven my points, whether you want to admit it or not.”

            Ah, pigeon chess. Is that how it is?

          • Stentor7

            Blah, blah, blah dooglio, why should I read the book? There’s nothing in there that I probably haven’t seen before, or that you haven’t brought up previously. You’re the one who started the argument, & the one who keeps moving the goalposts further & further downfield.
            There’s a point in time where you realize that continuing to converse with you on this subject is the same as banging my head against a wall, when you finally stop, it feels so good. Pigeon chess is when the pigeon craps all over the pieces & walks away. I’m just walking away because you’re a gibbering idiot.
            Talk about appeal to authority, “read her book” because I can’t successfully refute your points myself is the textbook definition of uprooting the goalpost & marching 50 yards with it out of the stadium.
            There’s a guy named Steven Dutch at the University of Wisconsin who addresses all your points, so I don’t have to anymore. Want to go argue with someone? Argue with him, he’s taken down all of her bad science himself, so I don’t have to replicate his work.
            https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM
            The toasted cars farther away from the site? I guess you’ve never heard of tow trucks. Finished dooglio, but I’m sure your tiny little ego will want to have the last word, it’s how all you idiots roll, so have at it, but I won’t respond because it’s pointless to respond to someone who has no clue about materials science, building demolition, & engineering physics, much less physics.

          • dooglio

            Why should you read the book? Because you might learn something, that’s why. God forbid…

          • Stentor7

            Only in the realm of fiction dooglio, only in the realm of fantasy stories. I don’t have to read a lot of books & your urging that I have to do so because I might learn something is a false assumption on your part. I know all about 9/11, I lived through it as anyone who was alive living in a major metropolitan area did. I’ve studied the event for over a decade now, & all the 9/11 truthers, or anyone else positing some sort of conspiracy theory like Judy Wood is mistaken, pushing an agenda, believes in other tinfoil hat ideas like chemtrails & illuminati/bilderberg/new world order groups, & all have a common characteristic of being completely full of it, just like you are. There’s nothing new there, nothing any less cuckoo than I’ve seen elsewhere on the web or on youtube, I don’t believe in that other fairytale of the skydaddy from the Iron-Age tribal group of middle eastern sheepherding warmongerers either. That you invoke it is very telling in your admonition to me. What happened is what we all saw happen, the evidence is overwhelming, those that want to see some sort of hidden narrative or agenda are just deluding themselves because of some sense of false superiority in knowing something that the rest of us don’t or some story that we’re supposedly not aware of, & it’s bullshit, complete bullshit. Later doog, get some help from your nearest mental-health professional.

          • dooglio

            Wood’s theory is not conspiracy. I wish you’d stop calling it that. Conspiracy theories by definition are not falsifiable, and Wood’s is very much falsifiable.

            And what is important is not her conclusion that it was some kind of free directed energy weapon or beam. What is important to focus on is the evidence that contradicts the official conspiracy theory, which is unfalsifiable.

          • Stentor7

            See I knew you couldn’t resist. Dooglio, I have better things to do than to read some book by someone who practices shoddy science, & relitigating the past. This gentleman here refutes her using all the same points I’ve spoken about with much more detail & much more thoroughly. (All Emphases Mine):

            http://wideshut.co.uk/judy-wood-911/

            Here’s his money quote I want to repeat to you, “As much as the mainstream media, science and academia can be flawed, biased and agenda based to varying degrees, the idea that there is one overarching conspiracy to bury the truth about 9/11 simply does not ring true to me.

            So if Judy Wood really did have a “smoking gun” backed with solid science that could be peer reviewed and demonstrable, I believe it would have gone further than it has. I’m not saying the US government would bring her to the White House and hold a press conference, but enough educated people with integrity would be supporting her that it would be clear she’s on to something.

            Other than a computer science graduate from the UK (Andrew Johnson), former Minnesota governor turned conspiracy hunter Jesse Ventura in the States, and mostly just an internet community, nobody really takes her seriously. That doesn’t mean she’s wrong (science isn’t done by consensus and all that) but her work is literally a joke to almost any educated person that comes across it. Which is not what I’m claiming to be. But as a layman the conclusions of educated people have to count for something.

            This is the key point, she has no credibility because other scientists like me have looked at her work, & found it to be extremely lacking. For instance, dustification & jellification are not words, she’s just made those up. Theorizing from pictures & video is not sound science. Secondly, do you even know what a P-wave or S-wave even is? The differences in the seismic signatures are laid out in Keelan Balderson’s article that I linked to above. If a majority of people don’t find her work to be credible, then the people who do are either ignoring things that contradict her, or are not well-versed in science.
            You can say I’m not doing things because it somehow does not conform to your version of reality, but that doesn’t mean you are in any way correct. Again, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, & you can scream appeal to authority all you want, but on the definitions of basic terms, those are non-negotiable things that are needed to even facilitate a discussion, so you can pretend to knock out the legs of the basic definitions of logical fallacies all you want, but it won’t make you any more right. You use words like straw man & appeal to authority that don’t conform to the commonly accepted definitions of those concepts, so again I have to say I don’t think you’re well-versed in the philosophy of logic either. My degrees in engineering physics are not an appeal to authority, they are a product of my education.
            Again, I’m done with this Dooglio, you can rant & rave all you want, but until other scientists uncover something I haven’t seen before with respect to her work, it’s not credible, period. So go gibber off in your corner about how you won the argument because I stopped responding, but the reality is, you learn to walk away from the crazy people after awhile because it just isn’t worth it to speak with them anymore.

          • dooglio

            “See I knew you couldn’t resist. Dooglio, I have better things to do than
            to read some book by someone who practices shoddy science, &
            relitigating the past.”

            Suit yourself. Remain ignorant. Keep telling yourself the official conspiracy story is correct. Your loss.

            “Again, I’m done with this Dooglio, you can rant & rave all you want,”

            I think you are projecting on the ranting and raving accusation. My guess, is that you aren’t really done and that you’ll just be dying to have the last word. Which is fine. If that is what you really want, be my guest. Your ego is on the line here. Me? I couldn’t really care one way or the other. Every criticism of Wood’s work is always the same: attack her reputation and her person, and never ever confront the facts.

          • Stentor7

            No facts there doog, just a lot of misinterpretation. You have a very loose definition of the word, maybe you should go look it up. I’ll give your tiny little ego the last word, go ahead. It still won’t make you right, so don’t disappoint me now.

          • dooglio

            Okay, so you’re done with the personal insults now? Cool. You can believe whatever fantasy story you like, it does not matter to me.

          • James R. Olson

            video showing the lower part of building 7 during it’s collapse does not exist, so I don’t know what you could have seen

          • dooglio

            Ah, sorry I was referring to the towers. With building 7, there was no seismic signal at all from the collapse (250,000 tons of steel and concrete should give us a signal when it falls). People were shocked on scene because it didn’t make a sound.

            The way it collapsed is more consistent with the structure being eaten away from the middle than falling due to a gravity-driven collapse due to structure failure.

          • MileHigh

            The photo is surreal, like out of a Japanese monster movie.

          • moflicky

            that’s a non sequitur. just because a. and b. are true, does not make c. true. you need evidence for c.

          • Annie

            Obviously. That’s a deflection. You are smarter than that.
            What A and B should do for objective individuals is create doubt, and give pause before waving banners decrying “conspiracy theorists” and mocking people.

          • moflicky

            I’m not mocking you, unless pointing out the truth is mocking. Doubt is not evidence. I have seen plenty of very convincing evidence for islamic radicals flying planes into buildings and them falling due to the damage and the fires. I have seen little more than wild speculation that it was an inside job.

            I’m not saying some in our government are morally incapable of doing it, I’m saying our government is functionally incapable of pulling off such a complicated operation without leaving any evidence.

            Now, if you want to argue that the government knew of the plot and did nothing to prevent it for purposes of mobilizing the public into wars, we can talk about that and have some common ground – at least that’s plausible. the idea of controlled demo of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is not plausible, and I see no evidence of it – and believe me, I’ve looked.

          • Annie

            Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

          • moflicky

            it is also not evidence.

          • Annie

            That’s correct. I’m not making any other claim. We have knowledge based on what we have so far, being open minded to that knowledge changing is important.

          • moflicky

            I’m wide open to any new evidence. let me know when you have some.

          • Annie

            I’m glad you are open minded. I’m not a 9/11 researcher nor do I pretend to be an expert. I do think that dismissing what are referred to as “conspiracy theories” just because they are named that is foolish. So many people do that, and it’s ridiculous.

          • moflicky

            That’s like saying ‘you cannot prove that there are not humans living on Venus. that there is no evidence of my theory is not evidence that it isn’t true.’

          • Annie

            At one point in history, there was no evidence that the earth was round.

          • James R. Olson

            There has always been evidence that the earth was spherical, and you don’t understand the concepts you are waving around.

          • Annie

            No one saw or identified the evidence at the wink of time, did they?
            Sure, I don’t understand bc you say so and you’re an expert. Rme

          • Hugh Culliton

            I agree completely, except that the sane, logical explanations are being treated as Witchcraft was in Salem. How about a more useful graphic:here’s Building 7. Please explain (and speak loudly because my heat MUST be wrapped in tin-foil) how this happened without the use of pre-positioned demolition charges:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU

          • moflicky

            Hugh, watch this video – particularly around 0:45. the reporter is on the south side of WTC7 – the opposite side of where it was damaged. See the fire on the west side of the building? now imagine what the north side looks like. The area appears to have been completely evacuated already. listen to and watch stuff falling. Tell me those fires weren’t capable of weakening the steel supports
            http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d45_1320106542
            now watch this – the networks were reporting all day that that building was heavily damaged and fires raged all day, and they expected it to fall so they ended attempts to put out the fire and evacuated (the truther community says that never happened, no severe damage, only small fires).
            http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f62_1341774505
            like the end of that video says, for the truthers to be right, all the networks, reporters on the ground and all of the firefighters there that day were in on the conspiracy or are too afraid to tell the truth. I personally don’t rate them as cowards, so that leaves one option.

          • Hugh Culliton

            Thanks moflicky – this is too important an issue for people to ignore. I watched the clips you sent, and can see how you reached your conclusion. Yet, and very respectfully, I do disagree with your argument, and here’s why:

            In my opinion and experience, getting into the weeds of “who knew what and when”, or “following the money” or “9-11 was an inside job”, or any other conspiracy theory is a massive and flawed red herring. I have no evidence to support any such conclusion. Thus, I’ve limited my analysis to working with the verifiable and accurate visible, video, and audio open-source evidence. For the sake of time, I agree that we should focus on WTC 7.

            Last point first:

            “for the truthers to be right, all the networks, reporters on the ground and all of the firefighters there that day were in on the conspiracy or are too afraid to tell the truth. I personally don’t rate them as cowards, so that leaves one option.”

            This is getting away from the physical evidence forming the basis of my argument, but needs to be addressed. “Back in the day” when I was an officer in the RCN, I held a Top Secret security classification – sounds way more impressive than it is. But it means that I had to take several courses in info security theory and practice. A fundamental principal of info security, is compartmentalization: only very few people have either knowledge of the big picture, or even realize that there IS a big picture. So looking for evidence of a mass-conspiracy is futile, as there most likely never was one. We have to look at the physical and reproducible evidence available.
            As well, we have no way of either confirming or denying eye-witness testimony. As a historian, I also know that such recollections made during a crisis as well as years later, are very emotional, subjective and prone to error. Some people question the official story . Though some are, without doubt whack-job tin-foil hatters, that doesn’t mean that everyone critical of the official story are paranoid, Alex Jones -watching lunatics. There’s often good reason to be critical of official stories. For example, remember during the build-up to Desert Storm, the utterly fabricated testimony by the girl who turned out to be the Kuwaiti US Ambassador’s daughter? She falsely described babies being tossed from incubators by Iraqi soldiers. This propaganda didn’t happen by chance – it was a consciously orchestrated deception by the US government to solidify a tremendous amount of public support for the war. It worked – even I fell for it. See: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/opinion/deception-on-capitol-hill.html

            “Hugh, watch this video – particularly around 0:45. the reporter is on the south side of WTC7 – the opposite side of where it was damaged. See the fire on the west side of the building? now imagine what the north side looks like. The area appears to have been completely evacuated already. listen to and watch stuff falling. Tell me those fires weren’t capable of weakening the steel supports.”

            I did. What I saw was some localized and, due to the colour, low-temp fires. Questions you should investigate for yourself, are:
            – At what temperature does steel loose structural strength?
            – What fuel was available to burn in WTC 7?
            -Was that fuel enough to weaken the structure to the point of failure?

            Next, and please search this for yourself, except for the 3 collapses on 9-11, there have never – and I mean that literally – never in the 100-plus year history of steel-framed buildings, been an example of a building collapsing due to fire. Google “Madrid hotel fire” and then compare that fire to what was observed in WTC7. Fire is an implausible explanation for the building failure.

            As well, even if the fire was hot enough to cause the structure to fail (it wasn’t), were the fires completely even throughout the building? How can a non-linear event cause an utterly linear collapse. A collapse like WTC 7 can only occur through an incredibly precise and even structural failure. Nature is non-linear – WTC7’s collapse was completely linear.

            “Now watch this – the networks were reporting all day that that building was heavily damaged and fires raged all day, and they expected it to fall so they ended attempts to put out the fire and evacuated (the truther community says that never happened, no severe damage, only small fires).”

            Fortunately the building had been evacuated. WRT the fires, go back and compare to Madrid – which maintained complete structural integrity during a massive fire vastly larger that the one in WTC7. Fire could not cause the collapse, and certainly not as symmetrically as it happened.

            Finally, the biggest issue in the speed and acceleration that the building collapsed. It happened at a rate indistinguishable from free-fall. That can only happen if the collapsing structure is meeting no resistance from the intact structure below. That’s basic physics. Chandler explains this better than I can. Here’s his interpretation, and I hope you watch with a critical eye. If you know someone with a physics background, ask them about this too.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-jWUzhtTIY&list=WL&index=45

            Finally, thanks – we all need to question and critically examine all issues surrounding 9-11. But to do so we also must all (including me) be willing to challenge our emotional preconceptions.
            Too many people were killed or lost love ones for us to not critically consider all the evidence.

            Thanks!

          • moflicky

            “this is too important an issue for people to ignore.”

            I agree – that’s why I am willing to debate all of these subjects – it disturbs me greatly that an est, 30% of citizens believe our government was behind this. Not because I think they’re morally incapable, but because the 70% who don’t believe it will look at some of the things they are doing today, as we speak, and lump it into conspiracy nonsense. It distracts and detracts from the real stuff going on.

            “I also know that such recollections made during a crisis as well as years later, are very emotional, subjective and prone to error.”

            The decision to abandon B7 was reported in real time, with the reasons given. It’s a matter of public record. The media as a whole were waiting for the building to collapse most of the afternoon, and when it did, no one was surprised. It was only months later, watching grainy 3rd and 4th generation copies of video on the web that most thought it looked like controlled demo (admittedly it did look like that, even more than the towers) and so it must have been controlled demo.

            “I did. What I saw was some localized and, due to the colour, low-temp fires.”

            The flames I pointed to at :45 looked pretty hot to me, and all you’re seeing is the color as it hits open air. inside the building the color and the heat would be very different.

            “Next, and please search this for yourself, except for the 3 collapses on 9-11, there have never – and I mean that literally – never in the 100-plus year history of steel-framed buildings, been an example of a building collapsing due to fire.”

            I have done my research. No steel frame buildings had never before or since been subjected to the damage to critical load bearing members and burned uncontrolled afterwards. It’s never happened before because that has never happened before.

            The Windsor in Madrid is not a good comparison at all – first, it was much much smaller both in size and weight and it also had a robust concrete reinforced steel core – none of the WTC collapses had that.

            But you’re actually not quite right – the McCormick Center in Chicago burned and collapsed in 1960. It was considered fireproof and was built from concrete and steel.
            http://tinyurl.com/zv7ew32
            http://tinyurl.com/jqqt2od

            Also, there’s this:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mUUaFvYwik

            complete failure of steel structural beams due to nothing but fire.

            “As well, even if the fire was hot enough to cause the structure to fail (it wasn’t)”

            It was hot enough to soften steel. steel under load does not need to melt for it to fail. Due to the damage to the building, the remaining load bearing members were under greater stress from the shift in weight.

            “How can a non-linear event cause an utterly linear collapse. ”

            Since no one was inside the building the last 4 hours, we’ll never know for sure, but the working NIST hypothesis makes sense to me. as the fire progressed throughout the building, from room to room, floor to floor, it left behind collapsed floors/ceilings, damaged vertical supports and weak steel – steel takes a very long time to cool down, so it’s not like once they got hot they cooled off as the fire left. as more and more floors failed, the length between horizontal support between vertical beams lengthened (the horizontal beams are very important to keeping the beams straight up and down and not bend). eventually, critical vertical beams failed due to no lateral support and increased downward force. that’s when you see the penthouse collapse, seconds before the total collapse.

            “A collapse like WTC 7 can only occur through an incredibly precise and even structural failure.”

            There is no evidence it wasn’t a progressive collapse. we don’t see what’s going on inside that huge building. It seems quite plausible to me that it happened as NIST describes.

            “free fall speed”.

            actually, it didn’t collapse in free fall speed. the collapse of the penthouse began 10 seconds prior to the facade beginning to fall. this bolsters the NIST theory that the internals of the building were collapsing long before the facade. The facade fell at freefall speed because there was nothing inside to hold it up.

            Is that the final word? Yes, it will have to be, unless evidence turns up. That, I think, is the key point here – other than grainy videos of the collapse, you have nothing but speculation and your own disbelief that something like this could happen the way they say it did.

            I’ve seen every one of the truther videos, including the one above. Without exception, they cherry pick evidence and pictures while ignoring others. They set up straw men and prove those straw men are impossibilities. I appreciate the time you’ve spent on this, but for you to convince me, you’re going to need better physical evidence.

            And that’s really the point, isn’t it? Without more evidence none of this would stand up in court. it doesn’t even rise to the standard of circumstantial evidence, when it is examined carefully. So all of this is just an exercise to convince someone else to believe something, with no actual result other than believing.

          • Stentor7

            You can see flashing of a sort, but it isn’t an explosion. What you see is window glass popping out as the floors collapse and compress the air inside. The sun is momentarily reflected in each pane of glass as it falls.
            The damage to WTC 7 was actually caused by debris from WTC 1, 370 feet away. A controlled demolition would presumably try to avoid such behavior.
            What happens when you squeeze a concertina or an accordion? These side-jets of air and dust were not really explosions as such but debris being expelled from the buildings as the floors pancaked on top of each other. There is a lot of air in a quarter-mile-tall office building, and when compressed it has to go somewhere.
            Add to that, all of those buildings were full of water in water mains, toilets, sinks, and beverage machines. Water cooked to boiling temperatures expands violently, and if contained, it expands explosively. Water has a high heat capacity which usually precludes rapid heating to boiling temperatures, but the heat of burning jet fuel will force water to heat rapidly to boiling that causes explosions of such objects as unopened soft-drink cans or whiskey bottles. This explains many of the explosions that the survivors heard from the ground level.

          • moflicky

            building demolition experts explain:
            http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

          • Stentor7

            More demolition experts debunk the 9/11 Truthers:
            https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

          • James R. Olson

            Because you can’t fix stupid. What exactly do you think was autocorrected?

          • MileHigh

            What he said made perfect sense, so you either don’t have enough technical common sense skills to see and understand this and/or you are simply in denial because you have to stick to your agenda no matter what.

          • Byron

            A fire is not the same thing as an impact followed by fires. Why do truthers cling to fires? That’s like saying “I hit a guy with a 747 and he didn’t collapse the way that the WTC buildings did.”
            How many of these fires took out the things in the way of insulating the steel? How many of them burned as hot as jet fuel? How many of them also involved a significant impact? Yadda yadda yadda.

          • thecyberczarina

            When did “gravity” start only falling in a perfectly STRAIGHT down formation? For a building hit to suddenly collapse in the middle and fall into it’s own footprint might “possibly” happen, for TWO buildings in a short time frame, without taking out ANY of the buildings mere feet away is a statistical miracle that should have been followed by the Second Coming of Christ. Perhaps Jesus was too busy looking for that missing $2.3 Trillion reported the day before.

          • moflicky

            gravity is a force that ONLY goes straight towards the source of gravity – i.e. the earth. two buildings fell that way because there is no other way for them to fall. the laws of physics are absolute and immutable.
            The reason the 2nd building hit fell first is easily explained as well – it was a corner hit and there was twice as much weight above the damage and the fires than in the first building.

          • Real Truth stings

            make it 3 buildings. building 7 fell in exactly the same way. magic?

          • moflicky

            “without taking out ANY of the buildings mere feet away is a statistical miracle”

            didn’t you see the carnage of all the buildings surrounding the towers? good grief.

          • Kevin Mitchell

            actually, you are wrong, a tree falls over. a solid pipe falls over, the buildings should have fell over- not sideways as you state- over.. it simply cannot fall in the path of most resistance- unless of course all beams are removed simultaneously.

          • moflicky

            Trees and pipes don’t weigh thousands of tons. for that much weight, the path of least resistance IS down, once that much weight begins to move. no man made structure ever devised can withstand the pressure of that much weight once it starts moving. anyone with even rudimentary understanding of the laws of gravity and inertia knows this.

            if you don’t even understand gravity, how can you possibly understand the complex physics of the WTC buildings falling?

          • Philip Taht

            What you are saying is absolutely right. If buildings couldn’t sway (and then sway back- flexing) they would snap. The weak points, post impact, were part way up the towers so the upper floors would become an unsupportable mass dropping vertically down.
            Those berating your argument really have little knowledge of the laws of physics.
            ps. Regarding the third tower I can’t comment on. The one vid I have seen does show a series of explosions at various levels. This part of the saga does have me baffled.

          • moflicky

            they’re trying to relate it to something they can touch like a tree or a pipe. they completely disregard the immense weight of the structure above the fires and structural damage. the building below was strong enough to support that weight as long as it wasn’t moving (static load strength). once it started moving, it was no match for it (dynamic load). at the moment of failure, the structure below was little more than matchsticks under the weight of a big book.

          • Excalibur

            It is not as simple as you make it sound.
            Metal Fatigue. Fire. Design. Much more than you care to acknowledge is involved.
            Explain again, then, how the fires that supposedly “weakened and melted” the steel in one area
            (airplane crash site…and the 767 does contain some magnesium alloys that have been strenuously tested for fire and fire suppression here in 1964 http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/644408.pdf

            and before that, alloys were tested in 1944
            https://books.google.com/books?id=Gl9WAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA458&lpg=PA458&dq=when+were+magnesium+alloys+fire+tested?&source=bl&ots=UVWWSs0DoA&sig=fP8nYYQ78s2CTxJGugsFi08KUZs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNrL-kgJLPAhXGVj4KHYRaAZsQ6AEIMjAE#v=onepage&q=when%20were%20magnesium%20alloys%20fire%20tested%3F&f=false
            which is the only thing that could burn hot enough to melt steel…however, there is not enough in the aircraft to sustain a fire for any length of time)

            due to jet fuel and fires, and would just “snap” and fall vertically as you claim, without taking this into consideration….because as we all know, a fire would consume all material near that area first, which would fall first, because the other “side” would still be basically structurally sound, and fall to that weak side. Now we must bring in metal fatigue…do you know anything about that? You should….you so smart! Being that in all logical sense, fires do not stay at the same temperature at all times, no failures would happen at the same time…and it would fall to the side, the side where all those tons of material would basically fall to that weak side…because as we all know, skyscrapers are DESIGNED to support weight, and withstand a fire….. once it begins to tip from failure of structural support, creating a force (or angle if you will) that moves the weight to the already (and you did admit you saw that) weakened side first, only then eventually succumbing to gravity and falling vertically…which would mean that at least the radio towers would not be in the center of the footprint of the building …that is why your theory is not feasible…ALL the support structures would have to fail at basically the same time, at basically the same rate, in order to have a straight down vertical fall.
            We could in an experiment, simulating the structure and weight, melt the steel on one side…and it will never fall vertical as you say, unless all structural support goes away at basically the same time.
            THAT is physics.

          • moflicky

            you have presented several straw men. let me try to list them all.

            first of all, the jet fuel was all gone in probably less than 10 minutes. The fire was fed by furniture, carpeting, drapes, plastics and reams and reams of paper and everything else you would find in a modern office. so the burning temp of jet fuel is a useless metric.

            next, the ‘fire can’t melt steel’ canard. no one says the steel ‘melted’. steel loses half it’s strength at well below it’s melting point.

            third, I never said the steel ‘just snapped’. neither you nor I know exactly how it failed, but I strongly believe the official explanation – the trusses that held the floor softened, sagged and pulled the outer skin steel inward, causing it to completely lose it’s ability to hold up the building up. In fact, I’ve seen video evidence of this – 6:28
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA
            see the outer beams bowing inward just before collapse?

            fourth, the direction of the fall. in both cases, the building above the strike zone tilted towards the most damaged zone initially, then disappeared into the dust cloud but none of that matters. once the building started to fall, it turned into kinetic energy hundreds of times greater than the static energy of the building at rest. The supports holding up the building were not strong enough to hold that back and force the top of the building away from the core. the path of least resistance is down and only down at that point.

            It didn’t matter which side failed. when it failed, the remaining supports were no longer strong enough to hold up their end of the building because moving mass is much more powerful than mass at rest.

            If you don’t believe what I’m saying is true, I don’t know how else to convince you. talk to a high school physics teacher. it really is elementary science.

            http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-static-energy-and-vs-kinetic-energy/

          • Excalibur

            eh…you forgot the magnesium alloys.
            You agreed with this “If buildings couldn’t sway (and then sway back- flexing) they would snap” so in fact, yes, you agreed…you said this
            “little more than matchsticks under the weight of a big book” and oh, that must be my bad assumption…what do matchsticks do under that idea…just “break”…or maybe “snap”…..christ, perhaps you should go back to elemntary English….

          • moflicky

            I don’t care about magnesium alloys. I saw planes fly into the building. I saw lots of fire. I saw the steel beams bow inward just before the building collapsed. I saw the building collapse from the top down, just as any scientist would have predicted it would, once the top of the building started to move downward. I saw absolutely zero evidence of controlled demolition.

            as far as snapping, let me try and spell it out for you.
            before the top began moving, no snaps. just bent/buckled steel.
            after the top began to move, lots and lots of snaps, bends and breaks.

            capisce?

          • Excalibur

            Already told you …you agreed with another poster about “snap”…we were done with that…why do you keep bringing up the same points over and over, instead of moving on? You are spelling nothing out for me, methinks I have a far greater grasp of the English language than you…if you can’t say what you mean….I’m over it… I agree to disagree…I just question what is spoon fed from EITHER side of the equation….to find the results I can believe in. Neither one if us is right, and neither one of us is wrong. It is what it is…

          • moflicky

            I replied to your comments as I come across them. I never agreed with the poster about “snap” – I agreed that the buildings were designed to sway, and then said that once the top of the building started moving down, nothing was going to stop it. you attributed ‘snap’ to me.

            I have not been spoon fed anything. I researched this topic extensively back in the early ’00s. hundreds of hours. I still see no evidence of inside job, planted explosives, controlled demo. It just didn’t happen that way. your links to magnesium alloys and tensile strength of steel don’t change that. I am happy to consider any new evidence presented about this particular case, but the science is strong that the official story is a hell of a lot closer to, and more probable than any of the various conspiracies offered here or elsewhere.

          • Excalibur

            Would you not consider your response to matches and a heavy book, to illustrate what the other poster had said, an agreement? “If buildings couldn’t sway (and then sway back- flexing) they would snap” .you said this “little more than matchsticks under the weight of a big book” What would matchsticks do under that idea…do you have a better word for it? Or would that be trying to show something that you disagree with…hmmm…your grasp on that seems quite shallow. I never said you were spoon fed, I only suggested I question both sides. You must be a prime investigator with your name on many reports then, associated with the government version of what happened, if you spent hundreds of hours researching this, and are still happy to consider new evidence presented. I wonder why you have not provided any “scientific links” other than what video …ahem….”proof” ….you have shown above. And now you claim to have spent “hundreds of hours in the early 00’s researching extensively? Does that include the year 2000…a year before it happened? You see, those are what makes what you say questionable….because there is a hell of a lot more to take into consideration than what you say as gospel. Yet you disregard it.
            Someone with a mind made up that will never change, as with many on here…and do not get me wrong…I am not trying to change anyone’s view…all I am doing is pointing out what materials can,will, and will not do. However, when one does that…I get this…like what you are doing.
            Either way, this was a tragedy all the way around, no matter what.
            Yes, terrorists were involved. Yes, buildings came down. One building no one can explain why it came down.
            Question Authority has always been my motto, because authority is not always correct. If anyone thinks that they are….well…more power to ya.

          • James R. Olson

            None of what Moflicky posted is questionable. It is all well established fact, and I concur with each and every point he has made having myself devoted many many hours of inquiry to this very subject.

          • Excalibur

            Surely you jest…

          • MileHigh

            I concur with Moflicky also, he is as solid as a rock.

          • moflicky

            ‘You must be a prime investigator with your name on many reports then, associated with the government version of what happened, if you spent hundreds of hours researching this”

            hundreds of hours over several years is an avocation, not a vocation.

            “I wonder why you have not provided any “scientific links””

            all of the “scientific links” posted by the truthers here are specious at best. at best, they achieve setting up straw men and proving them impossible. At worst, they’re completely made up nonsense.

            “because there is a hell of a lot more to take into consideration than what you say as gospel. Yet you disregard it. ”

            I haven’t disregarded it. I have read the claims, researched their validity and found them wanting. I also hate it when truthers simply lie through their teeth – evidence of which can be found in the headline and full story of this article. The story printed in europhysics was presented as new and proof positive evidence – “new study confirms, 15 years later, all three wtc buildings brought down by controlled demolition.” Nothing could be further from the truth – it was nothing but a rehash of the same old tired arguments. also, take your insistence on my considering a study on magnesium alloys – and berating me twice for not commenting on it. I didn’t comment because I never said magnesium was a contributing factor, yet this is supposedly evidence of my not considering your views?

            “do not get me wrong…I am not trying to change anyone’s view”

            you could have fooled me.

            “Yes, terrorists were involved. Yes, buildings came down. One building no one can explain why it came down.”

            lots of people who investigated it have a lot of theories as to why it fell – but the bottom line for me is that there were dozens of first responder testimonies saying they a) could not fight the fires because the water supplies to ground zero were severed by the collapses and b) they heard groans and creaks inside the building indicating the structure was unstable and might fall which is why the decision was made to abandon it, so they didn’t lose any more people. it sat and burned for hours _after_ the area was evacuated before it fell.

            who am I supposed to believe? people who actually were there, investigated it and reported their findings, or a bunch of ameteur internet detectives who constantly lie to me about what the evidence shows?

          • Excalibur

            I am not asking you to believe anyone, nor am I backing either side. I just question what you say….and you cannot handle it that I question you.
            That’s all I have to say to you so you get your knickers in a knot.
            If you go back way way WAY back to the beginning…YOU were the one arguing about what I posted. YOU were the one accusing straw men of running all over the place. YOU were the one who disregarded what I said (oh..and the links) of ACTUAL FACTS that I posted. So , from what I see here, this discussion is over. You forgot how to read. All you are interested in is taking whatever for granted…and basically…you yourself are an “amateur detective” who doesn’t question what you are spoon fed by others that agree with your armchair decisions. Oh my Lord…if they question you, you come out swinging. That is what I see. You don’t want to discuss it. You want to validate what you already made up your mind about is all.
            You have shown us nothing. Believe who you want ….no skin off my nose…. thing is…I KNOW people that were there…..not investigators who you automatically assume are right, no. People. Some died. Some did not. So yes…I still question what supposed “investigators” say about some things…even you “amateur armchair detectives” such as yourself …when science says something a bit different on some thoughts of how this tragedy happened.
            That’s the point you miss. And that is why this conversation is done.

          • moflicky

            “and you cannot handle it that I question you.”

            what part of my reply to you was unresponsive, indicated irritation or exasperation over my views being questioned?

            after first telling me I can’t handle being questioned, and saying you’re done with me, you then rant for another two paragraphs about how I was the one who dared to questioned you, and then criticized me for quoting you in my reply (so there wouldn’t be any confusion about what I was responding to).

            I think one of us is confused, and it isn’t me.

          • Excalibur

            Just trying to specify for you, because you cannot follow what is said, basically. See what I mean about you can’t handle being questioned? Now you attack my style of conveying a message (and by proper English standards of writing, what I have done is admissible)…how silly of you. You are still chasing rainbows in confusion land, yes, for you are so very confused. It is common for the one who is confused to say it is not them. You are falling ever deeper into the dark side. Have fun little one.

          • moflicky

            If you say so.

          • Excalibur

            Well, yep, I did. That was me. It wasn’t you. You’re getting better.

          • moflicky

            gosh, I thought we were done.

          • Excalibur

            Well golly gee whiz Beaver…..we are! LOL!! Can’t you tell?

          • James R. Olson

            I concur.

          • Matt D

            “The smoking gun” here is Building 7. It fell into its own foot print at free fall speed.ie did not slowly bend and buckle as it collapsed.It was not hit by any planes, had a few small fires, was only 47 storys high (less than half that of towers) so was not holding up an unusual weight, had steel columns evenly spaced (so could not “pancake”) but it collapsed in on itself like it was made of paper. It has never been explained
            Look at the videos of this, it was a controlled demolition.
            It takes weeks to lay charges to demolish a building of that size. So it had to be planed and if that was planed then whats to say the rest of it wasn’t also.

          • James R. Olson

            You are wrong on each and every one of your particulars as well as your conclusion. It did not fall into it’s own footprint as the after the fact pictures proved. (what, you did not see those pictures) It did not free fall, as actual measurements have shown.It did bend as it fell as the after photos plainly show, in a counter clockwise direction around the twenty story gash in the south side of the building. (what, you forgot to mention that twenty story gash?) It had continuous large fires fed by thousands of gallons of kerosene stored in the base of the building, causing the on duty fire chief to order an evacuation of the building AND the surrounding area due to danger of collapse hours before the actual collapse, which did NOT happen as you describe. It has been explained, you just refuse to listen. And finally,~~~~~”Look at the videos of this, it was a controlled demolition.
            It takes
            weeks to lay charges to demolish a building of that size. So it had to
            be planed and if that was planed then whats to say the rest of it wasn’t
            also”~~~~~ your argument here is self refuting. All of these buildings where continuously occupied. How could demolition teams tear the buildings apart and place charges and miles and miles of det cord without ever being seen or questioned?.

          • James R. Olson

            His idea only makes a tiny bit of sense for the first downward excelleration of the building. after the first collapse the die was cast,down she had to go, one floor at a time.

          • moflicky

            I have addressed nearly all of your points. you have not any of mine. who is being open minded and who is not?

          • Excalibur

            Having addressed yours, you only choose not to accept my responses.

          • moflicky

            one more thing on the metal. I’ve heard dozens of metallurgists say under no uncertain circumstances that steel will soften, weaken, expand and bend under much less heat than it takes to melt it. If I hear that argument again, I’m going to scream. you don’t have to melt steel to make it fail. you don’t need 1510 c to make steel fail. it’s not an argument.

          • Excalibur

            LOL..you must have called them? What is your “expertise” again?

          • James R. Olson

            I am his expertise.

          • Excalibur

            Surely you jest.

          • MileHigh

            I know, it’s so sad really. Once the buildings had major damage to their structural integrity, it’s like they transformed from steel and concrete to Styrofoam. Many people have difficulty with relative strength and scale. The larger an object is, and the towers were HUGE, the “weaker” the structural elements are. Meanwhile a grain of sand is virtually indestructible.

          • Stentor7

            WTC 7 had a large internal fire burning for several hours that was a four story power plant, plus large holes over 7 stories long gouged into it by falling debris from the WTC 1 & 2 Towers. It was structurally compromised, & the fire only worsened the problem.

          • Philip Taht

            Very interesting. Thank you.

          • James R. Olson

            Phillip, in regard to building 7 large chunks of structural steel from building 2 ripped a twenty story hole in the side of building seven. no video of this exists because of the way the wind was blowing to smoke and dust. In addition the fire chief having seen the extent of the damage ordered a pullback and evacuation of the building 7 and surrounding area. Also pictures of the building seven, taken after the collapse and smoke had cleared, show the the building rotated as it collapsed even though this was not visible in the video of the building falling straight down. The structure eventually spiralled around the damaged section in a counterclockwise direction unseen because of the rising pall of smoke and dust Speaking of dust, that is where all 100 floors of concrete went. To dust, such was the force of the collapse.

          • Philip Taht

            This is most interesting and informative. I thank you for your input.

          • Kevin Mitchell

            sorry, i guess 2,500 physicists and structural engineers are wrong, you are obviously ahead of your time..

          • moflicky

            actually, you’re wrong. here is their petition: count the number of actual physicists and structural engineers.
            http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/Petition-2000-AEs-13-09.pdf
            substantially less than 2500.
            The American Society of Civil Engineering has almost 150,000 members, the American institute of Architecture has about 85,000 members.

            you can find a small number of kooks in any large group of people – so no, I’ll take the word of the vast majority of the field over the tiny minority.

            Who are you going to believe?

          • moflicky
          • Hugh Culliton

            OK…how did it pancake? Where did all those floors go? Pancakce is BS because it doesn’t explain the vast amount of concrete instantly pulverised, nor does it explain the molten steel, nor the vast number of reports of explosions prior to and during collapse, nor the near-free-fall speed of collapse, nor basically all the evidence available.

          • moflicky

            first of all, the buildings were built over a ten story deep hole – what didn’t get scattered over several blocks in all directions, piled up there. but I have to ask, did you expect to see 100 foot square slabs of concrete at the base, neatly stacked like pancakes? the building disintegrated. everything in it disintegrated. we’re talking hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete, glass and steel. if you had even a passing familiarity with inertia and momentum, the ‘near freefall speed’ wouldn’t concern you. did the explosives push the top of the building down? because that, and only that, could have sped up how fast the building fell. as far as ‘molten steel’ is concerned, there are no reliable accounts that was even true. hot steel? warped steel? maybe, but pools of molten steel? where are the pictures? The debris pile burned for weeks because there was at least a week’s worth of combustible materials in the towers when they fell.

          • Hugh Culliton

            FYI: I’m not an Alex Jones viewing, paranoid, lizard-people plot believing, conspiracy spouting, tin-foil hat wearing, lunatic. As well I have no idea who pulled-off this part of the operation. Like you I thought this stuff was bullshit. But I became curious as to how such an insane theory could become an urban legend. But, looking at all the data, from both sides – and my jury’s still out on some of it – the evidence is damning: pre-planted explosives were used in the 9-11 attacks. Don’t take it from me though – with a critical eye, I urge you to look for yourself.

            “… the buildings were built over a ten story deep hole – what didn’t get scattered over several blocks in all directions, piled up there.”

            1: If the upper 100-odd stories were in the basement, where did all the structures filling-up those basement levels go?

            “…did you expect to see 100 foot square slabs of concrete at the base, neatly stacked like pancakes?”

            Actually, that’s exactly what should have been present if it were a pancake. Incredibly damaged and broken, but still visibly present. Seriously: just google images for “pancaked buildings” – the floors are still there. Even huge buildings like WTC 1& 2 don’t have the mass to evenly and completely pulverize all the reinforced concrete floors as were seen at Ground Zero and all over Manhattan.

            ” if you had even a passing familiarity with inertia and momentum, the ‘near free-fall speed’ wouldn’t concern you…”

            Well, I do understand , as I worked with such forces (as well as explosives training) when I was an operations officer in the RCN (inertia and momentum are the meat and potato of navigating a ship at sea). Free-fall IS concerning exactly because of basic physics. For something to free-fall, the structure and mass underneath needs to be zero. Any resistance causes drag. Drag requires work to overcome. Thus to achieve free-fall means there is no drag. That means, for WTC 1,2, &7 to free-fall, something must have removed the structure underneath before the mass above reached that point. Pancake requires the mass above to apply enough pressure in the structure below to continue the process. That pressure is work, and work slows the structure down. Thus: no free-fall. With controlled demolition, explosives and cutting charges (thermite) removes the structure below so that the building has no resistance and thus, collapses in free-fall.

            “as far as ‘molten steel’ is concerned, there are no reliable accounts that was even true. hot steel? warped steel? maybe, but pools of molten steel? where are the pictures? ”

            Here we see it dripping several minutes before collapse:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPu9IqBfMIw

            And here:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LivXaOguXRA

            And testimony from First Responder survivors:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTzBbhShJQo

            “The debris pile burned for weeks because there was at least a week’s worth of combustible materials in the towers when they fell.”

            Even within a blast furnace, neither massive amounts of JP-1 (980 degree Celsius) nor office furniture (much lower – ask your local fire department), can reach even the 702 degree Celsius necessary to even structurally soften the steel used in the towers.

            However thermite, thermate. or other such cutting materials, of which chemical residue has been found in the dust all over Manhattan, burn at 4000 degrees F. Even NASA Satellite IR scans of Ground Zero read over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit for weeks.

            (A sight with a bias, but the data’s sound):
            http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/347-high-temperatures-persistent-heat-a-molten-steel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story.html

            And then there’s the witness statements of explosions, and the pre-knowledge of 7’s collapse.

          • moflicky

            re: where did the building go? the debris field was many blocks wide. the debris was also piled very high at the site. plus you seem to think the structures above and below street level were solid and full. my guestimates is the building was 80% air, so you’d only have to account for 10 stories of debris inside the footprint and 10 stories outside the footprint. but my question about this is, you tell me where all the debris went? it did not vanish in thin air (other than the pyroclastic cloud). how would explosives account for disappearing mass?

            re. pancakes: (mmmm pancakes) I google it and none of those were more than a few stories high and none were built like the twin towers: outer skin, center core, wide flat and thin concrete slabs supported by trusses with no supporting columns.

            re. freefall – I posted two videos on that in other threads here – suffice it to say that the debris ejected when at the failure occurred reached ground at free fall, as you’d expect, but it took as many as another 7 to 10 seconds for the building itself to stop collapsing – you can tell by the pyroclastic clouds still being sucked in behind the falling building, replacing with air and dust where the building used to be.

            re. the dripping metal – it’s kind of dripping, but mostly it’s just throwing off lots of sparks. There are a lot of things that could account for that – my belief: aluminum (from the plane fuselage) has a very low melting point – and mix a little water with that, it becomes explosive. who knows what other materials were used for trim or insulation or filler in the corner braces? but what you’re suggesting is that they placed thermite or something inside the corner braces that just happened to be exactly the floor the jet hit the building.

            re: thermite – thermite does not explode. it just burns very quickly and very hot. and you need a whole lot to cut down a skyscraper with it. you’d need to wrap the each entire exposed beam with hundreds of lbs of it. how did they get the beams? Occams razor tells me it’s aluminum from the plane.

            the third video means nothing. like I said, lots of energy in a falling skyscraper, already on fire, with tons of combustible materials to feed it.

            re. molton steel on the ground – what you’re suggesting is that the thermite was still burning days, even weeks after the collapse? Thermite doesn’t act like that, especially when it’s composed to burn quick and hot to cut steel beams. It doesn’t make sense. steel does not need to get to 980 celsius to start glowing. see this video:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA

            re: ae911truth – sorry but that is not a sound data site. They are the same people who wrote the “study” that wasn’t a study and had nothing new in it that was written about in the original post above. They are more than just biased, they show only evidence that supports and completely ignores any that contradicts their story.

            See, I spent hundreds of hours reading about and doing my own researching on the topics discussed here, way back in 2003-2006 time frame. I’ve done my due diligence on this stuff – I love a good conspiracy theory, but I won’t take just the CT sites word for some things. I researched this stuff independently of them to see if they were lying or making stuff up – almost invariably, they were making it up or were leaving out exculpatory evidence that would explain their anomalies.

            At this point, it’s just sport. I guess I like beating my head against a wall – because I waste my time in these places. I don’t change any minds, every time i explain something, they inevitably come back with ” but what about this? huh? this proves it!”. I then explain that to them and they move on to another. Maybe, I guess I just like typing.

            now, that’s not to say that the government didn’t know it was going to happen and didn’t do anything about it – that’s another story entirely. at least that’s plausible. but wrapping thermite around beams at exactly the point the jet hit the building? that’s some precision work right there.

            I’m going with occams razor again. the easiest thing to believe is that 19 religious fanatics hijacked jets loaded to the gills with jet fuel and flew them into buildings, damaging them to the point where they fell. to believe otherwise means that our government is efficient enough to pull off a conspiracy that would require hundreds, if not thousands of people to pull off and despite being the most investigated and most reported on single day incident in the last century or ever, no one caught them and no one found them out?

            That’s a bridge too far. nobody’s that good.

          • Hugh Culliton

            As I said, I’m not paranoid, I’ve just gotten a lot more critical of government spin after I realized that I’s fallen for the Gulf War 1 “Kuwaiti babies-thrown-out of incubators bull$hit”. I too like to check the facts myself. But on 9-12, as I was cooling my heels with the reserve regiment I was assigned to guarded the Darlington Nuke plan I wouldn’t have believed the explosives theory either. It took some effort, but I did find enough proof to change my mind. Thanks for a very complete rebuttal – I appreciate your consideration. While I disagree with some of your argument, it gives me hope that you’ve critically considered possibilities other than the official verdict. There is a lot of info that speaks to your critique, but where I am it’s late and I have a rugby practice to coach at Too-Damned-Early (6 am) tomorrow morning. However, when I get a chance, I’ll respond in the morning with the detail that your effort deserves. I have some other info you may find interesting,.

            TTYL

            Hugh

          • moflicky

            “I have some other info you may find interesting,.”

            you can try, but I believe i’ve seen all of the claims made already. as I’ve said, I’ve watched all the videos, read all the websites offering evidence and have found them lacking any substance other than wild speculation.

            have fun at rugby practice.

          • James R. Olson

            There is no such thing as near free fall. Either it was free fall or it wasn’t.

          • James R. Olson

            This is as perfect an explanation as you jerks are going to get, and is scientifically not refutable

          • Hugh Culliton

            Unless there was no resistance from below. Thus the consideration of pre-positioned demolition charges.

          • moflicky

            as I’ve said a dozen times now, once the top of the building started to fall, the floors below would not have offered any resistance. each individual floor would have succumbed instantly to the incredible mass hitting it from above and would then become part of the inertial mass.

          • Hugh Culliton

            That’s what I thought too. However, the conclusion’s not supported by the evidence. I encourage you to watch this with a open and critical mind:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-jWUzhtTIY&list=WL&index=45

          • moflicky

            That video is guilty of misrepresenting itself by the title.

            Find the following information – a) the weight of the towers above the collapse zone at the beginning of the collapse. b) how fast the top of the building could be expected to fall after 1 second. c) the formula for kinetic energy. once the top started to fall, it’s potential and kinetic energy increase by orders of magnitude as it fell.

            The laws of physics are inviolate and immutable. the guy in your video ignores them almost absolutely.

          • MileHigh

            Straight down is perfectly possible and perfectly sensible. You just have to be able to think it through.

          • Gravity pulls straight down

          • thecyberczarina

            When you smack a tennis ball in at the same angle “the planes hit the buildings”, the ball flies sideways before dropping. These buildings, windows, flying glass, etc…. barely shifted before suddenly collapsing into their own footprints, exactly like buildings being demolished do.

          • moflicky
          • Kevin Mitchell

            go cut a tree and watch it come straight down

          • DCHomer

            A tree has a solid core, and has a consistent density through the entire structure. It’s completely different from a building.

          • Hugh Culliton

            How so? The Maple in my front yard has developed a structure capable of efficiently supporting it’s weight against the force of gravity, while being flexible enough to handle both wind and my 2 sons climbing in it. This is exactly what the steel-framed skyscraper does in the same gravity field and using the same engineering principals of a solid core structure and a consistent density throughout.

            If you can give me proof of a maple tree suddenly, an hour after I prune a (substantial) branch off it, suddenly go “poof” and turn into a pile of fine sawdust – let me know and I’ll cut you a 4-figure cheque.

          • Byron

            It’s a solid thing. How on earth could you compare that to a complex structure with space between the walls and beams and floors, with a far greater variety of materials, etc? A building can be filled with fire. A maple tree cannot. A maple tree does not support itself in quite the same way a building does. You aren’t talking about a solid chunk of concrete, it’s a building with far more dynamics involved with it’s structure especially when put under stress.

          • Hugh Culliton

            1 – the buildings were designed to absorb the full impact, including a full fuel load, of at least 2 B-707s. 2!
            2 – Gravity does pull straight down: how do you account for multi-ton structural steel beams being thrown laterally upwards of 100 meters with enough energy to become embedded in buildings across the street? (Answer: massive, non-gravitational propulsion – explosives)
            3- The undamaged portions of the buildings below impact had supported the entire weight of what was above them effortlessly for decades. Why and how did their strength suddenly disappear. The “pancake” theory’s bad science.

          • James R. Olson

            It appears you have never heard of kinetic energy Hugh. The pancake theory satisfies all observable phenomena, while discounting none of them, which makes it “good” science

          • Hugh Culliton

            Kinetic Energy? You do realize that your argument completely discounts fundamental physics, right? Let’s start with Newton’s First Law.
            For review it states that: “an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. It may be seen as a statement about inertia, that objects will remain in their state of motion unless a force acts to change the motion.”

            So:
            -The acceleration of an object in free-fall in the Earth’s gravity (in a vacuum) is 9.8 meters per second per second’
            – All 3 buildings collapsed with an observed, officially, easily verified times of between 8 and 10 seconds. This means that all 3 buildings collapsed at virtually free-fall acceleration. Hold onto that.

            Next, none of the 3 buildings ether collapsed or had any structural integrity problems in the decades between their construction and 9/11.
            Thus, we can conclude that the structures were sound and more than capable of supporting the load of everything above them (remember that WRT 1&2, the upper structures were lighter than the lower structures because they had a lighter load to support) – as they were so designed. As well, remember that even during global collapse, the loads on the intact structures below the collapse wave, were actually reduced as more-and-more weight was being removed from above: they had less of a load during collapse than they’d ever supported since being built!

            To summarize:
            -The buildings collapsed at an acceleration virtually the same rate as Earth’s free-fall acceleration IN A VACUUM.
            – According to Newton’s First Law, this could only happen if there was no resistance from the mass of the floors and structure underneath the collapse wave.
            – According to the pancake theory, the collapsing mass had to do work by crushing and destroying the structures below.

            Therefore,
            Given that – as per the 1st Law – the mass collapsing could not both do work AND accelerate at free-fall speed, it’s physically impossible for the collapsing mass to pancake lower floors while also collapsing at the verified speeds observed.

            So: For the buildings to all collapse as they did, at almost 9.8 meters/second/second, there must not have been any mass below them. Thus, because it’s physically impossible for the floors to be crushed by the mass above at – 9.8M/S/S, where did the mass of all those floors go, and how was it removed so quickly before the collapse wave reached it?

            Your pancake theory requires there to be mass below the collapse (ie: the pancaking) and is also completely contrary to Newton’s First Law.

            Therefore, your theory does not match the evidence.
            Therefore your theory is bad science.

            Something other than the official story occurred. Maybe it was lizard-aliens crawling out of Alex Jones’ arse, maybe it was Freemasons, maybe it was aliens still pissed at us over Roswell: I don’t know, and I don’t care.

            What does matter is that the official story, for whatever reason, is obviously bullshit, and the folks who died and their families – both on 9-11 as well as since due to 9-11-related illness, deserve a free and open, properly funded, serious investigation.

          • You should take basic college physics, and learn about how force relates to kinetic energy.

          • Hugh Culliton

            You have no idea how much I’d like to be wrong about this due to rather unsettling questions that arise if the official story is incorrect. What’s my mistake?

          • James R. Olson

            Well, in that case you can relax, Hugh.

          • Hugh Culliton

            LOL!

          • maturallite

            I am a professional structural engineer, and I think the pancake collapse hypothesis explains the observed phenomena. I am willing to change my mind on this if presented with sufficient evidence, but so far, all I have seen are people making claims about things they do not really understand.

            “during global collapse, the loads on the intact structures below the collapse wave, were actually reduced as more-and-more weight was being removed from above” This statement indicates a fundamental lack of understanding of load path and building design. As the floor above “pancake” down on to the floor below, the floor below becomes overloaded, since the beams are now carrying 2 floors worth of load. Thus, the floor below collapses, and the whole thing continues down to the bottom. The real question is then, why did the first floor collapse in the first place? It is often brought up that jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel, but what most people who make that argument fail to understand is that you don’t have to completely “melt” steel in order to significantly affect it’s strength. As temperature increases, steel becomes increasingly weak. Try bending a laughy taffy, then put it in the microwave for 10 seconds and then try to bend it again. Although it won’t be melted, it will be much weaker in bending.
            Like I said, I’m willing to have my mind changed, but your arguments are unconvincing to say the least.

          • Jason Pritchett

            I would like to respectfully put forth the following demonstration (who does not use a very respectful attitude) on why the burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the floors at and above the impact. Keep in mind, the jet fuel is distributed by the impact, all throughout the structure around the impact. Which refutes the “tree and wedge” arguments.

          • Hugh Culliton

            If you’re a professional structural engineer (and I’m not doubting that you are), are there any other similar structural failures under similar conditions that have progressed in similar ways: a fire in a steel-frame high-rise weakening connections of floors to vertical supports, resulting in a complete symmetric collapse as happened in the 3 WTC buildings?

            I’m not an engineer, but have some albeit limited experience in demolitions from when I was in the Royal Canadian Navy. I do understand that in naturally progressing events, such as building collapses due to fire or random structural failure, it is extremely rare for major collapses – or any shifting to happen symmetrically. This symmetry is what first raised my curiosity in how 911’s 3 collapses happened.

            “As the floor above “pancake” down on to the floor below, the floor below becomes overloaded, since the beams are now carrying 2 floors worth of load. ”
            But – isn’t the entire undamaged structure below the collapse still capable of withstanding the load above – the load it was designed to to hold, and held for decades? From the architects who built both towers, as well as the later (and more modern structure) of 7, they all claim that the buildings were all well over-engineered. The towers were designed to withstand at least 2 B 707 impacts and gravity loads twice the structures above any point. Given that, how could a floor collapse – which would have to start as a localized event on one part of a floor anyway – how could that turn such a structure into such a house of cards?

            “The real question is then, why did the first floor collapse in the first place? It is often brought up that jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel, but what most people who make that argument fail to understand is that you don’t have to completely “melt” steel in order to significantly affect it’s strength. As temperature increases, steel becomes increasingly weak. Try bending a laughy taffy, then put it in the microwave for 10 seconds and then try to bend it again. Although it won’t be melted, it will be much weaker in bending. ”

            So why weren’t the buildings designed with such a possibility in mind? They were, according to many structural engineering firms both during construction and later, vastly over-engineered. And how do you account for the fact that the only time – ever – that a steel frame building has collapsed due to heat as you suggest – was on Sept 11, 2001, and happened to 3 buildings within hours of each other?

            I too am willing to change my mind, because the ramifications of CD or some other non-natural collapse are distressing. I hope you can answer these questions.

          • maturallite

            I am not aware of any structures that have failed in that
            way due to a direct impact from a commercial airplane. It is definitely not a
            subject that is covered in typical building design. Buildings are designed for
            the loads expected to be seen over the design life of the building, and it
            would be extremely uneconomical to design all buildings to resist extremely
            unlikely events like airplane crashes, regardless of what any architect says.
            99% of the time architects have no idea of the design forces used in the
            building design, and I would only believe they were designed to resist airplane
            impact if I heard if from the structural engineer that designed the buildings. It
            would also be uneconomical to design all buildings to resist missile strikes
            and metor impacts, although I’ll acknolodge that plane impacts are not that
            unlikely, but there is certainly some tradeoff as far as the loads buildings
            are designed for. In the end, money always wins, and I have never seen a
            building that was designed for a full 2x the estimated loads. That includes
            several hospitals I have designed.

            The WTC towers were, however, designed to resist lateral loads
            from wind and earthquakes, and the lateral loads they were designed for were
            clearly more than the lateral force from the plane impacts, because the
            buildings did not get knocked over when the planes hit. Common sense would say
            that if the plane didn’t knock the building over, then how could it pancake
            down concentrically on itself? And I agree that the symmetry is not exactly
            what I would have predicted, but given the evidence, allow me to propose an
            explanation that does not require a large conspiracy. And full disclosure – I’m
            fully aware that the US has done some messed up stuff in the past, like
            overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran in the 1950’s, so
            don’t paint me for a government sympathizer or apologist, not that you were.

            I think there were a couple of unique factors that came into
            play here. The first factor is the fact that these were high rise buildings,
            which almost always have floor plans that repeat exactly for several floors. In
            the case of the WTC towers, I believe they were almost the exact same cross
            sectional shape all the way up. So given the repeating floor plan, if one floor
            fell down and was capable of overloading the floor below it, then in theory
            they could all fall down concentrically. The other unique factor I think played
            into this was the fact that the buildings were hit by commercial aircraft. This
            is important for a few reasons. The first is that the impact almost certainly
            spread jet fuel throughout the entire inside of the building where the plane
            hit. The second reason the plan impact is important, is because the energy of
            the impact likely knocked off the spray-on fireproofing that is typically
            applied to the steel beams and columns in high rise buildings.

            Spray-on fireproofing is a material that is usually applied
            in a 1”-5” thick layer (depending on the required fire rating) in order to
            insulate the steel in the event of a fire. Because heat weakens steel, insulating
            the steel from the heat can buy anywhere from 1-4 hours of time before the
            structural integrity of the steel is compromised in a fire. This spray on
            fireproofing looks like fuzzy foam or stucco once it has hardened, but it is
            fairly brittle, and can be broken off of the steel easily. It is not hard to see how an impact from a
            commercial plane could knock of a substantial of the fireproofing near the
            levels that were hit by the plane.

            So once you have a fire on 2 or 3 floors of jet fuel
            exposing steel with no fire resistance to intense heat, I can see how at least
            one of those floors could have given way. You are correct to point out that the
            vertical elements, or columns, were designed to resist the load above whether
            or not the floors were in the intended configuration or pancaked on top of each
            other, but I am certain they were not overdesigned by a factor of 2, and they
            definitely were not designed to resist the increased force from the dynamic
            load of a falling floor. And the horizontal members (beams) of the floor below
            were not designed to resist 2 floors worth of load, so they too would be
            overcome, and this would continue all the way down.

            Again, I’m willing to consider new arguments and new
            evidence, but so far, the explanation I laid out above makes more sense to me
            that anything I have heard from the truther movement. I welcome any further
            discussion.

          • robbiedunn

            To have 3 building fall in exactly the same way seems incredible but why would building 7 fall it does not make sense and if one was rigged well the stench is pretty huge

          • maturallite

            I agree, all good questions.

          • James R. Olson

            Once again, your answer is proof that you do not understand the concept of kinetic energy. Do you think it is a coincidence that a structural engineer agrees with me?Try this; If I drop a marble weighing 3 grams on you it will bounce off of you without damaging you. If I shoot that same 3 gram marble at you at a speed of thirty thousand mph, you will explode into a pink vapor when it hits you. The only thing that has changed in those two examples is the speed of the marbles. That is kinetic energy and it increases the effective weight of the structure by an order of magnitude at least. Also, and I hate to pile on A 707 is half the weight of a 757 and carries less fuel. I could go on and refute each of your points but it’s been 15 years since 9-11 plenty of time for you to educate yourself, I am 75 and in poor health and I refuse to waste any more time on know it all dunces like you AND it is1:00 AM.

          • Hugh Culliton

            Kinetic Energy? Really? Have you ever heard of Newton’s First Law?You’re utterly discounting it!
            For review it states that: “an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. It may be seen as a statement about inertia, that objects will remain in their state of motion unless a force acts to change the motion.”

            So:
            -The acceleration of an object in free-fall in the Earth’s gravity (in a vacuum) is 9.8 meters per second per second’
            – All 3 buildings collapsed with an observed and officially, easily verified acceleration of between 8 and 10 seconds.
            Therefore, all 3 buildings collapsed at virtually free-fall acceleration.

            Next: as none of the 3 buildings collapsed in the decades before 9/11, we can also assume that the structures were sound and more than capable enough to support the load of everything above them (including the fact that the structures at the top were lighter than the lower structures because they had a lighter load to support) – as they were so designed.
            As well, remember that even during global collapse, the loads on the intact structures below the collapse wave, actually got lighter as more-and-more weight was being removed from above: they had less of a load during collapse than they’d ever supported since being built!

            To summarize:
            -The buildings collapsed at an acceleration virtually the same rate as Earth’s free-fall acceleration IN A VACUUM.
            – According to Newton’s First Law, this could only happen if there was no resistance from the mass of the floors and structure underneath the collapse wave.
            – The collapsing mass had to do work (crushing the material below).

            Therefore,
            Given that the mass collapsing, could not both do work AND accelerate at free-fall speed. it’s physically impossible for the collapsing mass to pancake while also collapsing at the speeds observed.

            So: For the buildings to all collapse as they did, at almost 9.8 meters/second/second, there could not have been any mass below them. Thus, because it’s physically impossible for the floors to be crushed by the mass above, where did the mass of all those floors go, and how was it removed so quickly before the collapse wave reached it?

            Your pancake theory requires there to be mass below the collapse (the pancaking) and is completely contrary to Newton’s First Law.

            Your theory does not match the evidence.
            Your theory is bad science.

          • Real Truth stings

            You articulated this very well. For a building like the twin towers to have fallen perfectly in on itself without widespread damage to surrounding structures once would have been the ultimate coin flip of chance. For it to happen 3 times is impossible as the governments report details the incident. We have never seen a building of this construction fall straight down at free fall speed without demolition charges carefully placed at key support areas. This is done to make the fall predictable and keep it from being a wide spread damage event. Building 7’s collapsedefies any system of logic beyond another controlled demolition. I think that there are operatives on this forum to monitor our honest discussion about the events of that day.

          • Hugh Culliton

            Before 9-11, I would have thought you paranoid. But since…I was in the Navy for Gulf War 1, and I bought the “Babies kicked-out of incubators” BS, hook, line, and sinker – and I hold an effing MA in War Studies! I remember that in the months after 9-11, we were all too busy to consider the highly strange things that happened. Since then, I’ve also had the melancholy honour of participated in too many REPAT ceremonies to ever view the world uncritically ever again.
            Now I’m 46, and I have 2 wonderful sons. One of whom wants to serve in the RCN. I served, my father, grandpas, great uncles, and older brother also served…and now, for the first time, I’m left wondering if my boy should serve in uniform as well.

            Sorry to be a Debbie-downer. Thanks for the reply.

          • Real Truth stings

            not at all. truth isn’t supposed to be happy happy joy joy all of the time. its a mix. We have to be strong people to have a strong nation. We can handle the truth.

          • Jason Pritchett

            “For a building like the twin towers to have fallen perfectly in on itself without widespread damage to surrounding structures once would have been the ultimate coin flip of chance.”
            Boom. All Stop. You do realize that this is the very reason that the first building to collapse (the second building hit) very quickly led to the second building’s collapse, and then to Bldg 7’s collapse. The seismic impact – they were all connected by the ground. And I’m sure the eye witnesses can corroborate feeling it. Does this EPS study mention anything about seismic vibration? I have not read, and am curious.

          • Real Truth stings

            So why didn’t the “seismic vibration” knock down any of the other buildings? Like the millennium hotel or century 21?

            No sale. Enjoy the myth while it endures.

          • Byron

            Regardless if seismic interaction had anything to do with failure of the buildings: these buildings are designed to survive such forces /when undamaged and without compromised structures/. As a result I see little value in your question.

          • Peter Boling

            Well you should look into the seismic studies. They also prove controlled demolition.
            Here is a nice summary, but there is much more.
            http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/seismic-evidence-prove-controlled-demolition-on-911.html

          • MileHigh

            You are off by a country mile. The resistance put up by the floors being crushed was very small, almost negligible compared to the force of the falling mass above, and the falling mass above was continuously getting larger and continuously getting faster and thus gaining in energy. Hence, the buildings fell at near-free fall speeds.

          • Hugh Culliton

            First, I will not ever concoct a conspiracy theory about what happened: I have no idea. On 911 I was a Canadian Naval Reserve officer re-mustered into the infantry starting my first teaching job. On 9/12 I was deployed with a platoon of infantry to guard a power station (what we would have done if a plane attacked us, I have no idea since we weren’t issued any AAW weapons). I understand your view, and I can see how intuitively, that might seem to make sense. But, please let me explain. Sorry in advance: I’m a history teacher and tend to talk too much, but I’ll try to be clear and concise (LOL!). Others have said this, but it’s worth repeating – the almost free-fall speed of collapse is the “smoking gun” of controlled demolition:

            “The resistance put up by the floors being crushed was very small, almost negligible compared to the force of the falling mass above…”

            If the resistance of the floors below the collapse wave was “negligible”, than how did the structure support itself in the decades since it was built?

            “…the falling mass above was continuously getting larger and continuously getting faster and thus gaining in energy.”

            I’ll tackle the “gaining speed and energy point first:
            Any specific mass has a finite amount of energy available to do work. One thing that work can do is in overcoming resistance and inertia which, in the case of a building collapse, means removing and destroying material below the collapse wave. The other thing that work can do is acceleration. On Earth the vacuum acceleration of gravity (the acceleration without even air acting as resistance) is, was, and only ever can be, 9.8 M/S/S.

            A specific amount of mass cannot both accelerate to free-fall as well as destroy the structure underneath – because any force applied pushing down and overcoming resistance, is resisted by an equal force pushing up. To overcome that resistance is work – work which is then not available for the mass to use for acceleration.

            Returning to the mass above getting heavier as the collapse progressed: That’s physically impossible based on the visual and material evidence, as well as Newton’s 3rd law. The only way that the mass could get heavier, would be if more mass, in addition to that of the original intact building, were added as the collapse progressed. That’s impossible. Remember that there was a trivial amount of concrete, compared to what went into the building’s construction, found at the collapse – where did all those millions of tons of concrete go? They were pulverized in the collapse and spread all over NYC in those massive dust clouds. Watch the videos: you can also clearly see the massive amount of structural debris being ejected out of the way as the collapse progresses. The massive amount of dust, the sections of multi-ton steel girders peeling away like a banana skin – all that mass was no longer available to do any work in over-loading the intact structure beneath. If anything, the collapsing mass was getting much lighter.

            Simply put: no building can both collapse at near-vacuum free-fall while destroying the structure underneath. Therefore, there must be another reason to explain why that intact structure offered no resistance. Using Occam’s Razor, the most logical conclusion is that the structure had been removed before the collapse wave hit it. Ruling out Alex Jones’ Lizard Aliens, this means the most likely answer is that pre-planned demolition charges were used.

            The ramifications from that are very troubling.

          • MileHigh

            The building supported itself before it was hit because it had full structural integrity. Without that integrity it can be very weak depending on the specifics of the situation. The building can be 100 times weaker when it loses its structural integrity.

            Here is the approximate energy in the falling mass above the crumbling building: E = 1/2*M*v-squared. We know that M is a function of time and is always increasing as more floors get crushed, and we know that v is a function of time and is constantly increasing with slightly lees than the acceleration due to gravity.

            Therefor E is constantly increasing over time, due to both increasing mass and increasing velocity. In contrast, the energy to crush a single floor is a constant “e,” and that value is relatively small.

            Hence E >> e and the energy required to crush a floor e gets smaller and smaller relative to E as time progresses. Hence, the towers fell at near-free-fall speeds.

            Of course the falling mass M gets heavier as the building collapses, M keeps on adding crushed floors. I am keeping in simple and ignoring the concrete dust and debris that is ejected laterally. Note this is that mass that the currently being crushed floor “sees” coming down on it.

            Each tower had the macro consistency of sponge toffee. You know that sponge toffee is like a light Styrofoam brick. But once you push your finger into the sponge toffee and break the crust, then the sponge toffee loses some of its structural integrity and becomes relatively easy to crush with your fingers. Both WTC towers on a macro scale were like delicate snowflakes that only held up as long as they were not seriously disturbed. The buildings were strong against wind stresses and had just enough guts to stand up and stay up. It’s like this: If you were a giant and flicked your finger at the top of one of the towers and crushed say the top ten floors, then the whole tower would collapse just like you saw on TV.

          • dooglio

            Hugh, this was Dr. Judy Wood’s argument as well. She also debunked the “pancaking” theory in a similar way.

            http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

            However, she also maintains the problem with CD is that there was not enough material at the bottom. Where did the 500,000 tons of steel and concrete per tower go? Why wasn’t the bathtub ruptured from all of that material being slammed down into it?

            We call what happened to the towers “collapsing,” but I think that is a loaded word. I agree that some other force was at work besides gravity, but I doubt it was CD. There are too many problems with that theory.

            So some other force must have been at work.

          • Hugh Culliton

            Interesting points – and I hope you’re right. We need to do what the NIST report didn’t: open the focus and look at possibilities other than fire.
            I’d not considered steam, but agree that it’s a lot more powerful than many think. I’m old school enough that in the Navy I sailed in steam turbine ships – it can be very explosive. With the right data we could: calculate the amount of water availabe in the buildings, it’s distribution throughout the buildings, proximity to critical load-bearing structures, and the amount of force it’d take for a steam explosion to destroy them.

            Out of respectful curiosity, what do you think the flaws are in the CD hypothesis?

          • dooglio

            For CD, one has to assume too much. One must carefully plan a CD, from laying wires, to explosives. Lots can go wrong along the way. Bomb-sniffing dogs failed to detect anything right up to 9/11/01, so I doubt they would have had time to wire up the building. CD bombs are detonated by radio, but loads of people were using their cell phones that day. Also, for CD, you have to clear the other materials out of the building. I think it fails Occam’s Razor.

            On top of that, not enough material hit the ground that day to account for the 1.2 million tons of concrete and steel and the Bathtub remained intact after the “collapse.” So bombs couldn’t have been used to take down the towers, nor could jet fuel in a gravity-initiated collapse. I believe there is some other process or force at work.

          • Joe Schmoe

            There was no hot fires before 9/11/2001 to weaken the floor trusses, Duh

          • Hugh Culliton
          • Byron

            Video clearly shows debris FAR below the wave as it falls, and getting futher beyond the wave. Is this stuff some sort of super mass that falls faster than free fall? Material from higher on the structure than the current plane of failure is BELOW that plane of failure. How is that possible if the building is free falling?

          • Hugh Culliton

            What you’re describing is most likely the shock wave from the sequential detonations of explosive cutting charges.

          • James R. Olson

            That is a meaningless word salad.

          • James R. Olson

            No, all three building collapsed at a rate less than free fall. Your information is incorrect, as is every statement you made which depends on that info.

          • Bill

            “- All 3 buildings collapsed with an observed and officially, easily verified acceleration of between 8 and 10 seconds.
            Therefore, all 3 buildings collapsed at virtually free-fall acceleration.”

            … You ( amazingly ) have literally no idea what acceleration is. Please buy a science textbook aimed at 5 year olds.

          • Hugh Culliton

            The acceleration of an object in the Earth’s gravity, in a vacuum, is 9.8m/s/s. What’s your point?

          • junktex

            Yeah,there was molten steel:https://youtu.be/Zww9-AaIgrw

          • Amanda Galves

            The Twin Towers were built similarly to the Empire State building: should a disaster occur, the buildings were designed to implode, as opposed to exploding or toppling over. Which accounts for your 3rd portion AND a later comment regarding the tower leaning one way then falling straight down. To your second, would an exploding plane not be considered an explosive? And finally, regarding statement 1; it wasn’t the impact that caused the buildings to fall, that can be easily seen in the footage. It was the ensuing explosions. If you remember, the planes were rerouted from nearby airports, thus they still had full tanks. Again, this is not a statement about the weight of the planes, but about their potential for lethal combustion. And finally, you are forgetting the added weight of bodies and planes in your later statement regarding Newton’s First Law and the rate of free-fall in a vacuum. Combined with the simple logic of explosives going out in a radius that disregard blockages…. Some of the force of the explosions was moving down, which would, logically, add to the speed of the fall. I am neither a scientist or a mathematician, nor am I a demolitions expert. But. Even if hard evidence of planted incendiary devices should occur, there’s really no way to tell at this point that they were planted by government officials or terrorists. The endgame was the destruction of the towers, the planning involved could very well have been stellar and done in stages.

          • Travis Hugh Culley

            Amanda, this is an argument to be ashamed of. No Saudi, no matter how Wiley, would be so poetic as to set the attack on the same day as our nations emergency response number: 9-1-1. I am not here to set new accusations, but this poetry is masonic, and therefore the likelihood is that is was an inside job. Arabic art and Arabic religion are not posing as a western god when they enact a kind of terror that would puppet our police force. It is we who fear and adore symmetry. It is we who are looking for shock and awe. Furthermore, the coordinated nature of the attack is in collusion with the Media, and this too would never have been foreseeable by Osama Bin Laden and his ship of fools. The second plane was the most stunning grand dame entrance of the 21st century, and that collusion between the event and the story (which we are still trying to parse 15 years later) is how and where the plot thickens. Where was the emergency broadcast system to give us a report on the events? That was just one person (of so many others) who was told not to go to work that day. Could a terrorist have silenced our national emergency broadcast system?

          • ★$gт★$ℓ๑ттεя★

            Google the word “fulcrum”

        • tomjensen6

          What you makes an expert on the subject? What qualifications do you have?

        • James R. Olson

          You know what stings? Stupid stings. Eva hears of the force of gravity? the force of gravity vector is always vertical. that’s why everything that falls always fall directly toward the center of mass. We also know from numerous visual evidence that the buildings did not free fall. the evidence for this is that the cladding ripped of the face of the building and ejected away from the building hit the ground before the building did. Anything else you would like to know?

        • Joe Schmoe

          Actually it has been explained but scumbags and morons are too stupid and dishonest to follow the simple facts as presented

          • Real Truth stings

            This has all been explained to your satisfaction ?

          • Joe Schmoe

            I have a degree in Both Engineering and Science so yes, the real explanation is far superior to the unscientific rubbish you promote. Show me evidence of any of those bombs or the people who set them, but you can’t You have nothing for evidence but some complicated hare brained lies

          • Real Truth stings

            Then we have nothing to discuss on this forum, if you’re satisfied.

          • Joe Schmoe

            You might have a case if there were a bunch of crashes when airliners crashed into skyscrapers at 400+ MPH loaded with fuel and the buildings didn’t collapse These sort of buildings have a 2′ of concrete as the floor. So if the supports weaken due to heat, the whole mess falls through to the floor lower then the load causes that floor to collapse and then again again again …….
            But where is all the bomb evidence. There must have been 100s of them if your conspiracy lies is valid

        • Aaron Berge

          Because Highrise buildings are ALL built in a way that if they were to come down, they would come straight down causing the least amount of damage to the surrounding area,, And Building 7 they later admitted to demolishing it, they said the reason for bringing down #7 was because it was very badly damaged and they didn’t want it coming down on its own!!

      • Ben Franklin

        and the bottom 3/4’s pushes back with equal force. Therefore without explosives it would have stopped. sheesh… this is fucking 8th grade physics you moron.

        • akcita

          Show me Genius. Factor in Burning Jet Fuel, and burning Aluminum along with a wind driven blast furnace from the hole in the building and and you get a progressive super-heated hammer Effect that the lower structure was never built to deal with.

          Yeah, go ahead and show me that math.

          • junktex

            That skyscraper hotel in Dubai burned for days not 30 minutes.No collapse

          • Ed

            They know how to build them in Dubai!

          • Tomas58

            Two questions:

            1. What caused the fire in Dubai?

            2. What is the structural design of the Dubai building? How does it compare to the structural design of the WTC towers?

          • junktex

            You 911 hasbara trolls know how to obfuscate.lol.You need to research the CRC Handbook,Properties of Materials.

          • Tomas58

            I usually don’t respond to anti-Semites, but, what the heck. This is fun.

            Here’s the CRC Handbook. Point me to the relevant chapters:

            http://hbcponline.com/faces/contents/ContentsSearch.xhtml;jsessionid=0FA064D091AEF6EAF8BBE615C77D8925

          • junktex

            Antisemites???I used the term in a generic sense much like one uses the term chutzpah.Sensitive aren’t we?Steel melts at anywhere from 2500 degrees F to 2700 degrees F depending on factors like carbon content.Jet fuel burns at 1450 degrees F.

          • Shawn Spencer

            But jet fuel in a furnace? I bet we could get jet fuel to burn even hotter in the same way that blacksmiths can continue to raise the temperature of their furnace.

          • junktex

            You folks are really getting desperate.Thermite will make it burn hotter.And then there’s the very basic question,”Where did the towers go?” Steel doesn’t melt in a jet fuel fire much less vaporize.

          • Tomas58

            “You 911 hasbara trolls know how to obfuscate.”

            “Public diplomacy in Israel (also hasbara, Hebrew: הַסְבָּרָה‎‎ hasbará, “explaining”) refers to public relations efforts to disseminate abroad positive information or propaganda about the State of Israel and its actions.”

            Yeah, joo cooties. got it….

            Have a nice life….

          • junktex

            Understood.Hasbara has been used to describe disseminating disinformation regarding any topic,not just Israel.DC has many hasbara trolls.

          • Tomas58

            Thanks. I appreciate your willingness to clarify your point. I withdraw my anti-Semite accusation.

          • junktex

            Thank you.To be honest,I have very little regard for either,the government of the US or Israel.I have little regard for governments in general,especially warmongering Western governments.And I am not anti-Jew.Jill Stein is the only candidate I really like.She reminds me of Ron Paul.

          • Ed

            Add the WIND blowing thru the hole, making any fire a blast furnace. Now tell me your theory again. And no pointing to manuals that do not prove anything.

          • junktex

            “Add the WIND blowing thru the hole” of those neocon liars in DC”.The fficial narrative is now the unbelievable “conspiracy theory”.https://youtu.be/rStJ5BgadPs

          • Jay

            Basically what you are doing is telling all of the PhD’s who have come forward and saying they are full of shit. Check out this 501c3 organization called American Engineers for 9/11 Truth. http://www.ae911truth.org/

          • moflicky

            “all of the PhD’s”

            your list of ‘experts’ represent about 0.01% of the structural engineers and physicists, the vast majority of whom will say the 0.01% are full of shit.

          • Jay

            The number .01% is far from accurate. But say it was accurate, coming forward to voice your professional opinion as a doctor, architect or engineer, that defiantly challenges the official account, would, most of the time, mean career suicide so it goes to show, based on statistics alone, that very few people with the qualifications to make an informed statement on the subject, would come forward to challenge the official story out of strictly self preservation. 2653 PhDs, architects and engineers is alot of challenge brought forth by individuals who are more than qualified to make an informed inquiry. Your statement that “they are full of shit” is ridiculous to say the least, just because their numbers are heavily out weighed by those who disagree. This overall 9/11 “conspiracy” is not just based off of a few thousand people, or even a few hundred thousand people…this is millions of people speaking out because they are not cowards. The opposite actually, they are courageous, despite the the character assassinations they will most definitely endure just because their beliefs are different than others. But their beliefs are based off of facts, because they actually took the time to research the subject instead of letting others spoon feed them false information.

          • moflicky

            It is very true that signing that petition could result in career suicide – but is the reason because companies are afraid to question the ‘official story’ or is it because they think anyone qualified to have an opinion and still believes that they were brought down by controlled demo are kookoo for cocopuffs?

            btw, very few of the people on that list are PhDs nor even structural engineers, nor are they demolition experts. most of them are architects of varying degrees of experience. someone who designs commercial buildings is not going to know a lick about high rises.

            Show me a structural engineer or architect who has worked on highrise buildings who believes it was controlled demo. Even the guy who built the twin towers believes it was fire and damage that brought them down, in fact, when he saw the impact zone, he knew they were going to fall and tried to warn people.

          • moflicky

            “this is millions of people speaking out because they are not cowards”

            history has shown that government can and will screw us, but it also has shown that millions and millions can be completely wrong.

          • James R. Olson

            very few people with the qualifications to make an informed statement
            on the subject, would come forward to challenge the official story out
            of strictly self preservation” ~~~ Unless they had nothing to lose, ie their reputation was in the toilet to begin with.

        • Tomas58

          You’re assuming the building is a solid mass. It’s not. It’s mostly open air, with structural steel the only thing holding up the framework. Nothing else is holding it up. The speed of the falling structure exponentially adds to it’s force (which is comprised of the static weight of the section). The increasing speed increases the force. If you throw a paint chip at me, I wouldn’t even feel it. If you project it towards me at the speed of light, I would explode from the force created by the speed.

          The structural support for the WTC was in the center of the building. It was a unique physics design. So even if that structural column had veered sideways during the collapse, the surrounding structure would have held back that movement.

          Also, addressing the demolition “squibs” that people point to as the building collapses… air has mass abd volume. When a flat surface collapses into a space occupied by air, the air is forced violently out of that space, causing what appears to be small explosions due to the accumulation of debris.

          Besides, it would have taken at least a month to plant thise squibs. Are you really telling us that no one would have noticed?

          • junktex

            Amazing there were people on the street with immediate explanations;https://youtu.be/7GDa-L4hHHo

          • Tomas58

            OK. Let’s take this one point at a time.

            1. “People on the street.” One guy was interviewed. Not “people”. Did he have the scientific background to make the claims he made? You don’t know that he didn’t. Your inference is supposition. But, calling him a “bozo,” well, hey. That’s proof enough, right? And, when did he make his statement? I don’t see a time stamp. So, you can’t say, with any amount of certainty, that his statement was “immediate”.

            2. Dan asks a leading question that sets up a conspiracy theory. The guest responds with a “sense,” meaning his answer was a theory, not a factual statement. His statement is consistent with the physics involved in the incident. Velocity, heat, structural limitations….

            When did he make his statements? How long after the attack?

            “Rescue workers,” “Policemen and Firemen.” Buzzwords? Or the occupations of the people who ran into the event, instead of away from the event? Which would qualify them as “Heroes.” (What would you have done?) “Incalculable Loss.” The loss hadn’t been calculated yet.

            Bin Laden has been around for a very long time. Bill Clinton had the opportunity to take him out, but he was on the golf course and couldn’t be bothered. Bin Laden had the financial resources to pull this off; the training facilities, the time needed. Al Queda considered itself a nation state. It didn’t need confirmation from an outside enemy. Al Queda took credit almost immediately.

            Jerome Haurer was a Bio-Warfare Expert, A Drug Company Director, and a Bush Administration “Insider,” which means he on staff in the administration. He was also the “Commissioner in Mayor Giuliani’s Office of Emergency Management.” And this disqualifies his comments… why?

            3. The “elaborate story” of Bin Laden was known by intelligence communities of dozens of countries, countries that had been following him for years. He was very elusive. It took ten years to find the guy after the attacks. Fugitives don’t stay in one spot very long. He had an entire country to hide in… one that is very mountainous, lots of caves…

          • junktex

            1. “People on the street.” One guy was interviewed”;Wonder how they selected this.guy? 2. “Dan asks a leading question that sets up a conspiracy theory. The guest responds with a “sense,” meaning his answer was a theory, not a factual statement. ” :Not true,his response was stated as a definite fact which was parroted by authorities in the official narrative. 3. “The “elaborate story” of Bin Laden was known by intelligence communities of dozens of countries, countries that had been following him for years. He was very elusive. It took ten years to find the guy after the attacks.”:Again not true.Bin Laden was well known to be on hemodialysis for chronic renal failure.Said condition has an annual mortality rate of over 20%.OBL also had hepatitis C.No way he could have been alive in 2011.Benazhir Bhutto reported his death in December,2001 and isn’t it funny that by 2002,Bush had little interest in pursuing OBL?

          • Tomas58

            The word, “sense,” came out of the guy’s mouth. Maybe we’re reading from different dictionaries. Not sure.

            The story of Bin Laden changed as the facts changed. We’ve often seen situations where a terrorist leader is taken out, but then – woopsie – there he is again. We had no visual confirmation of Bin Laden until our guys were the ones in the room, were the ones that pulled the trigger.

          • junktex

            That whole bin Laden raid story was unbelievable.Supposedly killed the most wanted man in history and no body,no pictures,nothing.They dump the body at sea????And then the Seal team that allegedly killed him are killed.Just where do those conspiracy theories come from?It

          • junktex

            In the video the “guy on the street” firmly implanted the official explanation for the Towers’ collapse in the public’s mind.Interestingly OBL never took credit for 911.The guy interviewed by Rather used the term “my sense”.False flag

          • Tomas58

            Yeah, that did seem a little hinky, didn’t it? The whole thing reminded me of finding Saddam in the “spider hole.” But, he’s gone.

            Now we have to deal with the “JV Team.” There’s always someone waiting in the wings to take over. Like George Soros. His son has been well trained by the evil old man. And he will have his daddy’s money.

          • junktex

            Well that is one topic I do have knowledge of,mortality/ morbidity of human disease.I was a pathologist for many years.I agre with you on Georgie Sorrows.Scumbag.Looks like Jabba the Hut.You need to read up on what he considered his happiest days.

        • Tomas58

          Two problems with this:

          1. The bottom of the building is mostly air, not a solid mass.

          2. The potential energy of the bottom of the building is not as high as the kinetic energy of the falling segment. By comparison, kinetic energy is always higher than potential energy because movement multiplies the energy of the mass.

        • Shawn Spencer

          Buildings are not solid through-and-through; they’re pieces of material adhered together in one fashion or another. They are stronger when linked, sure, but they are still just pieces that can be acted upon at angles or with forces that make those links useless and reduce the building to a number of smaller pieces unsupportive of each other.

        • moflicky

          if Ben Franklin isn’t your real name, you should change it out of respect for the man. you couldn’t be more completely wrong in every way possible on this. if you tried to come up with an answer that was diametrically opposite of the actual law of physics, you couldn’t have said it better than that. We are all dumber for having read it.

      • William

        oh gezz… both had the SAME pressure from the SAME reason. aeronautic fuel weakening the superstructure. If a needle with spinal cord destroying material hit you from different sides you will still fall the same way given all else the same.

        • Peter Gowdy

          What a pathetic apology for the conspirators you try to make here William. Every decent scientist who has looked at this agrees with the premise of this article .. that there were 3 controlled demolitions that day.

        • Jay

          Did you just compare the WTC towers being hit by 757s to a needle hitting a human’s spinal chord? Because not only is that not to scale but overall wildly outrageous.

          • Tomas58

            It depends on the speed of the needle. An object’s mass increases with its speed. e=mc(squared) Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. The needle wouldn’t so much go through you as it would cause you to explode.

          • Brandon Brewer

            E=MC(squared)…..you mean that thing they cant prove so they call it a theory……like the people saying that you cant prove that (not the government) but a ruling class of rich guys orchestrated it for profit and power…and they call it just a theory….relativity disproves itself over and over….you can do the demonstration…but since the results are always tainted with a bias of ironically relative perception and thought…then how do i know you’re not selling me snake oil.

          • Charles LePtit

            You don’t seems to know what is a scientifi theory.
            Theory Hypothesis.

          • Tomas58

            Relativity – both Special Relativity and General Relativity – have withstood the tests. You need to read this:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity

            Critics – scientific, philosophical, both academic and non-academic – have all failed to knock Einstein’s theories off their pedestals. So, I’m not sure where you get the notion that “…relativity disproves itself over and over….” It doesn’t. In fact, string theory and quantum theory are actually uniting both Relativity models.

            “The foundations of relativity (such as the equivalence principle or the relativity principle) are not fictitious, but based on experimental
            results.”

          • A Nthony Fasano

            When you give me just one name who has been committed of government person then I will believe you not one government official has been investigated

          • Tony Lewis

            If you read the comment, it was a needle “with spinal cord destroying material” – the ‘needle’ is not the cause but the carrier …

        • Phil Freeman

          Bathtub + hairdryer, do it.

          • Shawn Spencer

            The populace of humanity needs fewer people telling others to kill themselves, not more. What is wrong with you?

          • Phil Freeman

            Yeah, seven billion people. I’d hate to lose any. So,…you have a hairdryer and a bathtub? Get busy.

        • Guy

          It wasn’t rocket fuel it’s jet fuel. Up in remote northern Alaska jet fuel is used as home heating fuel because it is relatively the same. It burns cleaner so it’s more expensive, but it’s nothing super special like you’re thinking. The reason they use in in AK for heating homes is cause it can be stored without cross contamination and have a larger supply on hand for aircraft.

          • Tomas58

            Yes, it is relatively. Basically a kerosene variant.

            But we’re talking not just about the chemical composition of the fuel, but in both the amount and the way it was ignited.

            Home heating fuel is sprayed is in very small amounts into a enclosed chamber that controls the ignition. (Much like the ignition chamber in a vehicle engine.) The jet fuel in the WTC attack was released in an uncontrolled, simultaneous mass. It created a fireball that fed not only on the remaining fuel, but on the building.

            A house fire will reach a point of self-sustainability. The heat will become so intense that everything spontaneously combusts.

            In your example of the home heating unit, the fuel is, as you say, prevented from evaporating due to its storage enclosure. The fumes are the flammable part, not the liquid.

            If you were to take that fuel container, put in the middle of the building, immediately release all the kerosine, then provide an ignition, the building would explode in a huge fireball.

          • junktex

            And their heaters don’t melt???lol

          • James R. Olson

            No they don’t melt. that is because the firebox is made of ceramic, but the ceramic gets orange hot, hot enough to make structural steel as weak as a noodle.

          • junktex

            But in the relatively very small amount of WTC debris,they found melted steel some fused with concrete.And molten steel was photographed dripping from the towers.That whole nonsensical theory about burning jet fuel melting steel makes one wonder how jets fly.The official story has become the unbelievable “conspiracy theory”.

          • James R. Olson

            There was no observable molten steel. One possible explanation for what appeared to be molten metal flowing from one corner of on floor of the building is that a large, and I mean very large bank of lead storage batteries were kept at that very location, and of course lead melts at a very low temp entirely consistent with burning kero.

      • ★$gт★$ℓ๑ттεя★

        With the botton 2/3 serving to slow down the rate of descent…thermite & c4 homie

    • Christan

      Three buildings fell on 9/11

      • Real Truth stings

        yes. and WTC 7 collapse makes no sense at all with the data that we have been given. we clearly do not have the full story here.

        • Tomas58

          WTC 7 fell because the bottom gave way. The building Timothy McVeigh bombed also fell straight down.

    • dooglio

      The official conspiracy theory does not explain how the buildings could fall at free fall speeds from a gravity driven collapse. It would have taken from 30 to 90 seconds for them to fall if that were true. Instead, they came down in an average of 10 seconds.

      Also, there is no accounting for the almost totally undamaged bathtub. 500,000 tons of steel and concrete pile-driving down should have destroyed the bathtub, punctured the slurry wall, and caused flooding in all of Lower Manhattan.

      The NIST report is fiction.

      • Real Truth stings

        It’s incomplete at best. There was no vertical domino effect as the report attempts to say. The buildings didn’t collapse in stages as damaged areas fell onto areas below. After only 2 hours of fire, the total integrity of the building collapsed, from the impact points all the way to the bottom. With zero lean to any angle. Think about that. A controlled demolition style 0 degree variance, free fall collapse, not once but 3 times in a row. We are told to ignore the many people, who were on the ground and in the building reporting secondary explosions before the collapse. Including firemen and police officers. The matter needs to be re opened and handled professionally.

        • dooglio

          The NIST report basically states that jet fuel-inspired fires vaporized most of the 500,000 tons of steel and concrete that comprised the buildings. And people actually believe that nonsense.

          • James R. Olson

            No you said that, not NIST.

        • James R. Olson

          200 more or less people jumped or fell from the top of the towers before the collapse. Witnesses said that each of those bodies sounded like an explosion when the hit the ground. Could they be your secondary explosions?

  • Phil Freeman

    Air plane crashed into Pentagon? Really, where’s the wreckage of this Boeing 757? Maybe it crashed in Pennsylvania , nope no plane wreckage there either, huh, curious thing that is.

    • A Nthony Fasano

      I watched the plans hit the towers I seen the plane heading for Washington and heard the voices of people aboard the Pennsylvania flight confirmation of hijackers please stop the conspiracy theories of this tragedy of TERRORIST that planed this it was confirmed by my eyes that two planes hit the towers OK when did anyone have time to set a controlled explosion of two buildings when police and firemen were running into the building risking there lives

      • Phil Freeman

        You may have seen recorded footage of craft striking two buildings, but knocking down three skyscrapers. An impossibility, but you damn sure don’t see evidence of any Boeing 757s hitting the Pentagon or shanksville PA. Because no jumbo jets crashed. Stop drinking the Jim Jones brand of terrorAID.

        • A Nthony Fasano

          No I was in Manhattan that day and actually seen the second plane hit no recording on TV the building was not designed for that type of impact but you keep believing that voice in your head you are a disgrace to all the first responders that lost there live and the thousands of people who lost there’s but you are no better then the TERRORIST who did this I mean the TERRORIST took flight classes here in this country it was a act of terror that I was there in Manhattan to be a eye witness you are a disgrace to this country

          • Phil Freeman

            I am a former first responder. There are many who were inside when the buildings were demolished in a controlled fashion using nano thermite, they gave account of multiple explosions occurring in the building. Including the building maintenance supervisor. So save it dummy! We know the official narrative is bullshit. The funding and operational control required to conduct such a vast and complicated operation did not come from some nomad in a cave in anywhereistan. You tool. But then you’ve never been in that business so how could you know? You are JAFFO just another fuckin observer. Talking shit from the comfort of his couch.

          • Ed

            Where’s the proof the explosions were NOT the floors smashing down on each other? Would sure sound like timed explosions! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom!

          • Ben Franklin

            Isaac Newton explained this.

          • pierzstyx

            No, it wouldn’t. Just like a crash of thunder doesn’t sound like a thermite detonation. Loud noises don’t all sound the same.

          • Phil Freeman

            They sound exactly alike when the loud noise is the bleating mindless herd.

          • Drakar2007

            Can you define “thermite detonation”? Unfortunately for the truthtard narrative, thermite is a superhot incendiary but not an explosive, and would not make ANY exploding sound.

          • Excalibur

            And you think jet fuel burns hot enough to melt steel, too. Wow. Such “explosive” words from the no research guy……

          • Drakar2007

            “Pay attention here…re-read this > Cutting agents must be used in conjuction with explosives.”

            Then you’d think in over 10 years that truthtards could come up with ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE of EITHER of those things, yet (no surprised here) the only thing they can come up with is CONJECTURE and SUPPOSED INCONSISTENCIES. Yawn.

          • Excalibur

            Again, you fool…all I am doing is saying that…IF in fact thermite was there, what you say is wrong…there would HAVE to be explosions…you asked this “Can you define “thermite detonation”?”

            And I showed you what exactly you were looking for and why.
            Understand something for once, would ya? Sheesh….

          • moflicky

            “Just like a crash of thunder doesn’t sound like a thermite detonation. Loud noises don’t all sound the same.”

            And there we have it. Thermite does not “explode”. It burns very quickly and hot. The thermite theory is that it cut the beams, not blew them up.

            Next.

          • Excalibur

            See the post above….and your theory is shot down, all it takes is a little research…..crap, I better post part of it for you…learn from this….
            Cutting agents must be used in conjunction with explosives. The cutting agents cut and the explosives move the cut product away from their support structures.
            This is standard demolition.
            If contact cutting agents produced a generalized ‘high pressure wave’, ie typical explosion’, the pressure wave would blow the cutting agent away from the steel it is supposed to cut as well as any other cutting agents in the immediate vicinity. That is why the process of demolition requires cutting agents to cut the steel, then explosives to move the cut pieces away from their support.

            Next….

          • moflicky

            seems like someone would notice the work crews removing all that drywall and running det wire. but who am I to question an expert such as yourself.

          • Excalibur

            Never said that or implied it, am only just clarifying your mistake in what you said, and you assumed more.
            What I DID respond to was this that you said “And there we have it. Thermite does not “explode”. It burns very quickly and hot. The thermite theory is that it cut the beams, not blew them up”, which is only partially correct.

            THIS is correct ~ The cutting agents cut and the explosives move the cut product away from their support structures.

            Now please, follow the conversation and understand. …because it is apparent that I would be more of an “expert” than you claim to be….in more ways than one.

          • moflicky

            discus doesn’t make it easy to follow previous comments. you said “see the post above” which wasn’t directed at me, nor was my original comment directed at you – so I had no record of it.

            I ascented to your inference that thermite was used in conjunction with explosives, and posed a followup, which you haven’t opined on. Who is being difficult here, you are me?

            I have never professed to be an expert in any of this, other than doing my own research that doesn’t only include conspiracy websites.

            What is the extent of your expertise?

          • Excalibur

            All you have to do is scroll, there is a record right here on the discussion…ahhhh, but you must be to lazy for that.
            So you have no expertise…ok,fine.
            One does not need “expertise”, all one needs is knowledge.
            Knowledge is gained by listening and learning from experts. None of what I have said is from a “conspiracy website”, it is due to diligent research and findings FROM the experts.
            That is always a fools question when one cannot research for themselves answers that are out there from credible “experts”. Whether it be metals, demolition, aircraft (considering I am a retired certified A&P Tech…. go ahead, look it up) construction or anything else involved in the matter, you can form your own opinion. One just has to understand where the info is coming from. Like I said…no “conspiracy website” were quoted by me. Only factual evidence on properties of jet fuel. Easily found. Same goes for any combustibles that may be in an office. It really isn’t that hard.

          • moflicky

            ok, you’ve not made any claims of what you think happened. what do you think happened? what caused the floors to burn for hours? what caused the steel to bow inward? what caused the building to fail? what caused it to fall straight down?

            you try (unsuccessfully) to shoot holes in my arguments, but offer none of your own.

            put up. tell us your version of what happened.

          • moflicky

            also, my original comment was to the guy who said thermite makes an explody sound. it clearly doesn’t.

          • Excalibur

            I never said it did, either. For clarification, IF it was used, there would HAVE to be explosives. THIS is correct ~ The cutting agents cut and the explosives move the cut product away from their support structures.
            That is why I posted that. To clarify is all. So IF there was thermite used, there would most likely be been explosives.

          • Phil Freeman

            Didn’t do too well in forensic debate did you? Proving all those negatives and all…I’m sure you were a superstar.

          • Gary Pulley

            there were explosions heard in the basement before the planes hit. There were also casualties in the basement before the first plane hit.

          • Ed

            I’m sure the elevator shafts transmitted the sound to the basement!

          • Zac Mcclary

            the elevators don’t go all the way from the bottom to the top continuously. there are multiple shafts in different parts of the buildings. fascinating stuff. but building 7 wasn’t hit by anything and it still fell!! …out of pity for its fallen brothers I’m guessing

          • moflicky

            1. There were several express elevators that took you to 66th floor and several large utility shafts that carried electrical and plumbing from the bottom to the top. The the fire stairwells went from bottom to top. any one of those would have carried the sound of the floors falling to those at ground level.
            2. Building 7 was hit by another building, damaging 10 floors and as far as 20 feet inside the building.
            3. Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 were also completely or nearly completely destroyed by the falling debris from 1 and 2. What makes B7 special is that the damage done to it took 6 hours instead of seconds for it to fall.

          • lori abeyta

            riot to the planes hitting….. so now people can her the future? Sounds like you just clarified his statement!

          • lori abeyta

            Prior*

          • lori abeyta

            What about the pictures of the explosion prior to the impact?

          • Drakar2007

            “What about the pictures of the explosion prior to the impact?”

            [citation needed]

          • moflicky

            “explosions and casualties in the basement before the planes hit” — please cite your source.

          • Bryan

            If the boom boom boom was from floors smashing down on each other, each boom would slow the decent as that is resistance……. the buildings fell at freefall acceleration.

          • Ed

            Wrong! The momentum & weight would accelerate the fall, therefore it looks like freefall speed.

          • Phil Freeman

            Not a physics major are ya? Idiot .

          • moflicky

            “Not a physics major are ya? Idiot .”

            nor are you. It’s called inertia and momentum. the structural strength of the building was strong enough to hold up that much weight if it’s not moving, but once it starts to move, it’s not strong enough to stop the inertia of hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and steel falling from above. matchsticks under that kind of pressure.

            Try an experiment. stand up 30 soda straws on end and carefully balance a book on top. it will hold and it is even relatively stable. now drop a much smaller book on top of the first book and watch what happens. Same concept.

          • Phil Freeman

            Soda straws? Buhahaha..you huffed paint or glue as a teen didn’t you?

          • moflicky

            try it and see. it’s science.

          • akcita

            Let’s hear the systemic demolition approach if you are selling it. Take us through the timing required…and lastly trot out those survivors that were inside the building….which of these guys back up your claim?

            http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/victims/wtcsurvivors.html

          • lori abeyta

            Trimming is easy… oh wait it was seconds off… as I said before what about the explosion before the impact!

          • Brad Squires

            AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! CRAPPY SPELLING detracts from the story!!

          • Chris Schijf

            OMG, Brad Squires, JA, stop with the “crappy spelling” critique. A person has a right to voice an opinion. You are not ADDING anything of importance. This is sad enough.

          • Ben Franklin

            And pedantic nonsense is just a fools distraction.

          • hang3xc

            If it is so bothersome for you, perhaps you should get your stories elsewhere?

          • Zac Mcclary

            don’t worry about misspellings man. I use discernment. the subject matter is far more interesting than spelling errers lol

          • lori abeyta

            No people complaining about spelling does!

          • Jay

            I am a military veteran, and I will say that everything you just said is absolutely ridiculous and YOU are a disgrace to the definition of true patriotism and to humanity. Your unequivocal support of the official narrative, despite the overwhelming evidence of the US Government’s definite involvement, is absolutely deplorable. Before you label people who have spent many hours/days/months/years researching the evidence of what really happened that day, maybe you should check yourself and understand your ignorance, along with everyone else who has bought and regurgitated the official false narrative, allows governments like hours and ultra rich multinational corporations to get away with horrible atrocities like this. Instead of using an inordinate amount of emotion to make your final judgements in an extremely complex event, try using, primarily, logic to properly troubleshoot and determine the truth of what is really going on and the reasons behind the disgustingly negative geopolitical climate western governments have created. I love my country more than anything, as I’m sure many of the men and women on here do as well, but patriotism and love for ones country does not give you the right to aimlessly buy into everything the political elites and mainstream media feeds you. True patriotism comes with a high level of responsibility. Smarten up and open your eyes, if not, then keep your mouth shut and listen/learn a few things from people who have put the time in to the morally strenuous research into something as horrible as 9/11.

          • Ben Franklin

            their cognitive dissonance can only say you have bad spelling. lol

          • Jay

            Well said.

          • A Nthony Fasano

            OK so you say after the towers were hit the government sneaked into tree buildings and set controlled explosive devices and set them off one after the other OK ….the buildings fell because of heat melting the steel and causing the towers to fall.listen if someone had evidence of what you claim to be a government cover up why has it not been proven in 15 years ….

          • Jay

            What are you expecting? Are you expecting US Gvnt officials to come out and say, “Yeah, 15 years ago we murdered 2,996 of our own citizens for the purpose of needing to remove 3 outdated super structures in lower manhattan and overall financial gain”? I mean. come on, lets be realistic here, you will never receive an admission of guilt. The evidence is there. Many scientists, philosophers, Phd’s, Architects, engineers have come forward and presented their evidence but because people primarily judge situations based on emotion rather than logic they completely ignore the facts of the matter. But let me put it in simpler terms for you. Look at it like a murder investigation that one of your peers is on trial for. If your peer’s wife was brutally murdered, he was the last one to be seen with her, AND he collected millions in insurance payments not long after her death, wouldn’t investigators look seriously into your peer for the murder? Look up the facts leading up to 9/11 concerning the New York authorities pricing the task of dismantling the WTC towers as well as overall asbestos abatement because they were “outdated” and they wanted them replaced by a more upgraded structure. Then look at the insurance policies that were taken out on the building just before 9/11. Look, also, at Susan Lindauer. Then look at the payout structure OF those insurance payouts. And that is just one overall aspect to an entire slew of facts pointing at the fact that AT LEAST the official narrative is a complete bold face lie. If you really want to start looking at the facts one by one and judge for yourself, check out “The New Pearl Harbor” (length 4hours 53minutes). Look, Anthony, I use to be just like you. I joined the military to fight the “Terrorists” that attacked our nation. I looked down on all those who spoke like I am now, saying they are nothing but conspiracy theorist nut jobs. But the facts, the evidence are unmistakable and have forced me to change my official position on this topic. Dozens of hours of research in documentary format, I read 64 books in a 365 day period, not just on the topic of 9/11 but on the geopolitics of this country before during and after 9/11. I promise, if you look into this, take the time and effort to look at the facts, look at it with pure logic and attempt to remove all emotion from the equation, you will be where many are now on this site. Good luck, and Godspeed.

          • A Nthony Fasano

            If the evidence was the the government would be in jail ..SAYING THERE IS NO HARD CORE EVIDENCE OR THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE SHUT DOWN AND IF THEY CIULD NOT LINK 9-11 TO GOVERNMENT THEN THATS THE END 15 YEARS AND NO EVIDENCE GIVE IT UP

          • Jay

            Wow, your naivety is beyond unbelievable if you really believe that if there was “hard core evidence” the government would be shut down. But I appreciate you using caps lock for your response, I understand your position much better now.

          • Brandon Brewer

            the government has pulled similiar stunts before …they eventually admitted some….but it was WAY more than 15 years before they would

          • Shawn Spencer

            Typing in bigger letters (also yelling) is not going to further solidify your argument. That’s not the right way to communicate.

          • Tomas58

            Well, that’s a new one. “…fthe purpose of needing to remove 3 outdated super structures in lower manhattan…” You mean there wasn’t a better, safer way to do this? They had to use two planes full of people and slaughter 3,000 people to accomplish this?

          • lori abeyta

            You’re forgetting the fact that this is a perfect set up to get the nation to stand behind a war that led to not one thing they said would be! You seriously need to stop talking remove yourself emotionally and look at the facts! It saddens me to see such flat out stupidity!

          • Tomas58

            So, your calling me stupid isn’t an emotional response?

            As I read the posts, the responses of the conspiracy theorists are far more emotional than those who are challenging their theory.

          • lori abeyta

            No. They discuss fact!

          • Mike Rayburn

            Your strong emotionally charged OPINION is not facts. Facts are camera footage, documents, emails, PROOF. To which you have none of.

          • Tomas58

            You can claim as fact the nation went to war as a result of 9/11. That’s indisputable.

            The idea that the WTC attack “is a perfect set up to get the nation to stand behind a war that led to not one thing they said would be!” is an inference. Not a fact. It doesn’t even meet the standard of a theory.

          • lori abeyta

            Standard of theory does not apply when people impact the purpose to accommodate an out come!

          • Tomas58

            You just proved my point.

          • lori abeyta

            No. I agreed in different words.

          • Tomas58

            So, you agree with me, then.

          • Shawn Spencer

            Why does every comment have to end with an insult to the person you’re writing to?

          • Mike Rayburn

            Yes sir me to. Listening to your banter and name calling I’m pretty certain I can see who holds the stupidity card. That would be you!

          • Jay

            The buildings were priced to be dismantled at or before 2007 as per Rudolph Giuliani due to “Galvanic Corrosion” of the support structure. In 2010 dollars, it would have cost 15 Billion to dismantle. So spend 15 Billion to do it right, or make hundreds of millions to do it the way it was done. Please, please please do your research and due diligence before commenting on other’s posts.

          • Tomas58

            Giuliani was the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York during the 1980s. He was Mayor of NYC from January 1, 1994 – December 31, 2001. The WTC was built in 1973. If the buildings were priced to be dismantled (I’m assuming you mean when they were built – you’re not clear), how did Giuliani have anything to do with it?

            But, you can’t have it both ways, you know. There are too many statements here disparaging the weakening of the steel structure due to the heat of the fire. This assumes the steel structure had the same integrity it did when constructed in 1971, 30 years before 9/11. But, you’re saying that the “galvanic corrosion” required the building to be torn down six years after 9/11. Wouldn’t this galvanic corrosion have contributed to the weakening of the structure?

            And the notion that those “involved” in 9/11 were content to have thousand die to dismantle a building, well, that’s spurious at best.

          • Jay

            Check out this link:

            https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/08/16/18297965.php

            As for the government’s “content”, they had no problem running MK Ultra which destroyed many people’s lives, where they kidnapped people off the street to run horrible psychological experiments using LSD, Mescaline, sensory deprivation for years on end, etc. Ted Kaczynski is a great example of the result of this program (not conspiracy, check out Ted Kaczynski and Harvard’s behavioral modification program as part of MK Ultra).

            http://boingboing.net/2014/05/09/how-the-cia-created-the-unabom.html

            http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/06/harvard-and-the-making-of-the-unabomber/378239/

            They had no problem running guns to the nicaraguan contras and paying for it by running coke into the west cost. ie: Freeway Ricky, which killed, god only knows, how many people in the 1980’s crack cocaine epidemic:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_cocaine_trafficking

            They had no problem sending 50,000+ soldiers to Vietnam to die for the purpose of, allegedly, “stopping the spread of communism” which is completely ridiculous and was also a “False Flag” ie: the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

            There was also a front page news paper article about Nixon using the war on drugs to jail black people and hippies:

            http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/

            Or how about the economically crippling sanctions on Iraq in the 1990’s that claimed the lives of Millions of innocent men, women and children in Iraq.

            It’s no secret governments of the world over have no issues killing their own citizens for the purpose of rallying support for armed conflict and, in certain industries like defense, make an absorbant amount of money off the deal. It dates back to the roman empire, maybe even much before.

            Governments as a whole, especially the US Government, operate off of ruthless pragmatism at all times, which at least half of the team, is necessary.

            But don’t be fooled into believing its an absolute moral impossibility that the US Gvt could have planned and executed 9/11 with no remorse.

            I mean look at what they did to the Japanese in WW2. The Japanese had surrendered and THEN we dropped the atomic bomb on CIVILIAN targets that claimed at least 120,000 people, instantly. Not to mention the air firebombing raids that killed at least 393,000 civilians.

          • Shawn Spencer

            Criminal history still does not guarantee guilt.

          • Jay

            You’re right, it doesn’t guarantee “guilt” but it goes to show it increases the probability of the government’s capability/willingness to commit such atrocities. Even if there was an official story that came out in the mainstream media saying the gvnt was involved, you still wouldn’t accept it.

          • Tomas58

            A lot fo these are very disturbing. I’m sure there are more.

            As to Vietnam, the intent was a good one. Since Vietnam we’re seen the horror of communism on the world stage. Many, many more people were slaughtered in Vietnam after the war than during the war.

            As to communism itself, the estimates of the number of people killed by Stalin are between 20 million and 60 million. Mao, at least 10 million, as high as 30 million. Nixon’s book on Vietnam – “No More Vietnams” is a must-read for anyone interested in the war.

            As to the Japanese during WWII, we need to look at the genocide they inflicted on Asia. Some estimates put the number of people killed by Japan during WWII at 2 million, mostly Chinese. We look at the Eastern Asia war, but not what was happening west of Japan, in the Asian continent.

            Was Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary? Firebombing Tokyo? It depends on your perspective, really. Japan wasn’t going to surrender. They made that clear. How many more millions would have died? Sometimes you have to make the tough decisions in war.

            The other stuff? That’s indefensible. But, this is the first time I’ve heard the WTC was taken down for what was, essentially, an Urban Renewal project.

          • Shawn Spencer

            Exactly. Plus, galvanized metal is weaker than non-galvanized — using it as construction material is always riskier.

          • Right, that’s why he was there when they collapsed and almost killed???
            .

          • Mike Rayburn

            Dude do you really think that writing these long dissertations you are convincing anyone? Hate to tell you but not everything is a conspiracy. I don’t trust the government myself. I know they lie. But sometimes the simplest answer is indeed the truth. Yes we walked on the moon. Yes Oswald truly did shoot Kennedy alone. And yes 19 terrorist took those buildings down with planes.

          • Gary Pulley

            A Nthony, the explosives could of been placed months in advance. Or even years. There were plans to bring them down which came to a halt due to the cost and the fact they were full of Asbestos.

            How could explosives of been placed? The building were under constant maintenance. Floors of offices at a time were relocated while maintenance was carried out. Heavy machinery was heard on the vacant floors at the times of the maintenance work being done. There were reports of the towers having blackouts. The bomb detecting dogs were removed from the towers

          • A Nthony Fasano

            If what you say is what you believe to be true how come in 15 years nobody has been investigated and you say the explosives were put months before how did the government know the planes would hit that day???? or how did they know there was going to be two hijackers in two planes that day ??? You say it was all planed who planed all this to happen??? And most importantly why ??? What was the purpose of knocking down two buildings and killing thousands of people???? What did the gain???but paying out billions of dollars in relief and settlements they had nothing to gain so you lose you just can’t accept this as what it was a act of terror attacks who bin laden took responsibility for when someone one government gets convicted of this tragedy then I will think someone in government had something to do with it just one person nobody in government has been named until they are I know the truth you just are anti-government

          • Jay
          • Tomas58

            Pearl Harbor was a false flag op? Really?

          • Jay

            It’s a matter of public record that FDR and military command knew the Japanese were going to strike at Pearl Harbor at least several days in advance and did nothing to put the pacific fleet on alert. Instead of watching the first ten minutes only and making judgements (which is obvious considering your comment), try watching the entire thing.

          • Jay
          • Tomas58

            OK. There’s a Wikipedia article – with supporting physical evidences – for a false flag operation called North Woods. Where is the corresponding Wikipedia article on the WTC false flag op? Give us the link.

          • Jay

            The wikipedia article shows the willingness of the military/government structure to commit overt acts of murder for the purpose of engaging in armed conflict.

          • lori abeyta

            Because they placed them there! It was the perfect time to start a “War on terror!” Aka…. oil! Perfect way to gather Americans to back tge underline!

          • toyotatech

            The buildings were rigged with explosives weeks ahead of time. This was all a very planned and staged event. Watch any of these videos, and learn a TON of new info…

          • A Nthony Fasano

            Videos that people made up in there minds OK keep believing the videos that people are only looking to make a profit of them

          • Tomas58

            Where is the evidence that the building was rigged for a controlled demolition? Show me photos, videos, writings, internet posts… anything that supports this. Were there crews running around the buildings drilling holes in the walls? Planting large explosive units on the superstructure? Climbing the outside, drilling holes? Where are the pictures of them? The videos? Are you saying that in two buildings inhabited by thousands of people NO ONE would have noticed this? Questioned it? Including the survivors?

          • Keith Burgin

            hey tomas, stop asking people to show you, the evidence is there in abundance if you take a few minutes to look

          • lori abeyta

            Yup! By many…. actually physicis! Makes me sad to think people can see it this way still!

          • Tomas58

            OK. Point me to the source.

          • lori abeyta

            Really… you think there would be public evidence of this! Naivety to say the least!

          • Tomas58

            So, the validity in your claim relies on the absence of evidence?

          • lori abeyta

            No. The evidence is there…. just not acknowledged by those with an agenda!

          • Tomas58

            So then, it’s private evidence?

            You say it’s naive of me to think there would be public evidence, then you say there IS public evidence. I’m not sure what your point is….

          • Ray re

            The evidence is out there and your redundancies is quite amuzing!

          • Tomas58

            OK. I’ll ask it a third time. Can you show me the evidence? Don’t prevaricate.

          • lori abeyta

            No the absence of acknowledgment of scientific proof!

          • Tomas58

            So, my rejection of the conspiracy theory you are proposing proves your theory?

          • Jay

            It’s much like a murder investigation/conviction. You don’t get damning evidence every case of a smoking gun in the hand of the defendant on trial. But a jury of our peers examines the evidence available and makes a judgement for themselves. There are not just a few thousand people who believe there is overwhelming evidence of the government’s involvement but, literally, millions of people, people like you and me who love their country, are hurt by the fact that our government could have killed our own brethren. This is not something we hope to be true but the evidence speaks for itself and the jury is out.

          • The collapses both started at the fire floors and progressed down a floor at a time due to the enormous weight falling straight down upon each floor. The structure above the fire fell intact until it hit bottom and then reversed the collapse sequence. And for those comparing it to a tree falling,what the hell are you smoking?

          • yourmomsaidso

            people are idiots.

          • Cynthia

            So your one of those paid actors?

          • Tomas58

            Two questions:

            1. What is the “overwhelming evidence of the US government’s definitive involvement.” Set aside any physical interpretations of the event itself.

            Let’s say, for the sake of your argument, the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition. How do we know who was responsible for that demolition? Given the ability of those within the government to leak info, show me those documents.

            2. How is the research “morally strenuous “?

          • Jay

            Tomas, here is how I will answer your two questions:

            1. There is plenty of information out there for you to discover on your own, as I did. Im not going to go through each and every item on here. Even if I did, you will not even consider the fact that you could be wrong about your conclusions on this topic so it would be a complete waste of time on my part and yours.

            2. At least for me, the research was morally strenuous because, everything I loved and believed in was changed when I started to realize how wrong I was about this whole event and further realized my entire life’s trajectory was based off a lie (Joining the military for the purpose of fighting terrorism to preserve American freedom)

          • Tomas58

            I appreciate your responses. Especially #2.

            However, in response to #1, all I’m asking for is some links to the proofs on which you base your theory. Not each and every item. Let the links do that.

          • Jay

            No problem, Thomas. So the first link is a documentary that will break everything down for you, every detail of why the official narrative is false and strong supporting evidence to back up the claims (please don’t let the title throw you). It’s long, with a runtime of 4 hrs and 53 min, but it is comprehensive and exactly what you are asking for. The second link is a non profit organization made up of architects, engineers and PhDs, thousands of them, who have come forward to back up the claims of overall conspiracy concerning 9/11. I understand your position, Thomas, it is something so ridiculous to accept, the government murdering our own citizens. But if you watch this documentary and keep an open mind, use logic not emotion, it will open a window to a much deeper, darker picture. I promise, I do not where a tin foil hat, I base my statements/claims off of evidence and evidence alone. In 2005 I joined the military, not because I had no other option, but because I truly believed in the mission at hand. I know this all seems outrageous, but if you make it through the entire doc, you may see things differently.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWUzfJGmt5U

            http://www.ae911truth.org/

          • Tomas58

            I don’t have a heck of a lot of time to watch a four-hour video, but I’ll see what I can do during my insomniac episodes at 3:00 in the morning… 😉 I appreciate your attitude. It’s definitely refreshing, given the general tone of this debate…

          • Jay

            I appreciate your attitude as well. Just because we are on different sides of the aisle does not mean we have to assassinate each other’s character because we disagree. It’s a great example of an informed debate and is what America is supposed to be all about, right?

          • Tomas58

            Yep…

          • Tomas58

            Toss me that link again… I don’t want to dig through 100s of previous posts to find it…

          • Jay
          • Brandon Brewer

            lol…thank you for your service….you are so right…my brother has served since 2001, he’s currently in korea….i just wanted to tell you….what an absolute brilliant job you’ve done in finally putting a label to the people that looks at surmounting evidence and still denies the truth for no other reason than….”Im a Patriot”….i’ll take the word of a hero over a patriot ANY DAY

          • Jay

            Brandon, I/m no hero but I appreciate your kind words and I hope your brother is doing well in Korea. Thank you for your service to this country by involving yourself in one of the most important, most difficult discussions us Americans have ever faced. Thanks again, Brandon.

          • Shawn Spencer

            Eye-witness is still the most powerful form of evidence in existence. If he is not lying, then you are dismissing the most powerful form of evidence and placing your faith in less-reliable, albeit still mostly reliable, sources of evidence.

            It seems rather that you are merely attached to one side of the debate and unwilling to be wrong or believe differently, even though it is possible that the truth is different than what you believe.

          • Jay

            I joined the military when I was 17 to help in the fight against terrorism because of the events of 9/11, because I believed the official story. It wasn’t easy for me to accept these facts that I have been discussing. You seem to be the one that cannot admit when he is wrong despite the evidence presented. If you are wondering what my qualifications are, I’m former military specializing in Avionics maintenance on the F/A-18 Super Hornet. I have a mechanical engineering degree and currently working on my masters. I have worked for the NTSB analyzing evidence from rail car and airline crashes. Ive worked as an electronics technician for 501FD2 Combustion Turbine engines which are very similar to commercial airliner turbine engines. I have changed my mind on what I believe, despite it labels my life’s trajectory as based on a lie. So please, don’t come out here and tell me how much I can’t accept the facts. I’ve served my country, I’ve spent years researching this topic and every piece of evidence that has been presented. What have you done besides sit on your couch and comment on others posts based on nothing but what you regurgitate from the mainstream media outlets and what you read in the 9/11 Commission report. But, of course, my qualifications and experience, even the evidence that I have provided on this forum will be over looked by you because it’s just “not worth your time”. I mean, why look at an opposing point of view and the evidence to back it up when you are so certain of the answers already? My conclusions are not based on “faith”, they’re based on cold hard facts and obvious physical impossibilities. Your assumptions about me could not be further from the truth but because you read a few posts by me on a single article, you some how know about me and my misguidedness? Absolutely ridiculous.

          • Mike Rayburn

            I wouldn’t give a rats ass if you are a triple OG vet. That alone doesn’t make you any expert. For every 1 expert you offer that screams conspiracy I can name 2 that would refute. Oh and by the way thank you for your service. You did say vet and not PHD professor of the entire world right?

          • James R. Olson

            Your a military veteran who is a clueless idiot.

          • Cynthia

            If in fact you were there then you wound have heard the explosions. Do yourself a favor & educate yourself, rather than make a fool of yourself.
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM

          • Phil Freeman

            Wtcs were designed to take multiple airliner strikes. 707 strikes in fact. From the largest airliner made then. You are a thick cunt.

          • Ed

            Designed for side or horizontal strikes not vertical!

          • Excalibur

            You do know that high rises are designed to withstand “vertical forces” also, right? As in floors collapsing upon themselves? Now you sound silly. If anything…by fire, as is claimed, that “melted” or “compromised” the steel…common sense would say where the “hole” and fire were located, the stronger side would fall after the weaker side…none of these buildings did that. Just a coincidence they all fell straight down…just like a demolition…..maybe they were magically OVER-designed…if anything happens, they will fall into themselves, just like a demolition, so as not to create a domino effect on other buildings…wouldn’t that be exceptional!

          • Tomas58

            Look at the video again. The top sections did topple sideways. However, the collapse of the building was vertical because the force of the collapsing upper structure was strictly in a downward trajectory, taking the upper section with it.

          • Excalibur

            No need to ….I have seen this plenty of times. Explain then, why bone fragments were found on top of other buildings….horizontal to the “strictly downward trajectory”…why steel girders and “I” beams (that are quite heavy, by the way) were being thrown horizontally as far as they were in a “strictly downward trajectory”..and use your brain, man…if something, anything, is weakened at one side, structural integrity, physics and gravity demands that all weight will fall towards the weakened side…not straight down “in a downward trajectory”….so it would make sense that if anything “toppled sideways”, like the “top sections” you speak of, at least that part (how many floors, you know, like in vertical feet of the building?) would not, in all logical sense, be in a “strictly downward trajectory”…none of what you say above makes any scientific sense whatsoever. Those vertical feet of the top sections would be at least approaching, from center, that many horizontal feet out from the base.

          • Tomas58

            When the downward force pancaked the floors, the air escaped those floors in a horizontal trajectory, blowing debris away from the structure. As pieces collapsed, collision with denser materials knocked them away from the building horizontally. The downward trajectory is an aggregate. Individual pieces are part of that aggregate during their initial trajectory, but they have their trajectory altered by collision and friction.

            The upper floors started falling towards the weakened side, but to continue that trajectory required the bottom staying rigid and resisting. Since it didn’t do that, everything collapsed vertically. There was no longer any resistance to that. Gravity is a downward force. You see how this operates in the free descent of a moving object, like an airplane. The beginning of the fall is primarily horizontal, but as the horizontal force decreases, the descent curves in a more vertical direction.

            There was a great amount of debris outside of the building footprint.

          • Excalibur

            Your scenario does not work. Nice explanation, however, especially the airplane….might better have used a helicopter, although some helicopters even have what is called a glide slope. You certainly are no teacher of truth. Please tell me…you say this “The upper floors started falling towards the weakened side, but to continue that trajectory required the bottom staying rigid and resisting. Since it didn’t do that, everything collapsed vertically”…well…. the bottom was not affected by fire…so how did the bottom weaken…and please, ALL support weakened all at the same time? LOL…your scenario is a bit far fetched.

          • Jay

            What about the burned out cars blocks away from the WTC tower site due to debris after impact.

            http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg

            Jet fuel is gone at this point, yet the debris was hot enough to burn out these vehicles.

            http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image16swamp.jpg

          • Tomas58

            At this point, the building itself was on fire. The jet fuel did its job…. igniting a runaway conflagration that had reached, and exceeded, flash point. The building pieces would have carried the flame through blowout, and debris falling away from the building. This would have also caused gas tanks to ignite.

          • Phil Freeman

            You drunk bastard

          • lori abeyta

            Im confused by that! Vertical?

          • Gary Pulley

            The buildings were designed to sustain multiple hits by planes. The Empire stats building had a ww2 bomber fly into it, the building still stands today. If you listen or read the transcript of the first responders you will be aware that the firemen that reached the parts of the towers that hit said that the fires were minimal but there was a lot of smoke. So where did the heat come from to melt the steel?

            No plane hit building 7. Yet it fell down in seconds. How did this happen?

          • Ed

            But the bottom half couldn’t sustain the weight of the top portion after the 20 foot collapse at the fires origin, that you see in the video. The 20 foot collapse created MOMENTUM which pulverized the bottom half.

          • Jay

            If you drop a bowling ball into an 8 foot pool of water from 3 feet above the water’s surface, the bowl before it hits the water, say the ball is traveling at a rate of 6 meters/second squared as it does not have enough time to reach the maximum rate of 9.81 meters/second squared. Once the bowling ball hits the water, will it accelerate to the maximum 9.81 meters/second squared or decelerate? The answer? Simple 9th grade physics concept: it will decelerate due to fluid resistance. It is literally a physical impossibility for the top 20% of the building falling at free fall speed with a robust steel structure below it as each floor would provide a high level of resistance. Unless you are challenging Newtons laws of motion pertaining to acceleration and have evidence to back up the fact that Newton has been wrong all this time, your conclusion is false and misguided. Please stop making assumptions and look into the mathematics behind the event.

          • Tomas58

            Your argument is specious. Water has more mass than air (thus its fluid resistance, as you corrently claim). If you get hit by air traveling 30mph, you’ll stagger a bit. Maybe fall down. If you get hit with the same volume of water going 30mph, you will be swept away. 30mph water can topple a building, move vehicles.

            The bowling ball starts falling 3 feet above the water. e=mc(squared) demonstrates the energy of the bowling ball is not significantly higher than it was upon its release. So, the water will slow it down. Drop the bowling ball from a mile – or at the very least a distance that will give it the same energy output as the weight of the top of the WTC that began the collapse, the energy would expel all the water from the 8 foot pool… In a rather explosive fashion.

            But, we’re both comparing apples and oranges, aren’t we?

            The only resistance that the upper part of the building encounters is the mass of each subsequent floor and its support structure, not the entire mass of the building below the falling structure.

          • lori abeyta

            You said fall over, not impact upon itself!

          • Tomas58

            Yes. The top portion began falling over, but the bottom countered that motion and everything collapsed downwards. Look at the video.

          • Jay

            Its not air the water is being compared to, its a robust steel structure of 87 floors worth we are comparing to. Each subsequent floor is tied into the rest of the lower structure of the building. Each floor is not independent of itself with the surrounding support structure and internal column support. So I am sorry but the upper floors that fell into the lower 3/4s of the building had a total resistance equal to all the floors combined in a hyberbolic fashion.

          • Tomas58

            Yes, that’s true. But the resistance is weakened by the distance between the floors. As they fell, the upper sections were allowed to increase their speed as they fell THROUGH the lower floors. Not ON the lower floors. The internal structure of the building was not designed to withstand a vertical impact. Horizontal, yes. Which is why the building didn’t topple over after the direct hit of the planes. It took the extreme heat degrading the strength of steel to cause the initial collapse.

          • Jay

            So say that’s true about it not being built for vertical impact, which im sure you’re correct but don’t know for certain, myself, and say that the weight of the building collapsing would accelerate as the support structure collapsed. But how is it that the building is falling at free fall speed? Free fall speed would indicate there is absolutely no resistance while the building is collapsing. Even tho the weight of the building is millions of tons falling, its impossible for it to reach free fall if there is 80% of support structure still present below the weakened support where the buildings hit and the subsequent floors just below the impact point, right? Here is another thing. On top of each building was a steel cage structure that weighted (I believe) 50 tons. So say everything you’re saying is true and the building falls at free fall speed pulverizing the complete structure as its falling. How is it that a 50 ton structure at the very top with nothing able to strike it from above, could be completely pulverized ? Check it out in that video I sent you.

          • moflicky

            the building did not fall at freefall speed. debris ejected from the collapse zone did hit the ground in about 9 seconds, but the rest of the building took longer. see this video, at 4:27 the collapse begins.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecv0p8JWsqU#t=278.076009
            at 4:36, the visible debris can be seen hitting ground, but much of the building is still intact behind the debris cloud – you can see the pyroclastic flow inward and downward as it replaces with air where the building used to be – right up to about 4:46 – almost 20 seconds after the collapse began.

          • Tomas58

            If I somehow intimated the building hit free-fall speed, my bad. But, the building was in free-fall. The bottom structure did give resistance. But that was inconsequential as the mass – and the energy – of the upper portion increased due to the accumulation of materials that added to the mass. The amount of resistance of the lower structure was a static value. It didn’t increase of decrease during the collapse. It just couldn’t compete with the increasing mass of the falling structure.

          • moflicky

            each floor is independent. watch the video of the towers being built. they stacked one floor on top of the other. each floor with wide expanses of concrete poured over corrugated stee supported by rebar and bracket supports. once a floor failed, it became part of the mass and energy of all the floors above.

          • Jay

            I’m sorry, but what you just said is not only false but absolutely impossible. The floors cannot be “independent” of each other because that would mean there would be no support structure connecting floor to floor. I’m a mechanical engineer, I know what I am talking about.

          • moflicky

            if you think the buildings would have a) toppled over like a tree being felled or b) the top of the building would have been stopped from falling after only one floor collapsed, you’re not a very good one.

            If you haven’t already, look at the design of the twin towers. outer shell, inner core, with each floor having huge concrete slabs held up by only steel trusses stretched between the shell and core.

            The thousands of tons of concrete and steel would only need to break those trusses loose from the outer skin supports or the inner core for it to have become part of the inertia headed down. you can see in the videos the outer skin flaying open as the mass of the building passed it by. watch this video (spin up to about 5:12 and watch).

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

            at about 5:21 you can see the outer skin supports flaying out, peircing the dust cloud as the bulk of the building falls inside it’s perimeter.

            the outer supports at that point were useless. the inner core without the outer shell, even more useless. all that’s left is floor after floor of concrete slabs, getting heavier and heavier, falling faster and faster. It’s not that difficult to understand, even for a bad engineer.

          • Rob Gross

            Instead of arguing physics, do the calculation. You can do a simple conservation of momentum calculation for pancaking floors and figure out that it corresponds pretty closely to the time required to fall. Therefore, not free fall. I don’t what these idiots published.

          • dooglio

            No, it does not correspond “closely.” The towers fell in an average of 10 seconds. That is free-fall speed. If you dropped a billiard ball from the top of WTC1, it would take 9.22 seconds to hit the bottom (not accounting for air drag). How could a gravity-initiated collapse bring all 110 floors to the ground in 10 seconds? Can you clap your hands 100 times in 10 seconds?

          • moflicky

            re: free-fall. look at this video, starting at 3:48.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

            at 3:51, you can see the corner of the building fail. that’s the start of the collapse.
            At around 4:01 is about when the first debris that was expelled out of the sides of the building at the point of failure first starts hitting the ground (obscured by buildings but you can guestimate) – 10 seconds. That’s your free fall – debris not inhibited by floors below them.
            At this point, there is still 30 to 40 stories of building still not collapsed, but you can barely see it behind the clouds.
            Run the vid to 4:08 and you can still see pyroclastic clouds pushing down, as the floors fall, pulling the air in behind them and parts of the building still falling. 4:08.

            That’s 17 seconds.

            Then, look at the video repeated several times starting at 6:28. You can clearly see the outer skin bowing inwards. No bomb can do that. how did they time the bombs to go off just as the building was failing? That video, more than any other proves explosives could not be involved, unless someone pushed the plunger and exploded them at the very moment the structure failed.

          • dooglio

            You’re right–they can’t get a bomb to do that. Jet fuel can’t do that either.

          • moflicky

            the jet fuel was gone after 10 minutes. the fires after that were from furniture, carpets, drapes, paper, plastic, etc.

            but you’re a metallurgist AND a structural engineer, as well as a firefighter. I bow to your superior knowledge and experience.

          • dooglio

            I don’t need to appeal to authority to know that most of the towers did not fall into the bathtub. Where did all of that steel and concrete go? Are you telling me jet fuel can vaporize concrete, glass and steel?

          • moflicky

            I’m not saying anything of the sort. you tell me – where did all that steel and concrete go? was it all a hologram? did it vanish?

          • dooglio

            I don’t know. All I know is that it’s not there. If the official conspiracy theory was correct, there would be a rubble pile at least 12% of the size of the towers. There was no such thing. Lower Manhattan would have been flooded.

            Of course, there was loads and loads of dust which didn’t settle out of the atmosphere for days. Perhaps we should look there. If the steel and concrete aren’t on the ground, then they must be somewhere else.

          • dooglio

            You tell me! That isn’t my story, that’s the government’s story! They are the ones making insane claims that violate the laws of physics! Buildings falling at free fall speeds, and very little debris in the Bathtub. Where did the 500,000 tons of steel, concrete, glass, desks, filing cabinets, toilet bowls, etc, go, anyway? Because it wasn’t at ground zero.

          • moflicky

            I can’t explain your premise because I reject it entirely. I saw the buildings fall, so every bit of concrete and steel fell where I saw it fall – at the base of the towers and the blocks surrounding.

            What makes you think differently? Were you at ground zero? or are you basing your opinion on cherry picked photos and speculation you read at a conspiracy website?

            You’re saying that lots of it isn’t where we saw it fall – which is a fantastical notion not supported by any evidence in the natural world – the only place it could be true is in the fevered swamps of your clearly confused if not addled mind.

            The onus is on you to prove it didn’t fall where we saw it fall.

          • dooglio

            I think I have proven it quite well. The data I have presented is conclusive. The seismic readings from the disturbance are not in line with how much material must have hit the ground, if what you are saying is true. Even NIST admitted that.

            The material just wasn’t there. This isn’t a question of “cherry picking” photos. All photos I have ever seen of ground zero after the “collapse” never added up. Where did all of that material go? How can WTC6 have just huge gaping holes in it with nothing at the bottom?

          • moflicky

            ahem… look closely at the timestamps of the seismic readings. find someone who has critically examined Dr. Woods non-peer reviewed work. you’ll find that the length measured was actually when the debris started hitting the ground, not when the collapse began.

            and you have not demonstrated that the debris wasn’t there. yours and Dr. Wood’s opinion is not proof.

            Your contentions are nothing but crazypants. And yes, that’s the official scientific term for the things you are saying.

          • moflicky

            I gave Dr. Wood’s page another look and still see more problems. all of her assertions seem to be predicated on the premise that all the concrete was pulverized into dust before they hit ground – as does your assertion. I reject that notion. she shows one animated gif that she says shows the top portion breaking apart as it fell into the failure zone. that is also not borne out by the dozens of videos of the collapse. she’s taking major leaps of strawman logic and then backing up her strawmen with math proving they’re not physically possible. You first have to accept her initial premises – I don’t.

            Who am I supposed to believe? you or my lying eyes?

          • dooglio

            Where did all of the material go, then? Because it wasn’t on the ground! Why is it that the only buildings that suffered irreparable damage have the prefix WTC? That doesn’t make any sense at all!

            So since 1.2 million tons of steel, concrete, glass, cabling, furniture, etc didn’t fall to the ground, then it had to go somewhere else.

          • Tomas58

            Yes. Exactly. And as the mass increased and the speed increased, the bottom just could not offer enough resistance.

          • moflicky

            “The only resistance that the upper part of the building encounters is the mass of each subsequent floor and its support structure, not the entire mass of the building below the falling structure.”

            Exactly right – and each subsequent floor that fails becomes part of the momentum of all the floors above it, increasing its mass and thus its energy.

            Physics baby!

          • Tomas58

            *fist bump*

          • lori abeyta

            Agreed with the unstable ground it stood on but the first two… not at all the same!

          • lori abeyta

            In the same way (building 7) in actuality I can see 7 falling that way, but not the other two!

          • moflicky

            building 7 was hit by building 1. It burned for 5 to 6 hours with no attempt to extinguish. How did the explosives required to bring it down survive that before your mysterious bomber decided to pull the pin?

          • Drakar2007

            Don’t forget that these supposed fireproof explosives were also invisible and silent! Twoofers really crack me up.

          • Drakar2007

            “What about the pictures of the explosion prior to the impact?”

            If by “seconds” you mean “after burning for 8 straight hours with no fire suppression efforts”, then yeah, sure.

          • Keith Burgin

            the buildings WERE designed to withstand been hit by passenger aircraft

          • Tomas58

            Yes. But the collision didn’t topple the buildings. The heat of the fire toppled the buildings. It degraded the structural integrity of the supporting steel. It didn’t have to melt it… just weaken the metal.

            The superstructure was coated with a heat resistant material. The force of the fuel explosion blew that material off the metal.

          • lori abeyta

            Then the metal would still stand and would mimick a structure fire. The beams have been shown with a straight cut. No amount of heat can do that!

          • Tomas58

            The beams snapped during their free-fall. When something with such a high tensile strength is split with a snap, then the ends will resemble a cut.

          • Excalibur

            Never happen. No fires were even hot enough to “weaken” metal. With or without any “heat resistant materials”. Especially jet fuel (aka kerosene) ….that was all gone in a large fireball almost immediately.

          • Tomas58

            Liquid fuel doesn’t burn until it vaporizes. Heat vaporizes is. The hotter the flame, the quicker the vaporization. It’s not instantaneous, so the fuel fire increases. And it increased to the point, and maintained the duration, where the structure was weakened beyond its ability to carry the load.

          • Excalibur

            You need to understand…jet fuel (JET A, A-1, or B) and their properties, including the fire suppression additives that are added to jet fuel.
            FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).
            I’ll not add the MSDS sheets for the obvious reason you can look them up yourself.
            Less than half the fuel was burned up in the first few seconds in the fireballs (this is one of the few NIST figures I would not question), that leaves us with over 4550+ in the towers, distributed over the 6 main impact floors – the top two and bottom one impact floors should have received hardly any jet fuel, as they were only impacted by the wingtips. According to the official account the remaining 50%+ of the jet fuel caught fire on the floors and burned off within a few minutes.
            And STILL did not get hot enough to melt any steel.

          • Jay

            Well said, excalbur. Well said.

          • Tomas58

            OK. I’ll say this one more time, since you’re obviously not paying attention. The steel DID NOT MELT. Its structural strength WEAKENED to the point it could not support the weight. OK? No melty. Stop throwing that one at me.

            I don’t care about the melting point of steel. What is the temperature point at which its structural integrity weakens? And, how hot did it get in there?

          • Excalibur

            The jet fuel was not present long enough to even reach any point of “weakening” any steel. YOU are the one not paying attention or understanding what has been written.
            Your answer….about 1300 degrees (sustained) however, I still maintain the jet fuel fire was not sustained long enough for any structural damage to steel strength.
            I’ll not do all the work for you….all you need to do to find that out is look it up…or as they say these days…google it. There you will find your answer.
            So I will NOT say it one more time after this. Jet fuel did NOT cause any damage to any steel.

          • Tomas58

            Well, if you don’t want to annotate your statements, that’s your call. You’ve obviously received your information from somewhere. And I would venture to guess – since you’re pretty adamant in this 9/11 conspiracy thing – that you have some links in your bookmarks. You obviously have picked up this stuff from somewhere…. and my searching this will not point me in the direction you want me to go. You’re not even giving me a subject to search…. just “look it up.” I’ll read them if you share them (others in this thread have shared their links). If you don’t want to share them, then I guess we’re done here.

          • Excalibur

            Really….sounds to me like the loser’s way out. And where, just where, did I say it was a total or even partial, conspiracy? All I am doing is questioning some answers, using science and already proven facts. It really isn’t that hard to find the properties of jet fuel, and it really isn’t that hard to find factual proof of (or links, if you will) of fire and its characteristics of heat…although I must admit, that is a hard thing to measure with different combustibles, however, the differences found are really not that great nor significant. Where do you suppose firefighters get their knowledge of fire and how to combat and prevent them? Hmmm? Easy to find, fellow human being.
            I am not trying to change anyone’s view, not yours or anyone else’s…all I am doing is pointing out what materials can,will, and will not do. However, when one does that…I get this…like what you are doing. Fear to find question and failure to research for oneself.
            The problem is, you want someone else to do the work for you…ergo your “I guess we are done here”.
            I don’t work that way. I am not writing a paper for you. If you want proof, you need to find it yourself. I already have it, and I have no reason to “show you”, when you have the exact same ability to do what I have done….and I am not looking to “point you in a direction” I want you to go, it is common sense…I am only stating what is, and what is not, possible. Easy to find for yourself, but I guess this is what America has come to…laziness.
            Either way, this was a tragedy all the way around, no matter what.
            Yes, terrorists were involved. Yes, buildings came down. One building no one can explain why it came down.
            Question Authority has always been my motto, because authority is not always correct. If anyone thinks that they are….well…more power to ya.

          • Tomas58

            “Where do you suppose firefighters get their knowledge of fire and how to combat and prevent them? Hmmm? Easy to find, fellow human being”

            They’re trained. They receive this information from their trainers. They aren’t told “I’m not here to provide the information you need, acolyte. I’m not going to do the work for you. Google it.”

            Very weird analogy.

            “I don’t work that way. I am not writing a paper for you.”

            I’m not asking you to write a paper. Just give me some links.

            “If you want proof, you need to find it yourself. I already have it, and I have no reason to “show you”, when you have the exact same ability to do what I have done….”

            You have it and you’re not sharing? Really?

            “… Easy to find for yourself, but I guess this is what America has come to…laziness”

            Others have given me links. I watched a 5-hour doc last night because someone gave me a link. So, I guess your unwillingness to share your sources isn’t laziness, but my willingness to spend five hours of my life is.

            But, I guess I’m just a “loser.”

            And that, my friend, is why We’re done here.

          • Excalibur

            I know where they get their training from. People that have already done the research. Scientists that had questions, such as, how hot does this material burn? When is the flash-point of this material? Questions that humans needed or wanted to know. Which is then transferred,by books, or papers, whatever. Not weird at all…I never said that a trainer would tell them to google it, did I? That is about as incoherent a take on what I said that it is about more than ridiculous, it is outright insane.
            A) You are not my student. I am not here to teach you anything.
            B) I am not here to do the work for you. Why should I share anything, when it is all there for you to see for yourself? Do you have to be led by the hand to get a drink of water? Is there a “law” that I must share what I know with you because you ask me? I don’t know you Jack from Adam,and already you accuse me (this is what you said > “since you’re pretty adamant in this 9/11 conspiracy thing”) of being in this “conspiracy thing” because I question your idiotic hypothesis about jet fuel, when all I did was show the properties…ahhhh, but wait a minute…you don’t CARE about that….ok, so I show you the facts not only about the melt factor, but then the “weakening” point…but yet still you want more. Well…..let me see…
            I have seen NO links from YOU to prove what you say, either.
            About an “explosion that blew off the heat resistant material”…for SURELY you must know what the pressures were in that explosion, or how the “heat resistant material” is applied to the steel, and what it requires to remove said material from steel…RIGHT?? So you must have a link for that…..

            Yet you say this in a prior post “Liquid fuel doesn’t burn until it vaporizes. Heat vaporizes is. The hotter the flame, the quicker the vaporization. It’s not instantaneous, so the fuel fire increases. And it increased to the point, and maintained the duration, where the structure was weakened beyond its ability to carry the load.”
            Are you talking about a fuel fire? Sounds like it to me…and you attribute THAT to weakening steel? LOL!! Did you or did you not see this
            “According to the official account the remaining 50%+ of the jet fuel caught fire on the floors and burned off within a few minutes.” How many is a few? More than two….and less than 15..or is it 5 hours? Try about 10 maybe? And if you follow the rate of fire (including heat) and how LONG it takes steel to “weaken” under those circumstances, THE JET FUEL COULD NOT POSSIBLY have been a major factor in the “weakening ” of steel, as large as the steel beams were, or are. The fuel is not concentrated anymore…duh. It burns off rather fast.
            Responding to people that do not remember what has been said as you have shown, even just showing them a simple thing and answering is proving to be about impossible….because most have just one track tunnel vision.
            Case in point…lets go back to the firefighters..you didn’t like what I said..so you take it upon yourself to try to belittle me…well, shiiiiitttt…go back further…yeah, they were trained…BUT..HOW did the trainers get their knowledge…and the knowledge the trainers got before they were trained, and continue even farther back? Did they just jump into a fire and say “ok, here is how you put it out”…no, lets hope not….SOMEONE at some point in time, without incurring danger to themselves and others (we hope) studied and figured out HOW to do certain things with certain combustibles, and what those properties were, how they reacted, how they burned, what put certain fires out, etc etc…the trainer certainly didn’t do that…..YA THINK??? The trainer LEARNED from somewhere…my bets are on someone in a safe controlled experiment to measure values…not a “trainer” of firefighters.
            THAT,my friend, is why we are done. You cannot follow the conversation, nor use what intelligence God (or whatever you believe in) gave you. Wouldn’t want you to think that your vested 5 hours is laziness…oh no…watching(or reading) a 5 hour doc in front of a computer (or however you did it) isn’t lazy….at least you were working your brain of sorts.
            In less than two minutes you can research (hell, even google it!! Haha) the properties of jet fuel…but you can’t do that…however, you can spend 5 hours on a document reading what someone else gave you…pfffftttttttt….
            Again..THAT is why we are done here.

          • Tomas58

            This is no longer a debate about the WTC, but about how information is obtained.

            Nice paper you wrote there, BTW. 😉

          • Excalibur

            Unfortunately, it pretty much ended that way, yes, I agree. As I will reiterate…you have provided no links either for any of your responses.
            So we are at a crossroads….one for one equals none, if you understand what I mean by that.
            Happy you enjoyed that “paper”….LOL…when light comes out, creatures of darkness will most assuredly hide. No dig at you, just saying in a different way, I am glad you understand that last post….and “like” how I presented it. Haha.
            Have a great day. 🙂

          • Drakar2007

            “No fires were even hot enough to “weaken” metal.”

            Bull. This is according to you and you only.

          • Excalibur

            Your response is bull…..try again. Here is your first step in learning about that….previously posted elsewhere, but just for your education:

            You need to understand…jet fuel (JET A, A-1, or B) and their properties, including the fire suppression additives that are added to jet fuel.

            FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).
            I’ll not add the MSDS sheets for the obvious reason you can look these them up yourself. Yes, these are NOT just “according to me and me only”….these are actual FACTS.

            Less than half the fuel was burned up in the first few seconds in the fireballs (this is one of the few NIST figures I would not question), that leaves us with a little over (as they say there was about 10k total in the aircraft) 4550+ gallons in the towers, distributed over the 6 main impact floors – the top two and bottom one impact floors should have received hardly any jet fuel, as they were only impacted by the wingtips. According to the official account the remaining 50%+ of the jet fuel caught fire on the floors and burned off within a few minutes.
            See that? And STILL did not get hot enough to melt any steel. It never could.That is the OFFICIAL ACCOUNT…within a few minutes…so no fuel melted steel. Period. It simply is not possible.

          • Drakar2007

            “FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel”

            Wow, yet another evasive strawman from troofer idiots – SURPRISE!

            Your initial comment said WEAKEN. To dodge YET AGAIN to the old canard of “melt steel” is transparently flimsy. The temperatures of the fires in the tower were WELL OVER the temps needed to make steel lose over 50% of its structural integrity. END OF STORY.

            “According to the official account the remaining 50%+ of the jet fuel caught fire on the floors and burned off within a few minutes.”

            Ironic that you quote the “official account” here, yet proceed to ignore the fact that the official account goes on to say that the fuel fires ignited bigger, hotter and more destructive fires due to the vast amount of combustibles contained in an office building.

            None of your bullshit accounts for the fact that there were NO EXPLOSIVES – and NO EVIDENCE for explosives, and NO properties of any sort of demolition-by-explosives observed in any of the tower collapses.

            Please don’t talk down to me – i’ve been debunking 9/11 truth bullshit probably longer than you’ve even known about it. Nothing you’ve said here or in any of the other comments here is anything that hasn’t been parroted by other twoofers for over 10 years, and debunked over and over.

          • Excalibur

            Again…it is so sad I have to explain to people how to read and understand…Tomas58 said this “It degraded the structural integrity of the supporting steel. It didn’t have to melt it… just weaken the metal.
            The superstructure was coated with a heat resistant material. The force of the fuel explosion blew that material off the metal.”

            Do you see where he said weaken the metal? Do you?Good!

            Now I answered with this ” Never happen. No fires were even hot enough to “weaken” metal. With or without any “heat resistant materials”. Especially jet fuel (aka kerosene) ….that was all gone in a large fireball almost immediately.”

            That was a response to Tomas58 and HIS use of the word “weaken”. Get off your high horse and go back to Reading 101. So your BS call is way out of line, and full of BS, because you cannot even follow the line of the comments, and who was saying what to whom.
            I left nothing out, the physics and science speaks for itself.

            Flame temperatures in room fires
            There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C,(2192°F) although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, (2192°F) but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.
            The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume’s temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature.
            Taking all of the above information in account, it appears that flame tip temperatures for turbulent diffusion flames should be estimated as being around 320~400°C. For small flames (less than about 1 m base diameter), continuous flame region temperatures of around 900°C should be expected. For large pools, the latter value can rise to 1100~1200°C.

            The Combustion Process of Burning Wood
            Wood heats up to approximately 212° F (100° C) evaporating the moisture in it. There is no heating from the wood at this point.
            Wood solids starts to break down converting the fuel gases (near 575° F, 300° C)
            From 575°F to 1100°F (300 – 600° C ) the main energy in the wood is released when fuel vapors containing 40% to 60% of the energy burn.
            After the burning of fuel vapors and the moisture is evaporated, only charcoal remains burning at temperatures higher than 1100 F

            The only compensation I could give you is this…there MUST have been a whole SHITLOAD of charcoal up there then:
            Charcoal burns at intense temperatures, up to 2,700°C (4,890°F)

            But there could not have been that much charcoal in the building, could there have been?

            Here are melting points of metals…oh yeah…from a company that deals in metals…
            http://www.garelicksteel.com/pdfs/Melting_Points_of_Common_Metals.pdf

            So now your plea of “not talking down to you” because you are a master-debunker has been noted, but not acknowledged, for the simple fact that you have show no empirical proof of ANYTHING you claim to be true. All that has been seen is your warped bullshit opinion, no FACTS that prove anything of what you say to be true. Period.
            When you show that, we may continue, however, it seems to me you have NO IDEA what the hell you are talking about…other than what you have been told.
            All I can say to that is…baaaaa…..baaaaa….
            Oh, and by the way…I am not a liberal, not a so-called “twoofer”, and, just so you know….I have known about both ideas (follow what government says with no objection, and then whatever derogatory names you would want to call someone who questions authority) just as long as you have….however, the problem lies in what is presented. So far, you have presented nothing.

          • Drakar2007

            “I left nothing out, the physics and science speaks for itself.”

            It does, and it clearly leaves you lightyears behind in comprehension. Sorry bud.

          • Excalibur

            Not quite Captain. Words of a loser there, I would say. You know you were wrong and took it out of context. I am not sorry. Just sad that respect has gone out the window.

          • lori abeyta

            Have been and also bombed…. from the lower level!

          • Ditto!

          • Thomas D. Shuster

            This article is as nutty as the guy who claims it was just a hologram airplane and a inside job with explosives that brought down the towers.

        • MisterWIzard

          I still find it amazing that despite the fact that thousands of people actually physically witnessed the aircraft hitting the buildings that we’re still supposed to believe that it was faked. Sure, you could fake what was seen on TV, but not what people standing on the streets of New York witnessed with their own eyes.

          • Excalibur

            I think what you forget is that Phil never said “no planes hit the buildings”….as I would never say that…because, in fact, at least two planes did hit two buildings, WTC 1 AND WTC 2. No plane hit WTC 7.
            Why does everyone forget about WTC 7?

          • Ed

            The center of WTC 7 was the weak point. Some of the towers fell on to WTC 7 and fires burned for over an hour before it collapsed. Right into it’s self like a demolition.

          • Excalibur

            Fires…hmmm…office fires coming nowhere close enough to the temp to weaken steel. Just like a demolition, ay… And your expertise is? You forget theory of physics..and obvious facts. From professionals.

          • lori abeyta

            No. No. No. The buildings around it fell and defiantly could be to blame for structural damage that would result in the way it actually fell. The thing is the twin towers fell the same. Hit in different areas, both different heights all fell the same way. Hmm?

          • moflicky

            they didn’t fall the same way. the towers fell top down, from the point of the damage and fires. wtc7 fell bottom up, because the damage and the fires in that building (from wtc1 falling on it) were low.

            not mentioned by any conspiracy theorist is that wtc 3, 4, 5 and 6 were also demolished by the falling towers. the only thing that makes 7 different is that it stood for 5 or 6 hours before it fell.

          • lori abeyta

            I so should have read this and agreed before I posted my prior response! Kudos!

          • Jay

            because it was left out of the 9/11 commission report, and the 9/11 commission report is gospel. Right? #TrustYourGvt

          • lori abeyta

            No one really is disputing if an aircraft hit the twin towers at least! It is more the circumstances surrounding and after that do not add up or make sense!

        • Dr.RoButtNik

          I know first responders, people who worked in the Pentagon, and people who were merely commuting to work on 395 that day. They all saw a plane. Don’t be obtuse.

          • Phil Freeman

            Calling me obtuse does not change the fact that no Boeing 757 was ceased, or recovered at the Pentagon. I’ve Seen UFOs and ghosts and will swear an affidavit saying as much, but it doesn’t make it so! Folks may have seen an aircraft in the sky, but not one striking the Pentagon. I’m still waiting on that footage aforementioned. Crickets.

          • Dr.RoButtNik

            I mean, my firefighter friend saw wreckage. My friend’s dad who was in an inner level and broke his arm saw wreckage. My uncle who was driving to work saw a plane flying about 100 feet off the ground less than 1/4 mile from the Pentagon.
            They just didn’t have their camcorders at the ready. Sorry to disappoint you. I know I”m just a stranger on the Internet, so I can’t convince you of anything. But I’ll rest easy knowing you’re wrong and deluded.

          • Jay
          • Dr.RoButtNik

            Literally proves nothing. I can say with 100% certainty that a plane hit. I know people who saw it. All you’re doing is barking at shadows and expecting to convince someone there’s a monster there. Good luck with that.

          • Phil Freeman

            So you’re saying that the nation’s most guarded building, the Pentagon failed in having 360 degree video recording of all areas? I’m a member of ASIS, MENSA, a former deputy sheriff, an executive security protection specialist, who’s supervised and installed audio/video systems for critical high security infrastructure. And I Know that’s nonsense. I am educated, having degrees in law and in geology. A man of science and theoretical academia. Find me a single photo of any identifiable airliner that hit the Pentagon. Just one, it’s all I ask. Call me what makes you feel better, I don’t care. What hit the GAO offices for the Pentagon was a cruise missile. Six ton Boeing757 engines are hard to miss, and no amount of jet fuel, or furniture fires will immolate completely any modern jet engine. You are the ddeludedone, DR

          • Dr.RoButtNik

            You’re in MENSA! Holy shit. I’m sorry to have argued with your superior intellect. I will, of course, no hold your paranoid unsubstantiated opinions over the facts and eyewitness testimony I have in my own life.

          • Phil Freeman

            You must have been a forensic debate superstar, or not. Your reply is non-responsive, typical of the uneducated. I’ve provided citations and links to bolster my claims and I get dross from one who has Dr. in their username. You’re a liar, and a troglodyte, a mendicant. A fool and incompetent. Offer proper rebuttal, or fuck off!

          • Dr.RoButtNik

            A. Didn’t look up MENSA. The fact that you gleaned that from my comment is proof of your poor deduction skills.
            B. The LACK of evidence is not evidence. You’re a disgrace to logic and rational thought. You have provided nothing to “bolster” your claims that no plane hit. Just speculations that jump off the fact that there is little public evidence of a plane hitting.
            C. I provided no evidence because I need none. I know that a plane hit. To you my “evidence” may be hearsay, but to me it’s the truth. Believe what you believe, fine. That’s my rebuttal. I already said it’ s not gonna be enough for you, but of course, why would I expect you to stop pissing in the wind. You’re a truther, after all.

          • Phil Freeman

            Again, non responsive. We are through with this discussion. You are a non participant apparently. Congratulations Dr. Dingledorfer. I’m sure your peers would be proud. You’re still a liar and an incompetent nincompoop.

          • Dr.RoButtNik

            You have a funny definition of “non responsive”.

          • Phil Freeman

            Sorry you had to look up MENSA. Id have thought you’d have known about the organization.

          • Jay

            Then why is it the government will not release the recordings from the 83 cameras pointing at the Pentagon that day to clarify this? If you remember correctly, those recordings were confiscated by federal agents. Their reasoning for not releasing them was “there is nothing to be of concern within the footage.” So since there is so much “ridiculous” chatter about the Pentagon not being hit by a commercial airliner, why not release the recordings to the public to clarify.

        • moflicky
        • Mike Rayburn

          Actually you dimwit there is very good fisheye camera footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon. But the mind believes what it wants to believe.

          • Phil Freeman

            Let’s see it Einstein . Let’s see this”very good” footage of a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon. Post that shit. You poor drunk idiot.

      • Brad Squires

        poor spelling adds NOTHING to the story!!

        • Peter Gowdy

          Your spelling comments not only add nothing, they distract us from the actual story. Stop it.

        • Phil Freeman

          Spelling be damned, your grammar and punctuation is simply atrocious.

      • Mark Green

        No one said planes did not hit the towers, except for builidng 7. No one said a plane hit building 7. Why did building 7 collapse? http://rememberbuilding7.org/

        • brookst45

          It burned for 8 hours. Emergency personnel could hear it buckling throughout the day which is why they made the decision to evacuate the area.

        • lori abeyta

          Exactly!

          • moflicky

            Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 were also not hit by jets. What destroyed them?

      • pierzstyx

        Anyone can fake voices on a phone. And the explosives would have been planted before, possibly weeks before, and detonated only after the buildings were hit.

      • Cynthia

        Lol! Really the only conspiracy theories are from the CIA! Nova film was total propaganda, books also. Thia has been a huge disinformation campaign. Bushs brother was in charge of security & let all employees go on 9/10 to finish setting up the implosion devices. Do just a LITTLE research !

        • James R. Olson

          John Oniell was in charge of security at WTC on 9-11 and died in the collapse you nitwit.

      • Brian Mcleod

        Are you really that naive? I would imagine it was done days, if not week before the planes hit. You people are clueless, 99% of all people who watched the towers fall all were thinking that looks EXACTLY like a controlled demolition would look. All you people trying to make excuses are blind. When will you people realize that you can’t trust your own government or mainstream media. You all just believe everything you’re told and read/hear on cnn or fox news. It’s time to take your heads out of the clouds and seeing this for what it was. Like another poster has said a USG covert op. All signs point to false flag, scientific evidence, countless experts in all fields of science, physicis, engineering, emplosions,explosives aand the list go’s on and on and yet you sheep would rather believe some political figure who’s told you numerous lies over the years, then believing in sounds science and expert opinions. Ya’ll are hopeless, keep following the blind.

        • junktex

          Falafel Bill O’Reilly knows more than those physicists

      • Spencer James Smith

        how the heck did you hear the voices of the people aboard the pennsylvania flight?

        • Phil Freeman

          He’s drunk.

          • SkyBluePM

            You are INSANE

          • Phil Freeman

            Maybe so, but that doesn’t change the fact no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and none crashed in Pennsylvania either.

      • Jay

        I have a quick question, Anthony, since you are such a high level authority because you were in NYC that day and you’re a “first responder”, how, may I ask, does an individual make a call from their cellphone at 35,000 feet to tell their families whats happening while traveling at 450 mph in the year 2001? Im puzzled, because just a few weeks ago while flying jetblue in the year 2016 (which by the way is 15 years of technological advancement since 2001), my cellphone didn’t have any service. Can you answer that for me, please, since you’re so smart and just an overall exceptional human being. I apologize for my ignorance with such a stupid question, but I figured you had an answer to this for me.

        • A Nthony Fasano

          If you get shot in the head you will fall straight down the planes were basically missiles like force so yeah it will fall straight down what other way would they have to fall they were built so high onece the top floors crashed down it was a chain reaction top to bottom dummy

          • Jay

            Great, thanks for not answering my question.

      • Mike Rayburn

        Even funnier yet is the fact a US president a few years earlier couldn’t keep a lid on an oval office bj but we are supposed to believe that a building that houses 50,000 employees was wired with explosives and NOBODY saw or reported a single thing about it?? Really??? In this era and age THAT is the conspiracy theory to wrap your tin foiled hat around.

        • niico100

          fallacious comparison. People who are motivated sufficiently, with enough resources and preparation could keep a lid on anything.

      • niico100

        are you this dumb? If this was a conspiracy – obviously the explosives were set well before.

    • MisterWIzard

      Yes it did. There is security camera footage showing a plane, and the impact of the crash into the very heavily reinforced building basically reduced the aircraft to scraps, the ensuing fire took care of the rest.

      • Phil Freeman

        Post a link to this footage of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon. I’ll wait…
        Not a single scrap of 757 was recovered, no massive six ton titanium and aluminum jets engines, no bodies from passengers, no luggage. Nothing, youre full of shit!

        • lori abeyta

          Everything about that crash has been proven non exsitant. For all to be nothing would invoke a massive temperature composit, trace…. The grass around would be burned or at least scorched for feet around it.

    • SkyBluePM
  • M Green

    I am a great admirer of Steven Jones, and have written extensively on 9/11 myself, but I had hoped that Paul Craig Roberts was correct that the prestigious European journal Europhysics had weighed in on the side of 9/11 as an USG covert operation. Unfortunately, very unfortunately, it did not. There is no additional prestige or authority given by the journal; indeed the editors distance themselves from the conclusions and states that some of the article is mere “speculation.” Here is how the article begins:

    “NOTE FROM THE EDITORS

    This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.”

    There is also very little if any newly significant research, nor is any needed. There are many stronger arguments and evidence of controlled demolition that the article omits. The repetition of important but ignored facts with a few new frills leaves matters just where they were before: the USG intelligence community and the privatized intelligence corporations have accomplished 9/11 boldly and with impunity as the largest and most successful major domestic covert operation to date.

    • Thomas D. Shuster

      Get a life. lol Can you say it? I’ve been duped.

    • MileHigh

      Steven Jones can barely punch his way out of a wet paper bag. I argued this out with him years ago and spun circles around him. There was no controlled demolition, it;s a complete farce put forward by people that either can’t think or are conspiracy enthusiasts.

      • Gary DeCarrico

        MileHigh you are a serious knob.

        • Phil K

          And you are a pompous PC turd

          • Gary DeCarrico

            Hi Phil, we’re really not sure who you’re referring to. Wasn’t this discussion about controlled demolitions or something? I’m not really sure what PC has do do with anything. We’ve already sort of weeded out the ignorance, insolence, and the trolls… oh right, I forgot, trolls keep trolling…

      • Gary DeCarrico

        I’m sure you can explain away building 7 then…

        • MileHigh

          Big structural rip taking a chunk out of the back of the building on the lower third of the floors and uncontrolled fires burning for hours. Just look it up, it is very easy to find.

          • JonThomas Sankey

            There are no modern, maintained, steel framed buildings that have ever collapsed due to fire, except for 3. All 3 were wtc buildings, all happened on the same day, and no plane hit WTC7 (which could not have been destroyed by falling rubble unless that rubble traveled through time to before WTC 1 or 2 had fallen, back to when WTC7 fell. There is video from the 80s of the chief technical architect answering questions about the ongoing construction effort, posed by the media, and he explicitly stated that WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand multiple strikes from an out-of-control jumbo jet. They were the tallest buildings in the world, and naturally being struck by planes was thought about, and addressed.

          • Austin Konrad

            To quote PNAC “we need a new pearl harbor”

          • r wood

            Funny how nobody cites this “claim” by whatever designer about vthe buildings being immune to ” multiple strikes” by jumbo jets. NO building gets over engineered for such EXTREMES. You’d need to double up the whole structural strength (and costs) and there’s NO evidence of that. THOUSANDS of gallons of JET FUEL?

            #7 had what might have been a managable fire started by debris but the collapse of the main buildings wrecked water pressure and access.
            Outside speculations that did NOT have the blueprints, the actual properties of the materials used, even good data on the effects of the impact and the effects of a LOT of fuel… are CRAP.

            Then… of course.. there’s the whole STRUCTURE of whatever “plot”

            How do you synch up the HIJACKERS and a planned demolition?
            How MANY guys are IN on this crazy plot? Who thinks there’s a good excuse to set demolition charges on several buildings full of people? If some nut thinks it’s a good idea… how does he then go about rounding up a bunch of guys to participate?

            THE WHOLE thing was on TV with thousands of eyewitnesses. GET A CLUE dude? It is EXACTLY what it seemed. NO wacko conspiracy crap.

          • Nick C.

            Sorry r Wood, i;’m gonna have to debunk you on your claim of buildings not being overengineed for “EXTREMES.” The “claim,” multiple claims actually, is easy to find with google. It is specifically for a loaded Boing 707, the largest jet at the time of the WTC construction. One interview was June 25h, 2001 with Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management. It’s on youtube, and in some 9/11 documentaries. You can find it here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fQlC2AIWrY You can also find an interview with Leslie Robertson, lead architect on youtube, who also states the buildings were designed to. Here is that link ” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_E4Ckuyc6k

          • Kevin Carney

            Impact. They did withstand the Impact. They fell from the fire. Not even the fire from the fuel, which was all gone in about 15 minutes. It was from all the other burning stuff. Paper, carpet, furniture, etc..

            Also, the temp of kerosene burning in a cup is only 12-1600 degrees, but when you add immense amounts of air (20% oxygen) almost any temp is possible.

          • Nick C.

            I am aware of those facts. The impact is a part of the heat explanation because it’s the impact that knocked the fireproofing off the girders. So that would still be accounted for in the construction of the building. That is a main part of the official N.I.S.T explanation. Without impact, fire proofing holds and the buildings presumably don’t fall. The fuel from the plane is what made up the fireball on impact. So only fuel that wasn’t immediately ignited, which should be the vast majority of said fuel, would trigger office fires. So it’s important to differentiate that fact from you saying it took about 15 minutes for the fuel to burn away. The unaware might incorrectly picture thousands of gallons of fuel burning away for 10 or 15 minutes. Also, you state “add immense amount of oxygen…” Typically I hear the opposite, that the fires were oxygen deprived. Are you suggesting air was injected into the area? Even with burning office supplies it is not comparable to a blacksmith who bumps air in from under the coals to keep the fire hot enough to keep the metal red. In the the case of the towers, the metal being heated is also thousands of tons and metal distributes heat though a network of girders top to bottom. So that heat from a couple floors would distribute through the entire building. So even the main area of impact wouldn’t be as hot as many think. I’ll also point out that N.I.S.T. retracted their initial report on pancaking, However, I’ll point out that pancaking was needed as a theory to use air pressure to explain the windows blowing out beneath the collapsing wave. N.I.S.T. still has not submitted their final work for peer review. We cannot judge the heat distribution across thousands of tons of metal without computer modelling on how much fuel and contact it would take. So for a single area to be that much hotter, without a raging inferno, which there wasn’t, it should not be taken as scientific fact until they do so. Especially since we’ve seen videos of raging infernos burning a steel structure high rise all night without collapse. I believe the reason for lack of peer review is that their computer models will not be able to replicate the free fall speed all the way to the base, which is not possible as the energy would disperse as the top part of the building (above impact) has to crumble on the way down at the same rate as the part of the building below impact, which is much larger. It’s equal distribution of force, not just the bottom half falling apart instantaneously. If the top crumbles to dust, how can it maintain momentum to push through the concrete in the bottom without exhausting it’s energy out to the sides (path of least resistance) to maintain the force? It can’t. It would slow as the energy was lost, and probably wouldn’t be enough to crumble all the way to the bottom… and at the same rate of speed.

          • David Starkweather

            I can’t speak super knowledgeably about this, but I understand that the floor hangers were located around the elevator shafts in the center of the building which would explain an abundance of oxygen for the part of the fire that actually mattered, ie. the part affecting the floor hangers, as the shafts would act like chimneys/

          • karodpr

            Jet Fuel can’t melt steel no matter how much there is, it just doesn’t burn at a high enough degree to melt it. so you can add more jet fuel it still won’t raise the temperature. Simple science old fart. You can’t trust the Gov. when they lie to you about mostly everything to start a never ending War. It was well played by them.

          • r wood

            How is steel MADE? Formed? HIGH HEAT. You thing a HUGE volume of Jet Fuel can not do HEAT? It does BIG heat in a Jet and that’s metered out a bit at a time. the Fuel for a BLAST FURNACE is not all dumped in ..1000’s of gallons.

          • Kevin Watson

            Um… so what was the source of forced air to fan it up? Why don’t we all weld with kerosene.

            Wait till the sttel industry finds out how much they’ve wasted by heating steel the stupid way….

          • MileHigh

            No you are wrong. If jet fuel burns in an enclosed space and the excess heat cannot escape then the temperature will go up and up way beyond the nominal burning temperature of the jet fuel itself. That is simple science young fart.

          • David Starkweather

            Doesn’t have to melt the steel, it just has to get the floor hangers up to about 600 degrees. It would be unlikely to get the entire pile of steel that hot for the floors where the fire was, but it would not be a stretch to get the steel that was holding the floors up that hot. Apparently it’s hardly more than clips that do the job.

          • Kevin Watson

            Ask a SF guy. They do stuff like this regularly. They call them Demolitions Teams.

          • r wood

            And……how many such fires were fueled by 20,000 gallons of jet fuel ? How many such fires were NOT able to be contained by building systems or fire Crews in trucks? Name one where we SAW people leap to their death…DOZENS? Name one where we KNOW Terrorists used a full JETLINER as a giant guided missle?

            #7 NORMALLY would have been a level of fire the system can contain, but the FALL of #1,#2 busted the system. The water pressure was zero, Access was zero. While the fire was less intense.. it was NOT able to be stopped.

          • Daemonwulfe

            20,000lbs of jet fuel? You’re pulling numbers from your rectum now. None of those jets would be fully fuelled, as they didn’t need to travel anywhere near the max range of those jets. Even if the article is wrong, your arguments are failing horribly as it becomes apparent you know less about the details than the people you’re trying to argue with. Time to put the straws down and do some reading…

          • Kevin Watson

            My favorite part is BBC reporting it before it happened.

          • wmdoright

            And the Titanic was “unsinkable” too!

          • dooglio

            It fell almost without a sound, straight into its own footprint. It was like someone ate away at the insides until the shell fell down.

          • Beth Austin

            AND THAT SOMEONE IS CALLED FIRE!!!!

          • Al Lawrence

            Mile high, you must be high, you quote as an excuse “uncontrolled fires burning for hours” for the building collapse. Well your quote is not accurate the building fell shortly after being struck.i would love to go in depth with you on this but I would go over your mile high head with the factual information on the government dropping the towers after knowing for months that it was going to happen. Just like back in the day when terrorists blew up the parking garage at the wtc .. the government knew that was happing also and let it happen.

          • momsaid

            Are you talking about WT7? Yes, it was on fire for several hours; its oil-powered generators were compromised and leaking fuel; the fire chief pulled his men from the building after determining that it was past saving; the back wall collapsed first, not the center. I wish that people would look at what actually happened, instead of imagining up these unsupportable claims.

          • r wood

            People with NO relevant knowledge but their crazy paranoid imagination, make claims. MEANWHILE….there’s actual EXPERTS who insect everything, have data, blueprints. ALL Steel is not created equal. You have various tensile and compressive strengths, charachtaristics that DO vary with HEAT. The Volume of Jet Fuel cap produce EXTREME heat. Meanwhile beams and girders support the weight of upper floors. Once the Steel softens it loses strength, the load collapses and then that IMPACT adds to load on other levels.

            NUTJOBS who never were THERE, before,during after, have no ACCESS to blueprints, metalurgic data…are WEAK advocates.
            I NEVER liked the Bush -Cheney gang but…the notion they could, would, did somehow trick us on this is NONSENSE.

          • karodpr

            Most experts agree, that it was a controlled demolition, only the Govt. Experts are the ones who disagree get your fact straight. Why did the Govt. clean the site as fast as possible, why was there no studies made of the site. Everything was cleaned up ASAP. Why are there pictures of MELTED STEEL. why was thermite found at the site? Extreme heat you sound as stupid as you look. Extreme heat cause that is how science works? we use numbers to quantify things. not describe them yes its hot, 500F can be extreme heat but won’t melt steel.

          • r wood

            ACTUALLY….only NUTJOB internet sites and idiots who have NO knowledge rant on without even seeing a blueprint,knowing basics of metalurgy and engineering. IN FACT….. ASAP cleanup took MONTHS. In FACT a variety of REAL experts DID find the OBVIOUS. In Fact ….it’s absurd to think somehow you can synch some terrorists and some ‘ Controlled demolition” and keep all that SECRET.

            our OVEN can do 500F with a trickle of natural gas. Try dumping 10,000 GAL of Jet juel into a building. THAT gets damn hot. WE WATCHED it. NOBODY heard ” demolition charges or saw such evidence. thermite? prove that. In 100,000 tons of RUBBLE….much of it hot and smoldering….finding a TRACE of thermite is NOT gonna happen.

          • Jason Montell

            Can your oven do 500 degrees with the oven door open and a fan blowing inside? The high altitude winds and blast hole in the building would duplicate this scenario.

          • Kevin Watson

            Sure – I cook with high-temp kerosene – don’t you?

          • Jason Montell

            Thermite was found burning in molten steel puddles weeks or even months after the incident. The intense heat of thermite was picked up on thermal cameras. Not to mention a large number of vertical support beams were cut at a 45 degree angle

          • r wood

            Show us a damn LINK. Were you THERE/ ANYONE who knows THRMITE would KNOW your claim is NONSENSE. Thermite burns VERY hot but will burn out FAST.

            To Say a bunch is STILL burning a week or a month LATER is BUNK,,is an unsupportable LIE. A TON of COAL….. or 20 tons, in a space can “cook +smolder” a LONG time. Thermite burns VERY hot,very very quick. A batch that’s portable would burn out fast. HOWEVER….. MANY tons of Jet Fuel can build big heat, FLASH stuff, melt steal and SUSTAIN heat quite awhile. I just FAIL to get how the hell you get a TEAM to do the demolition, kill thousands, stay silent and secret..ANY the whole thing is in SYNCH will Al Qaeda crashing planes into buildings. WTF? Why not include some space monsters and an evil wizard or two? Do you know Jurraisic Park.. was NOT a documentary?

          • Jason Montell

            I strongly suggest doing a Google search of the evidence. It’s free…

          • Michael Esh

            Kept secret by flying them out on the only plane allowed to fly for 3 days-dead or alive

          • Kevin Watson

            So, besides posting an avatar of an old man – just what are YOUR qualifications?

          • r wood

            It was Thought by SOME that Al Q saw the Towers as a symbol……along with the Pentagon and whatever the 4th plane was supposed to hit. In the VAST complex of intelligence agencies.. OFTEN someone SEES the thing that WILL occur, but the IDEA gets set aside or over-ruled. It likely seemed to some that Beruit Barracks was a soft target.. or… Bengazi or Pearl Harbor…. Boston Marathon (etc etc) but some third tier guy sends a memo and…..it dies. Fact is….. “we” can’t go full paranoia on EVERY ” maybe”. Bin Laden or ANY other villian could hit…WHATEVER. There’s been MOVIES based on “what if”. What THIS WACKY THREAD suggests is that SOME high level US Govt mavericks ..somehow….did a co-conspiracy with Bin Laden. IF….IF…. you could get people to AGREE to MURDER thousands of Americans… how the F do you then get Al Q to do a suicide attack with 4 jets?

            WHO….WHO is so NUTS as to say… hey boss.. I got this swell idea……..???

          • Rod

            So ignoring tapes of firemen saying the fires were minimal boosts your argument?

          • denxerw2000

            you know, I’m not into conspiracies, but “uncontrolled fires burning for hours”

            is really the weakest argument you can put forward. And given it’s about the only argument people with blind trust to the official report of events have to offer all those years, I can’t help but be skeptical about it, or your cognitive abilities.

          • MileHigh

            There is a decent credible hour-long documentary about it, just go find it. Kiss my butt with your ad homs.

          • Travis Hugh Culley

            You’re pretty good at spinning in circles, aren’t you? That’ s no insult … just a backhanded compliment.

          • Duy Nguyen

            You are using internet sources versus certified engineers and professionals. no… back your theory with more reliable backers. I stand neutral on this and I see that from their proofs and their professional careers, that they have a point. Your theory does sound plausible but it does not stand up to their facts and analyst.

          • disqus_05dW4Pw7PD

            What certified engineers? Please don’t use AE911. That group is a scam led by the greatest ignoramus in history. They do not have 2700 architects and engineers. They have less than a hundred. Now what is the credibility of an organization that uses a tagline that is demonstrably false? Popular Mechanics, NIST, and similar groups have investigated this with actual specialists in their fields. AE911 has no point except that they are either ignorant or charlatans. They have yet to produce one single piece of evidence.

          • Duy Nguyen

            Before I engage a debate with you, I must know where your point of Standing. I am an EIT and I have seen a couple of controlled demolition in my life time. I have seen a couple of footage of a building collapsed due to uncontrolled fire. There is a big difference. This video has a point but it isn’t evidence. It more of a soft evidence as it is. I actually brought this up in an IEEE conference when I was talking to an prestigious architect engineer at a dinner table. He told me he believed it was controlled because he never seen a uncontrolled fire collapsed a building (WTC7) in such a perfect way. I agree with him. My standing on this is that WTC7 was indeed controlled demo but I am not pointing fingers to anyone on who did it. I am agreeing to the fact that it is was controlled Demo, nothing else. I don’t know who did it, I don’t know why they did it, but I am agreeing to the fact that it was controlled demo. People saying the government did the controlled demo but i am not agreeing to that. Therefore I am standing neutral on this 9/11 argument on who did what and such.

          • disqus_05dW4Pw7PD

            If by asking my standing you are asking what my expertise in this is, I would say that I am a science and research geek. My career field is sound engineering.
            What you believe about WTC7 is irrelevant. What can you prove? What evidence of CD do you have? What evidence do you have that NIST is an accessory after the fact in the murder of 3000 people. How much detonation cord was found at ground zero ( can’t have a CD without it)?

          • Travis Hugh Culley

            I have circumstantial info that will inform this discussion: in ’61 JFK installed the EBS (Emergency Broadcast System) to protect Americans in the liklihood of a full scale nuclear attack. Over 40 years it has turned out pretty useful. We check them a few times a year, we use them for forest fires, and other regional emergencies, and yet the only Information we have about 9/11 comes through independent media (the Interview of Barry Jennings) and bought news organizations (which btw lead to the evacuation of schools, airports, even the Joliet Mall in illinois). So, of all the”info” and all of the “evidence” – where was the EBS on the day of the “attack”?

          • Kevin Watson

            You might be amazed to find out that det cord just kinda goes away when you use it…. did you think it was, like, nylon string or something?

          • sugarpuddin

            Just out of curiosity, are there other instances of high buildings collapsing in a similar manner that were not demolitions?

          • Travis Hugh Culley

            You’re pretty good at spinning in circles, aren’t you? That’ s no insult … just a backhanded compliment.

        • Diana

          Mile High, if that were the case it would be like taking an ax to a tree…it would fall OVER, not in it’s own footprint. Have you ever taken a physics class? That’s just not how it works, even if fire COULD melt everything to that point. (It couldn’t).

          • Phil K

            And buildings dont collapse in on itself ? And “controlled demolition” doesn’t involve flashes of explosions ? If only you PC types had a tenth of the intelligence you THINK you have

          • John

            Before they “controlled demolish” a building they spend days weakening structural points in the building so it will fall in a controlled manner.
            The World Trade Center was designed with an open floor plan when the heat from the fire weakened the struts holding up the floors above the fire causing them to pancake.
            Or was it a govt plot to fly two planes into the Twin Towers.

          • ctraynor

            But the floors did not pancake – you’re simply parroting what you’ve been told (such a good little boy you, are). If the floors “pancaked”, there would have been a “stack” of concrete pancakes (filled with shattered furniture, equipment and, yes, crushed bodies and body parts) at least 30 stories tall. And yet, we were left with 110 stories of “material” reduced to a never-before-seen airborne (and toxic) dust of cement, wood, plastic, ceramics, metals, carpet fibers, glass, particle board, flesh, bone, hair, etc.) Hey, John … does THAT sound like the “AFTER” photo of WTC 1/WTC 2?

          • Nick C.

            That’s not exactly true. Watch the video interview with the clean up crew. He mentions 14 floors were stacked only 8 feet high. http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

          • r wood

            If you drop Concrete from hundreds of feet it will shatter. We SAW the fall of those buildings. we SAW the planes hit, how intense the fires were. How many TONS..hundreds of tons, were ABOVE the Melting structures that buckled? Can YOU say? What SPECIFIC steel was used and what TEMPERATURE is it’s FAIL point? Do you CARE? when the top 20-30 floors FALL… that’s like a VERY big HAMMER, it is impact,PSI, way beyond the structural design of the NEXT group of floors.
            ANY materials as the collapse proceeds will be CRUSHED between forces from above and below.. hammer + anvil on a grand scale.

          • Kevin Watson

            According to you, none fell more than ten feet before they were reinforced by the next floor.

          • Gary Atherton

            How do you explain, without explosives, bone fragments being found on buildings blocks away?

          • MileHigh

            There was a lot of GPE in the WTC towers!

          • wmdoright

            Ever drop a brick on an ant?

          • halifax3

            Yes, it was a government/mossad plot to allow planes to be flown into the towers while 3 Towers were rigged in advance for controlled demolition. The planes were used to cover the fact that bombs were used. See the unprecedented power outages in the buildings on the weekend before. See L Paul Bremer. See the Trade Center elevator upgrades and fire proofing.
            Larry Silverstien bought the trade Centre just weeks before. He ensured them for terrorist attacks. The plans for the new world trade centre were started in 2000. When the trade centre was destroyed, Silverstein made $4.55 billion in insurance from the attacks in 2001. Construction on the new tower then began in 2002. He also said they decided to “pull” building 7, and Guliana said he was told the towers were going to collapse. Nobody could have expected them to collapse, and nobody warned the firefighters if that was true.
            BBC also reported WTC7 collapse while it was still standing in the background… minutes before it actually collapse “due to office fire”. They lost the satellite feed when they realized their mistake. Many assume flight 93 was intended to hit WTC7, and they had to take the Solomon Brothers building down despite it not neing hit as it needed to be removed as planned.
            Complete controlled demolitions. The most obvious things in the world but some people still refuse to see reality. We were all lied to. We should take it personally. The buildings are not pancaking. They are being explosively blown outwards and turned to dust floor by floor ejecting steal beams. A collapse would have resistance and would never be so fast. It would have pushed everything together and down, not turned everything to dust exploding outwards. There was no pile driver. The top floors of the twin towers completely turn to dust before they reach the impact zones. WTC7 is brought down differently, but also extremely obvious to be a complete controlled demolition planned well in advance.
            Luckily a “terrorists” indestructible pass port survived the plane crash and resulting fire ball completely intact to fall to the street below where it was found and turned over to the corrupt Police Comissionar Kerick’s department enabling the rediculous narrative. If you believe that lie, I don’t know what to tell you… except that you have been lied to.

          • Plantiful

            No planes were found in PA or a the Pentagon.

            The collapses were suspiciously symmetrical and seemed very well-controlled, and WTC7….. why did it even go down, lol.

          • Beth Austin

            YES THERE WERE PLANE DEBRIS IN PA AND DC…….

          • r wood

            You are arguing with DELUSIONAL fools who seek out LIES to support their psychological issues. The Jets were rather full of FUEL. That quantity of jet fuel can and DID do big structure damage. STEEL MELTS….. it’s a basic fact. HEAT is how you shape and form steel. Too hot and it’s strength is lost. It was well documented Bin Laden and Al Q did it. No odd MOTIVE would sacrifice so many lives… take such risks.
            It’s REALLY as STUPID of a “conspiracy theory ” as there is.

          • Then why don’t burning jets on the flight decks of aircraft carriers make them collapse?

          • r wood

            Carrier decks are well reinforced and a fighter jet has MUCH less fuel than a big airliner. Besides, the rare aircraft fire on a deck is usually a plane that just landed (badly) and won’t have full tanks. carriers ALSO are “open space” and have fire suppression on alert and in place. There were NO ways to ACCESS upper floors of those buildings. This is SO “not similar” it’s nuts.

          • molonlabe23

            How about the 1967 USS Forrestal fire with a flight deck of fully fueled aircraft going up. Not to mention the munitions.

          • sugarpuddin

            I am no engineer, but how can a fire, no matter how hot, melt steel so evenly and quickly as to burn so symmetrically. Just doesn’t seem logical to me. What is logical is that they needed an excuse to go to war. The people need something big, like Pearl Harbor ( we were running naval maneuvers in Japanese waters to provoke them) And I understand we were warned of the impending attack. In Vietnam it was another lie that was used as an excuse. Also, there was money to me made and things to be concealed. . It is not as simple as it seems. And why Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia, who were the perpetrators.

          • spikedawg71

            Exactly, good to see someone pays attention to detail

          • prymemover

            Lets see your degrees..Im sorry you are wearing the tinfoil hat…you just cant face the fact that your government duped you..what an idiot..you are complete idiot.

          • GS

            Moron. The government dupes us all the time. I just don’t give them enough credit to pull off an operation of this scale without completely screwing it up or getting caught. Clinton couldn’t even get a blowjob without getting caught… yet we’re expected to believe that nobody ratted people out for THIS?

          • slap

            actually it’s been proven time and time again, it’s just people like you don’t listen

          • GS

            I do more than listen. I read to understand. Not just read what agrees with my position. Have you reviewed any sort of applied scientific or engineering materials other than what these guys and other twoofers create? I’m not talking about “why the towers fell” stuff… I’m talking about general knowledge.

          • GS

            Still waiting for the proof then. You are not it.

          • spikedawg71

            You didn’t know about the stealth planes til the first gulf war, they’re from the 1970’s chief.

          • GS

            Actually they’re from the 80’s (prototype of the F117 came out in the late 70’s) and they went public in 1988, but hey alternative facts are a thing now so I’ll play along. There’s a big difference between a top secret military development and perpetrating an all out criminal conspiracy. People whose jobs it is to design and build aircraft are professionals, and have a vested interest in not disclosing government secrets. It was also a much smaller group than what would be required to pull of a 9/11, including people who would need to cover that were NOT professionals. Go on believing whatever you want… no way I can convince you otherwise. Whichever one of us is right or wrong, none of what we post in the Internet is going to make a damned bit of difference.

          • Kevin Watson

            Because – Navy!

          • floyds55

            and yet….
            this building of much older design did not fall down….
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash

          • John

            Empire State Building a much different design with beams and supports running all through the building. The World Trade Center was designed with open floor spaces. All the supports were the outside walls. The floors were “hung” on the side beams and were made with relatively weak truss design. The buildings survived the planes crashing into them, it was the fire from thousands of gallons of jet fuel that weakened the trusses, causing them to fail. As each floor fell on to succeeding floors this increased the load on the floor and also took support from the side walls.
            These “conspiracy theories” are nuts.
            Obama didn’t take away anyone’s guns, and Texas wasn’t turned into a camp under Jade Helm.

          • Blindness to facts. It’s not rocket science. It is unconscionable. This was the trigger event to an ever plodding along plot to usurp the American people of our their rights, property and livelihoods.

          • sugarpuddin

            Has anyone ever determined just how long it would take the fire to reach each floor and cause the trusses to collapse so that would collapse in such a uniform manner?

          • prymemover

            You have a degree in demolition lets see the certification:)

          • BARRETT CRAIG

            with 900 traps I think I can answer that. shipboard fires are invariably attacked with mass quantities of sea water. i.e. there is no time for the steel flight deck to melt. additionally, there is no roof on the flight deck to trap the heat, as would the ceilings in a commercial building…..

          • spikedawg71

            You still lack enough oxygen though, that requires bellows that foundries have, skyscrapers have no bellows, so you can forget it getting hot enough to collapse, but it will warp

          • BARRETT CRAIG

            I’m sure a lot of the windows blew out from the hits of the large airframes- thus providing a bellows venturi effect as the wind/air was directed through the window openings….

          • Unleavened

            Damage control parties and lack of wind velocity.

          • Mega Zee

            Because they are not moving at 400mph.

          • Kevin Watson

            They really should stop flooding those buildings with pure oxygen, then, shouldn’t they?

            And happily, we can now get rid of those pesky acetylene tanks – mere kerosene can now be used to weld with.

            Donuts – is there anything they CAN’T do? Tell us, Homer!

          • Peter Russell Elfvin

            An oxy-acetylene flame can burn steel. Proof of this can be had by starting the cut and turning off the acetylene. Steel melts at a lower temp than jet fuel burns

          • Eric Parker

            Kerosene aka jetfuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt steel. Fact. There’s a mountain of evidence to show the official story is a false narrativ but there is no cure for willful ignorance.

          • MileHigh

            It doesn’t matter if jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel. It can still melt steel anyway. A conundrum? No, all that you need is some understanding of basic physics. And clearly many 9/11 “truthers” have no understanding of basic physics.

          • Peter Russell Elfvin

            When I google the temperature of burning jet fuel I get 4040F. Steel melts at 2600F …. next!

          • Eric Parker

            jet fuel when exposed to air burns at a thousand degrees Celsius, steel at 1500 celicus. Try again. Then try explaining building seven. Then explain the firefighters that witnessed explosions in the lower section of the building. Nice try but you haven’t researched this to the level I have. Facts are facts regardless of how preposterous the scenario it points to.

          • Monica Weimer

            Funny when I google the temperature of burning jet fuel I got 1000c. Steel melts at 1500c. Convert c to f = 1000c = 1832 f. 1500c = 2732f…….next!

          • tesmith47

            actually when you do the math and the science jet fuel simply cannot burn hot enough to melt steel., even under ideal conditions. check the math here.

            The Federal Emergency Management Agency
            (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about
            3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that
            this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the
            World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency,
            that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by
            conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of
            time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate
            the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.

            “The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to
            23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact,
            each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board
            (compiled from Government sources).”

            Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC’s One and Two (Chapter Two).

            Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they
            would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a
            maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel
            for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying
            excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The
            aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

            “If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons
            of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder
            either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was
            consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then
            3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires
            that followed.”

            Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC’s One and Two (Chapter Two).

            What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet
            fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the
            jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases
            left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With
            these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will
            calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have
            reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor
            due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the
            rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate
            that the “official” explanation is a lie.

            Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.

            Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate
            liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal
            starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

            It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

            It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 – C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

            It has a flash point within the range 42° C – 72° C (110° F – 162° F).

            And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

            Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

            (1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

            (2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

            (3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

            Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

            Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction
            (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes
            the smoke very dark.

            In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the
            aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed
            the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air
            available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned
            into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that
            3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means
            that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the
            flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as
            the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.

            Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the
            fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that
            is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even
            though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a
            temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of
            the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

            We need to know that the (net) calorific value
            of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific
            value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt.
            We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher
            maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue
            being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

            For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n.
            The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to
            the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the
            figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the
            equation:

            (4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

            However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

            Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a
            moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the
            other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

            So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

            Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

            Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the
            equations. Even though it does not react, it is “along for the ride” and
            will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to
            use the equation:

            (5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

            From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:

            CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2= 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles

            = 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs

            = 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs

            = 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

            In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic
            weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16
            respectively.

            Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is
            an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the
            bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper
            floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate
            that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper
            floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that
            the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000
            kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in
            these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum
            temperature.

            Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207
            feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were
            constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x
            1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight
            concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000
            kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

            So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature
            to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We
            will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet
            fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

            will release 10,850 x 44,000,000 = 477,400,000,000 Joules of energy.

            This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients
            to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we
            first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the
            ingredients.

            That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

            39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
            97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
            349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
            500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
            1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

            To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats.
            The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to
            raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

            SubstanceSpecific Heat [J/kg*C]
            Nitrogen1,038
            Water Vapor1,690
            Carbon Dioxide845
            Lightweight Concrete 800
            Steel450

            Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

            39,857 x1,690 x (T – 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
            97,429 x845 x (T – 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
            349,680 x1,038 x (T – 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
            500,000 x450 x (T – 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
            1,400,000 x800 x (T – 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

            The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature
            range 25° – T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be
            relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption
            once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat
            for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the
            initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T –
            25)° C, is the temperature rise.

            So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

            = (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T – 25)

            = (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T – 25) Joules

            = 1,857,653,675 x (T – 25) Joules.

            Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that

            1,857,653,675 x (T – 25) = 477,400,000,000

            1,857,653,675 x T – 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000

            Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).

            So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T – 25 = 282 –
            25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that
            developed.

            Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as
            (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an
            unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet
            fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not
            absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is,
            almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.

            “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”

            Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC’s One and Two (Chapter Two).

            Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

            Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one
            of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has
            been quoted as saying: “We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit
            the button, that’s when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I
            remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat
            lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped.”

            Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: “The
            plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I’m covered up to
            my shoulder in debris. And when I’m digging through under all this
            rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is
            wedged 20 feet in my office doorway.”

            Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: “Only in my area were people
            alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out
            later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That’s how I
            got so burned.”

            Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

            Summarizing:

            We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet
            fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the
            jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this
            floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel
            and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

            Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

            Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

            It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100°
            F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the
            quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our media.

          • JohnClark_R6
          • Reynard Vulpes

            Weaken not melt.

          • Ryan A. Meeks

            you clearly didn’t read, or did read and didn’t understand, the whole post.

          • spikedawg71

            If it were hot enough to weaken, it would have only been able to heat up a section with equal enough heating, which would make the structure fall in one particular direction, not straight down.

          • Mazak

            And…… Building #7??

          • Benny

            And u no this HOW?

          • Jeffboy

            You could pour flaming jet fuel on a piece of steel all day long and it won’t melt.

          • MileHigh

            Well consider this….. It doesn’t matter if jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel. It can still melt steel anyway. A conundrum? No, all that you need is
            some understanding of basic physics. And clearly many 9/11 “truthers”
            have no understanding of basic physics.

          • Peter Russell Elfvin

            Because the heat would be all ABOVE the steel plate. Try again

          • Jeffboy

            And no matter how much you put under it it will not be hot enough to melt steel.

          • Tom Linscott

            In the entire history of steel & concrete buildings no other buildings have collapsed due to office fires.The jet fuel burns at a much lower temperature than at what steel melts. You are afraid to see the truth. Grow a pair and open your eyes and mind to what happened.

          • MileHigh

            Well…. It doesn’t matter if jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel. It
            can still melt steel anyway. A conundrum? No, all that you need is
            some understanding of basic physics. And clearly many 9/11 “truthers”
            have no understanding of basic physics.

          • prymemover

            So you..being an armchair expert..are refuting the claims of men and women who have masters degrees in this field..you are an idiot:)

          • MileHigh

            All things considered… It doesn’t matter if jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel. It can still melt steel anyway. A conundrum? No, all that you need is
            some understanding of basic physics. And clearly many 9/11 “truthers”
            have no understanding of basic physics.

          • David L Womack

            You’re an idiot. That fuel vaporized and flash burned within the first 2 seconds.

          • Matthew Newby

            I’m a welder, and there is a reason we don’t use fuckin Kerosene to do it, NOT NEAR HOT ENOUGH!

          • MileHigh

            Ahem…. It doesn’t matter if jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel. It
            can still melt steel anyway. A conundrum? No, all that you need is
            some understanding of basic physics. And clearly many 9/11 “truthers”
            have no understanding of basic physics.

          • vongoh

            Hey, I have some swampland in Alaska for sale, deal of the century! You seem just like the kind of guy this deal is made for …

          • GS

            You’d also need every single WTC worker across three buildings… janitors, maintenance people, security guards… hundreds if not THOUSANDS of people to swear that they didn’t see people planting and wiring explosives. There is ZERO chance that these were all laid without someone noticing, including the office workers who would have eventually noticed holes in walls,etc.

          • laurelladesborough

            Actually, I have read reports by individuals who did witness strangers with equipment entering the towers and doing stuff. Including in basement areas.

          • Justin Boucher

            I read those a long time ago as well, you don’t happen to have links to that info still do you? Thanks if you do.

          • laurelladesborough

            Justin Boucher. I have a lot of files on 9/11….not sure I kept those reports. I will take a look and see what I find. If I have them…I will let you know.

          • slap

            it can’t melt at the temperatures we are talking about. And you have the gall to call people stupid.

          • Mega Zee

            The steel didn’t melt, but it did lose its structural integrity.

          • spikedawg71

            Yeah steel melts, melting point is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit (1510 Celsius). Yet jet fuel only burns between 800 and 1500 degrees Fahrenheit (426.7 and 815.5 Celsius)
            Jet fuel is like Kerosene fuel, the gas in your car burns at a higher temperature btw. Propane burns even hotter, and it still won’t melt steel, let alone structural steel like that used in the WTC, it has a high carbon content added for stability in high rise structures to prevent collapsing. The one needed element to create a fire hot enough would be oxygen but it you need large bellows to get the air required to melt, There are no bellows in the WTC, so no forced air was introduced, making it fucking impossible.

          • Yukidongo

            What people don’t know about jet fuel is it burns hotter than gasoline. It burns faster, too. Those planes didn’t take the towers down. That fuel didn’t burn long enough to melt steel. Any fires triggered in the building would not have burned hot enough to melt steel. And, tower 7 according to John Kerry, “was pulled”, the demolition term for demolition into its own footprint.

          • laurelladesborough

            r wood. It is my understanding that jet fuel simply does NOT burn at high enough temperatures to melt steel. And from all the photos I have seen of buildings hit by planes…most of the building was still standing. I don’t think that engineers and scientists are conspiracy theorists…I think they are ON TARGET with the truth.

          • JGISD

            Wow! With all those CAPITAL LETTERS for EMPHASIS, I almost BELIEVED your uninformed BULLSHIT.

            Steel melts at about twice the temperature of what jet fuel burns at. Unless you want to argue that the FIRE used STEEL as FUEL!!!!!!!

            (I have more exclamation marks, if it will help convince you!) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • bonniebluejeanne

            Some plane debris were put there, but they weren’t the true parts of the actual planes that allegedly hit the buildings. No black boxes were EVER found at all 3 places. Metal just doesn’t evaporate into thin air.

          • Peter Arbogast

            My wife was walking with schoolchildren and SAW THE PLANE GO INTO THE PENTAGON. So stop it

          • sugarpuddin

            Maybe the debris in Pa. was the plane that was supposed to hit#7? No jet fuel but it went down just like the others? And no adjacent bldgs. were downed?

          • Mega Zee

            Wrong. I have a life-long friend who was part of the emergency response team out of Charlottesville Medical Center. They did triage at the Pentagon on 9/11. She told me she saw plane wreckage everywhere.

          • SueTX

            I worked with a guy who was there, working construction near the Pentagon 9/11. He was one of the first on scene pulling bodies out of the rubble.
            In 2013, this big tough guy still turned pale and shaky as he told me about that awful day, and how it took years of therapy for him to cope with it.

          • James Sutton

            I am sure that will come as surprise to the families who had loved ones die in those crashes.

          • Chocodog

            Thanks Halifax, saves me from saying same things.

          • bonniebluejeanne

            People refused to see the reality they went down the way all demo- buildings do b/c they couldn’t handle that their govt could be in on it.

          • sugarpuddin

            Lives don’t matter to them. How many have been killed in the Middle east since them? So they give a damn? How many Americans? And are still dying. They have what they wanted, an eternal war in the area for control of oil. That is all it ever has been. In the book “War is a Racket” by a Retired Marine Corps Gen. that had spent 35 years fighting for Freedom, realized that he was not fighting for freedom anymore than we ever have been. He said he realized He was fighting for oil. That was in 1930′. The sooner we realize we don’t have a Democracy or a Republic but an Oil Company with an Army, the sooner we might get the country back.

          • Cherie Velkovich Clark

            Excellent comment sugarpuddin

          • Jujy Beregovsky

            pretty dumb to plant pilots with Saudi passport and notIraqi….

          • wmdoright

            What’s even more powerful “evidence” is the number of man hours and demolition engineers that had to be used to accomplish this disaster without a single one of them EVER blowing the whistle of the scheme! What loyal “true blue” Americans they must have been, Union men too no doubt. Some feat! Question: have you ever ridden in a VW Beetle? Ever closed the door with all the windows up? Hurt your ears doesn’t it.

          • Michael Esh

            Yes a plane full of Bin Ladens were flown out of the country-where did they get all those people so quickly when no other planes were allowed to fly ? Bin ladens all over the country flown out,? How about a group of men who worked on the Twin Towers ?

          • GS

            Another assembly of “facts” to support an idea. That’s now how the scientific process works geniuses. Also, you are now saying that Larry Silverstien, by stating in a publicly broadcast interview, admitted giving the word to “pull” Tower 7, somehow unknowingly implicating himself in insurance fraud on an unprecedented scale.. and no insurance companies noticed this at all. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

          • Yukidongo

            Go to YouTube. Once there, type in “John Kerry says Tower 7 was “pulled”. He answered Silverstein are both on the record saying the number 7 tower was a controlled demilition. My question is, ok, so while no one could even get into the city, how did they, and how did they do two weeks (minimum for that location) of planning and planting explosives to bring that tower down within an hour of the second tower’s fall. There is also a film from the other side of the river, showing black helicopters dropping men down and pulling them out, followed small flashes of light (explosions) in thee main two towers. These were not visible film crews on the ground on the other side. And, with all those people on the roof, those helicopters didn’t pick up a single person.

          • disqus_05dW4Pw7PD

            Just a tiny nitpick. It was not a pancake collapse, it was a progressive collapse.

          • Travis Hugh Culley

            The heat? There was the heat in 1993 as well – when a van exploded in the 8th floor garage. There was no collapse however. It hardly left a scratch.

          • BJR1961

            Wouldn’t those “late night crews” have talked by now about what they were ordered to do? What I have noticed about anything secret – you’d better not have more than two in on it, or it won’t stay secret for long…

          • Kevin Watson

            Secrets are secrets. Try to look up every individual on those crews and I’ll bet you have trouble with it.

            see Manhattan Project to answer your question about secrets….

          • Michael Esh

            A planeload of people flown out of the country,Bin Ladens they were called

          • bonniebluejeanne

            They found many pieces of heavy metal that had been cut on a diagonal to weaken them, but Bush didn’t want any detailed investigation of all those metal pieces; he had them shipped to China as swiftly as possible!!

          • tesmith47

            dont forget the acknowledged plan to fly remote controlled airlines over cuba to get them shot down to start a invasion, Remember the Maine! remember gulf of Tonkin, all these times the government purposely caused destruction to have a cause for war!!!

          • Cherie Velkovich Clark

            Remember WMD’s

          • Annie

            one of the planes did not go into the building, it was photoshopped.. sadly people need to come to the realisation that their government (or their government at that time) isn’t what they think they were. It was all done and planned to bring about war. War brings in money for the Rothschilds, and the Elite, but it didn’t go as planned.. Bush sat in that classroom and did not flinch while his so call country was under attack.. That is NOT what a president would do if his country was under attack, he would be whipped away by his body guards into a safe place. There are so many points, pointing to the fact that this was a planned demolition, at the cost of so many lives, just to try and bring war, to gain money. This world is so sick, full of greed. I think people are afraid, that if they find out this is not true to what the government has been saying, then what else is not true, what else has their so call country lying to us about.. this could bring about revolution, people up against their government, trying to take over from being lied to, betrayed, and lives of loved ones taken.. it could open a whole huge can of worms..

          • spikedawg71

            Ah the pancake theory, a theory contrived by the idiots that also lied about WMD’s in Iraq….A theory concocted at an IHOP no doubt….Wait weren’t the guys in the planes Saudis? None of their story adds up!

          • Kevin Watson

            You might have noticed that flashes don’t show through walls….

          • Kevin Watson

            Or were you expecting Lethal Weapon-type giant orange fireballs?

          • Zee Hag

            incorrect. have you never witnesses a demolition of a building??i have. it is fascinating as they fall in on themselves.

          • Kevin Watson

            And too often fail. It’s not such an easy thing to do that it will randomly happen twice.

          • disqus_05dW4Pw7PD

            Have you ever taken a physics class? A solid tree is far different than a hollow building.

          • Kevin Watson

            You’re right – it’s much more likely to buckle and tip…. Otherwise, we wouldn’t need all those stupid demolition companies – just toss a road flare through a window. Is that how you think it works?

          • Diana, you haven’t the tiniest clue what you’re talking about. Just for a start, there is a difference between temperature and heat, a fire may only reach a certain temperature but heat builds, accumulates. Secondly, melting the steal was not required, they only had to be softened, just enough to sag and start pulling the steal exoskeleton inwards, the reason the collapse basically was an implosion. There is quite a wealth of evidence as to how the towers collapsed as a result of being struck by jets and also why #7 fell later that afternoon. Finally, I worked in #1 World Trade Center and I lost friends and acquaintances and those who propagate these asinine conspiracy theories do a disservice to their memories and more so to their friends and families. So to Jay Syrmopoulos and Steven Jones STFU. You are spreading disinformation and lies.

          • MileHigh

            Indeed, I have been posting this to some of the “burning jet fuel truthers:” It doesn’t matter if jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel. It can still melt steel anyway. A conundrum? No, all that you need is some understanding of basic physics. And clearly many 9/11 “truthers” have no understanding of basic physics.

        • Jon Perry

          Troll alert there. Or paid shill.

          • Gary DeCarrico

            I’m sorry Jon, not sure what you’re referring to… but if it’s in reference to that fellow trying to explain away the coincidental demolitions including building 7, yes the same thought, paid shill, had crossed my mind…

        • Phil K

          Why bother ? Tits like you accept any crap without any evidence whatsoever as long as it fits your PC mind set – like on subject of refugees and the current tidal wave AREN’T cancer and parasites and costing west (odd its always the west, isn’t it ? Past safe muslim countries galore to get to benefits and white women….sorry – “safety”)

          • Beth Austin

            PHILL K IS A SAD TROLL . 🙁

        • Beth Austin
        • disqus_05dW4Pw7PD

          Easy

      • Harry Savannah

        Gotta hand it to soulless drones like you. You show yourself to be a shameless stone-head…and expect the world to see you as boldly fact-faithful and earnest. No facts in your pompous assertion, however. Just worthless posturing.

        • MileHigh

          I am giving you the real deal and I am speaking the truth. There are no Nazi bases on the far side of the moon and the buildings collapsed because planes flew into them and one collapsed from damage and a long unattended fire. I did debate him and I did make mincemeat out of him.

          • Harry Savannah

            1. Don’t know him, 2. We all understand that referencing “Nazis” (on the “far side of the moon” no less) is always a winner, 3. So you say…and we’re all convinced. Thanks.

          • MileHigh

            Here is the link to the beginning of the thread: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1195.0

            Around page 8 of the thread I get into the meant of the debate with Steven Jones (a.k.a. PhysicsProf) and I make mincemeat out of him. If you have a brain you will be convinced.

          • Harry Savannah

            Generous of you to leave it an open question as to whether or not I have a brain. All I have to do now to prove so is to agree with your mince-meat making insistence. Sounds like a classic question begging matter…but I’ll take a look…a fair man am I.

          • Hugh Culliton

            Other than 9-11, show be an example of a steel-frame skyscraper collapsing do to fire.

          • MileHigh

            I can’t but that is a very weak argument. Just because something hasn’t happened before does not in any way mean that it can’t happen. Do a string search on “sponge” to find a simplified explanation that I just posted.

          • Hugh Culliton

            “I can’t but that is a very weak argument. ”

            To restate your argument, you’re saying that while you agree that in the history of steel-framed skyscraper design, there have only been 3 cases of such a structure collapsing due to fire, and all 3 happened on the same day, in the same place, and when the fires apparently responsible, were small and relatively cool (flame colour and amount of smoke let’s one accurately gauge the temperature of the fire) compared to fires in hundreds of other steel-framed structures that didn’t collapse, and that the 3 collapses were highly symmetrical and happened at an acceleration indistinguishable from free-fall… with all that, and no credible evidence-based theory to the contrary – you consider it a weak argument that something other than fire might have caused the collapse, yet you agree that it’s never before or since happened.

            “Just because something hasn’t happened before does not in any way mean that it can’t happen.”

            Very true, but we aren’t dealing in possibilities, we’re dealing in probabilities: it’s possible that lizard-aliens are controlling Alex Jones, but it’s probable that he’s just a paranoid fruit-cake.

            ” Do a string search on “sponge” to find a simplified explanation that I just posted”

            Help me out with a link – all I seem to get is Spongbob’s 9-11 conspiracy theory and I don’t think thats what you meant (LOL!) As well, comparing a sponge to the structure of a steel-frame building is an inaccurate. Steel framed buildings more closely match the construction of a wood or metal framed aircraft: designed to be as light and as strong as possible. Like an aircraft, and utterly unlike a sponge, a steel framed building is designed to distribute loadings and stresses over the widest area possible. If the foundation is structurally weakened to the point of failure – you might have a point. However, everything below the damaged zones of 1&2 were completely undamaged. There is simply no possible way that the buildings upper levels had enough mass and energy to both crush the structure beneath them and accelerate to free-fall. Please – ask any physics teacher! This is a Newtonian fact!

          • moflicky

            “There is simply no possible way that the buildings upper levels had enough mass and energy to both crush the structure beneath them and accelerate to free-fall. Please – ask any physics teacher! This is a Newtonian fact!”

            Hugh, you’re simply wrong on the physics, as is that truther video you keep posting. Couldn’t be more wrong.

            First of all, they did not fall at free fall speed. I’ve shown why in a dozen different posts on this page.

            Secondly, here is the poop on the physics of falling objects – kinetic energy of moving mass is much greater than mass at rest.

            KE=(m*v(2))/2

            Each of the towers weighed approx 500k tons. let’s be conservative and attribute 50k tons to be above the crash zone (only 10%).

            Use this calculator. start with a nice round 50,000,000 kilograms (50k metric tons and 1 meter per second. note the joules=25,000,000.
            Now increment the meters per second by 1 to 2. now, joules=100 million – the energy increased by a factor of 4. Increment speed to 4, and J=400 million at 8 meters per second, J=1.6 billion, or 64 times the energy it had in the first instant it started falling. 8 meters is not very far to fall in a second, in fact, a free fall object surpasses that in the first second (9.8 meters per second squared), so we’re being very conservative here – not pushing it anywhere near to free fall.

            As you can see, once it started going, the floors below had no chance to slow the top down, let alone stop it. after 1 second, the upper half had 64 times the energy it had when it was resting. no building can withstand that.

          • Hugh Culliton

            So you’re saying that as the building comes down, both the potential and kinetic energy increase?
            But as it falls, PE is transformed into KE + Work, where the Work is the energy expended doing things to the underlying building. WRT Chandler’s North Tower videos. Since one can measure that the top section continues to accelerate downward, very little of the energy goes into Work. Most of it goes into KE. Therefore the top section is not doing much. It is falling in response to the underlying support being taken away by something else. Other than explosives, what other mechanism could do that?

          • dooglio

            Wood proves you wrong. The buildings could not have fallen that fast (NIST said that average time the buildings took to fall to the ground was 10 seconds). A billiard ball would reach the ground if dropped from the top of one of the towers in 9.22 seconds, in a vacuum.

            If it were a floor-by-floor, gravity driven collapse, it would have taken at least 90 seconds. That is, if each floor wasn’t being turned into lighter-than-air particles by slamming into the next floor. If that were the case, then the falling mass would be getting *lighter*, not heavier.

            So each floor needed to fall at the same time as each other in order for the top floor to reach the ground in an average of 10 seconds. An impossibility unless there were zero resistance and the earth was in a vacuum.

            Not to mention that there just wasn’t enough material on the ground after the collapse.

            http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

          • moflicky

            the NIST “10 second fall” error was a throwaway line corrected in their second report. their error was they timed from the beginning of the collapse to when the first debris hit the ground. careful study of the dozens of videos of the 2nd building collapse bears this out.

            your 90 seconds is a made up number that doesn’t take into account the exponetially increasing energy of falling mass, which I have pointed you to a dozen times now but you refuse to even address.

            and continued linking to Wood’s website will do you no good because she ignores these basic laws of physics as well. not to mention the fact she is certifiably looney tunes.

          • dooglio

            It takes physics into account. Careful study of the videos reveals that you’re wrong, and that they are falling at near free-fall speeds, a mathematical impossibility.

            I am not addressing your red herrings, because nothing is falling “exponentially”. The “fall” happens is at the same speed, floor by floor, and careful study of the video should have shown you that.

            Her billiard ball example debunks the pancaking theory, period, end of story.

          • moflicky

            if you say so.

          • dooglio

            I don’t say so, the evidence says so. If you’d but open your mind, you’d see it too.

          • MileHigh

            This was a reply to you but here goes:

            The building supported itself before it was hit because it had full
            structural integrity. Without that integrity it can be very weak
            depending on the specifics of the situation. The building can be 100
            times weaker when it loses its structural integrity.

            Here is the
            approximate energy in the falling mass above the crumbling building: E =
            1/2*M*v-squared. We know that M is a function of time and is always
            increasing as more floors get crushed, and we know that v is a function
            of time and is constantly increasing with slightly lees than the
            acceleration due to gravity.

            Therefor E is constantly increasing
            over time, due to both increasing mass and increasing velocity. In
            contrast, the energy to crush a single floor is a constant “e,” and that
            value is relatively small.

            Hence E >> e and the energy
            required to crush a floor e gets smaller and smaller relative to E as
            time progresses. Hence, the towers fell at near-free-fall speeds.

            Of
            course the falling mass M gets heavier as the building collapses, M
            keeps on adding crushed floors. I am keeping in simple and ignoring the
            concrete dust and debris that is ejected laterally. Note this is that
            mass that the currently being crushed floor “sees” coming down on it.

            Each
            tower had the macro consistency of sponge toffee. You know that sponge
            toffee is like a light Styrofoam brick. But once you push your finger
            into the sponge toffee and break the crust, then the sponge toffee loses
            some of its structural integrity and becomes relatively easy to crush
            with your fingers. Both WTC towers on a macro scale were like delicate
            snowflakes that only held up as long as they were not seriously
            disturbed. The buildings were strong against wind stresses and had just
            enough guts to stand up and stay up. It’s like this: If you were a
            giant and flicked your finger at the top of one of the towers and
            crushed say the top ten floors, then the whole tower would collapse just
            like you saw on TV.

          • Stentor7

            I love sponge toffee, it’s so effing tasty~! There’s a candy bar up in Canada that has sponge toffee covered in chocolate, it’s so yummy!

          • Modelcitizen

            This violates conservation of energy law, jack ass.

          • MileHigh

            Precisely what did I say that “violates” conservation of energy?

          • Josh Speck

            Your argument lost all validity when you said that the buildings were struck in the lower third when clearly one was struck in the upper third and one right around the middle so per physics one would topple over and the other wouldn’t fall at all and let’s not forget that those buildings were designed to collapse only and I mean only if a central support column was destroyed from the BOTTOM not the top and might I add that building seven fell without jet fuel burning inside it and that absolutely would not happen in nine hours just look at the empire state building that actually got hit by a plane too high for them to effectively battle the fire and it’s still standing not to mention that building seven was damaged less than the other buildings in the complex that were closer to the towers and they didn’t fall until being demolished months later but it’s so convenient that building seven fell and that specific part of the Pentagon was hit so don’t claim to have run circles around someone and then come out with that terrible argument because we know you’re full of it

          • Josh Speck

            And I didn’t even mention that jet fuel doesn’t melt steel but there definitely was molten steel! Question the narrative

          • MileHigh

            I never said that they were struck in the lower third. If you want to read me slicing apart Steven Jones go to overunity.com and look for the thread “9/11 discussion, enter at your own risk!”

          • MileHigh

            The three cases were unique. The towers were HUGE. The fires were not relatively cool – a continuous source of a heat supply in an enclosed space means that the temperature goes up and up and up. You have heard of “flash over” in house fires, same thing. All of the physics for the three collapses makes perfect sense, if you can’t see it, there is not much I can do. Perhaps my copy of the “sponge” posting replied your posting just now will help.

            There is more than enough mass and energy in the top ten floors to start a progressive pancake collapse and crush the rest of the tower. Once the towers lose their structural integrity then they can be crushed like a piece of sponge toffee. See my other post.

          • Hugh Culliton

            “The towers were HUGE”

            Size is subjective and in this case, doesn’t matter. The structures were designed to support at least 2 times their mass without approaching their failure point: all three were over-engineered like crazy. Indeed, they were even specifically designed to withstand impact from 2 fully loaded B-707s – including full fuel loads (very similar to the B 767s that hit both towers. Size has no bearing on their collapse.

            “The fires were not relatively cool – a continuous source of a heat supply in an enclosed space means that the temperature goes up and up and up. You have heard of “flash over” in house fires, same thing.”

            The colour of the flames in the areas of both 1 & 2 impacted by the aircraft was dark orange – ask any astronomer – colour is a very accurate way to determine heat and darker colours like the orange we see in 1&2 prior to collapse, are proof of cooler fires well below the temp needed to cause the structure to collapse. In addition, there are many examples of steel structures quite similar to 1,2, and 7 being subjected to vastly more intense fires that never collapsed. Indeed, other than 911, there have never been any – zero – zip – nada-no steel-framed buildings that have ever collapsed due to fire.

            I hope you’re skeptical about my claims – critical thought is very important. Research this for yourself. Consider this: take a propane torch – they burn hotter than the temp of the fires in all 3 buildings. Apply it to a steel girder or I-beam for 48 hours and see what happens. I’ll save you the trouble: it’s nothing. You can cook eggs & bacon on it, but the strength is not affected. You’d also find that the entire beam, even meters away from the torch, would be considerably warmer. This is because steel is great at conducting heat – thus, even in absence of insulation, the structure dissipates any heat load throughout the structure. But even that’s irrelevant, as there was nothing in those buildings, including the 2 struck by aircraft, that could burn at a temp capable of even causing the structure to soften: if that were possible, we’d have a history of other steel frame skyscrapers that have failed due to heat – which has never happened.

            Flash-over is an event that happens when oxygen is suddenly introduced to a smoldering fire in a confined space. I fail to see the relevance to the subject at hand.

            “There is more than enough mass and energy in the top ten floors to start a progressive pancake collapse and crush the rest of the tower. Once the towers lose their structural integrity then they can be crushed like a piece of sponge toffee. See my other post.”

            The top stories had to destroy the structure beneath. That is only possible if the top stories collapsed at a rate substantially less than free-fall, which didn’t happen. As well, the structures of the three buildings have nothing in common with the structure of a sponge.

          • Byron

            The information about what the building was expected to take was pretty all over the place, I don’t know how reliable that is. Initially wasn’t it said that it would be a 707 low on fuel at a very low speed? Then later the people responsible for the building had more to say about how it would take “any kind of attack.” I don’t quite see how that doesn’t lead to skepticism over the claims made. Is there some sort of independent research done into what could ACTUALLY be survived?
            If you’re eager to believe that there could be a conspiracy on the part of the Government, shouldn’t you be equally eager to believe that there is some issue with what those responsible for engineering and constructing the buildings that came down claim?
            Even if we assume that it’s a point between the various claims, that means the building was expected to survive far less energy in an impact than what it actually suffered, and significantly less fuel would have been present.
            If there’s more information that could correct my unscientific view I’d love to know about it.

          • Hugh Culliton

            “If you’re eager to believe that there could be a conspiracy on the part of the Government…”

            Don’t put words in my mouth: I have never claimed any such thing nor have I speculated on the “how” as I don’t have any evidence. All I’m saying is that there is reasonable evidence and suspicion that the buildings destroyed on 911 weren’t destroyed in the way the official report concludes. Victims and survivors of 911 deserve better.

          • Diana

            Mile High’s a dweeb. You can’t argue with an idiot like that.

          • Samuel K. Hood

            I can melt steel with a dark orange fire and I have much to my chagrine. Besides that the internal temperatures are indeterminate even if a dark orange flame escapes as that escaped flame is not the hottest point. That plane punched part way through crating wind tunnels. If you want to see what that can do create a partially closed structure. Get a flame going using whatever material your wish but make sure it won’t be blown out. Once it is going good turn on a leaf blower and blow it through the structure. You can melt metal like butter in that hot box. Out the to you will most likely see a dark orange flame. I don’t ask you to take my word for it test it and see. I have enough times and it is fun.

          • Hugh Culliton

            “I can melt steel with a dark orange fire and I have much to my chagrin.”

            LOL! Before I go further…

            “Constable Bloggins? Would you pease go grab a Timmy’s for me thanks! It’s going to take a while for me to finish-up tonight – you’ll need it!

            We never know when the RCMP are listening 😉

            I am very glad that there are other people out there thinking about what happen on 911, and we ALL (me included) need to open our minds. You raise some important questions that I’ll try to answer and I’ll be the first to say that I might be way off the mark, but the data I’ve seen – discounting for prejudice – seems to affirm my ideas. Full disclosure: I’m coming at this as a guy who did 13 years as a ship’s officer in the Navy (Canadian). I have a lot of experience with fighting fire from a variety of fuels, and on a variety of materials (including class ‘D’ fires). I also have a lot of training in damage control, structural integrity, demolition (very limited experience, but useful), and structural engineering (BIG caveat: I am NOT, nor do I in any way CLAIM to be an engineer or demolitions expert of any sort: I have only operational / practical training in the previous areas. My degrees are in History, War Studies, Littoral Warfare.

            I do have some problems with your hypothesis that in the interest of better understanding 911, I’d like to respectfully challenge.

            “I can melt steel with a dark orange fire…”

            If I give you a section of the structural steel at the point of impact, (2″ Box and H-beams thick that represents the the thickness of the structural members of WTC 1&2 near the impact – but much less than the mass of the I-beams actually used), a leaf-blower and a pressurized torch using JP-1 as a fuel, you couldn’t, in several thousand years, achieve a heat hot enough to render the steel structurally weak enough to cause global collapse . This. Cannot. Happen. See: http://www.decodedscience.org/colors-fire-flames/40609

            “Wind tunnels”

            Although the crashes opened many areas to free air, that only affected the floors that suffered immediate damage, and at the many of them, the fires were c. The building was quite well sealed-off between floors (on of the complaints it’s latter tenants described: no natural ventilation). This was done for the precise reason of isolating fires. Thus you’re correct that all the air those fires used had been started by the the a/c impact zone fuel burst – but it was a flash and little fuel lingered to boost the temp of the fire it created.

            So: the only fuel available to generate enough heat to even possibly weaken the structure to the point of collapse is missing, as only office furnishings were available – not JP-1. Almost all of the JP-1 (and no, we can’t assume that they took off with a full fuel load (needs citation). Weight is profit or loss to airlines – thus, heavy and unnecessary fuel isn’t loaded. Airlines generally carry only the fuel required to reach their destination with a reserve load. Almost all of the fuel from both aircraft was released at the moment of impact and followed the aircraft out of the buildings – that’s what caused those huge fireballs we see on video.

            Thus, with the JP-1 gone, and nothing other than standard office materials available, the fires could not possibly (outside of NIST’s ‘Report’) reach a temperature hot enough to cause deformity or failure in the structural steel.

            So what happened? As literally no other steel-frame skyscrapers have ever EVER collapsed due to fire in such a manner. The fire couldn’t have been hot enough (even if it was in spots, convection would have safely dissipated the heat), and the aircraft impact damage didn’t do it as the stood for a considerable length of time before collapse.

            Explosive demolition is serious suspect.

          • Samuel K. Hood

            Thank you for the reply. I appreciate the respectful tone and the information. I have a hobbiests interest in blacksmithing and forge work and general science. So take from that what you will. I have also see low carbon steel catch fire and burn from a battery spark. (steel wool and 9volt battery) And once that first spark starts you cannot even blow it out. If any of the metal started burning and oxidizing even just the outer layer and constant fresh air is blown but no more heat the metal will burn itself down to nothing before going out as once the reaction of the metal starts it creates enough heat to continue the reaction as long as fresh air continues to feed. I hope what I was trying to say makes sense. But basically once the chemical reaction starts of metal burning it creates enough heat to be self sustaining as long as lack of oxigen doesn’t smother it which is what generally happens.

          • Samuel K. Hood

            http://www.instructables.com/id/Simple-Science-Burn-Steel-Wool/

            This explains some of the science behind it. I wish I could find the equation for how much heat is released when iron starts burning but I cannot. One point other people make is that if the plane had aluminum in its construction and the iron started burning and mixing with the aluminum you then have the ingredients for thermite. And while it is possible that happened I figure just the high winds and high heat caused by initial crash with seat and clothes and office furniture ect. burning would create a hot box capable of starting the chain reaction on the iron. Then once upper floors collapse weight and momentum takes over and starts pancaking the floors below.

          • John Anderson

            No, Samuel. Thermite ingredients are aluminium (powdered) and iron oxide powder. Free iron is produced in the chemical reaction, not the other way round; you have your chemistry backwards!

          • Hugh Culliton

            As stupid as it sounds, I appreciate that you appreciated …screw it: you’re welcome! (I apologize in advance for this rambling note and please understand that I’m not an engineer :-P) Still, back in my Navy days, I received a significant amount of training in fighting all types of fires including class ‘D’ metal fires. FYI: if you have ever have to fight a class ‘D’ fire, water worsens the problem as -before it even reaches the fire – metal fires can be hot enough to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen (the fuel/oxidizer that put the space shuttle into orbit). While steel melts at 2400 degrees, in order for it to ‘burn’, it would first need to be hot enough to evaporate and reach a flash point, and that can only happen north of 5400 degrees F. Unlike other metals like potassium, aluminum and magnesium, steel doesn’t actually burn. When, as in a blacksmith’s shop we might see a very hot piece of steel bar stock in flames, that’s not the steel burning, it’s the carbon content in the steel being burned-off.

            Steel wool does oxidize rapidly because of it’s composition and the tremendous amount of surface area vs atmosphere that allows a fast and low temp oxidization. In fact, I always pack some in my survival kit as an emergency fire starter (pro-tip: “000”-grade wool works the best for fires, especially with a bit of candle wax melted into it).

            Regardless, there is a vast difference between steel wool ‘burning’, and the high-compression 1/4″ – 13/16″ box steel members that comprised the 48 core support columns of the towers, and the similar high grade steel structure of building 7. Given it’s impressive ability to conduct heat, it simply ain’t gonna melt or burn outside of a steel mill or welding shop.

            Remember as well, that to manufacture such steel as used in the 9-11 buildings, requires a very complex, specific, and energy intensive electrical arc furnace and conditions not found in nature. (i.e: In the open air fire conditions of 9-11). Even if we assume a significantly higher temp than those actually generated in either the towers or 7, given the fuel available, it is simply not possible to generate the heat needed to weaken steel to the point of failure, let alone to melt it. As I mentioned before, other than 9-11, in the 120-plus years of steel-framed skyscraper construction, there have been zero incidents of structural failure due to fire.

            To sum-up (in my rambling history teacher’s way) logically speaking, the way that the 9-11 structures collapsed the way that they did, was by deliberate human agency, most likely in the form of pre-positioned thermite/thermate and HE demolition charges. There is a solid body of evidence of explosives/ demo charges in 9-11 dust samples found around Manhattan.

            However, I’m not perfect, I might (gasp) actually make mistakes, and my theory might be way off. I recommend you discuss this with an engineer/fire expert you either know or can talk to.

            TTYL!

          • dooglio

            How could the planes have punched plane-sized holes in the size of a building through solid steel? The wings would fold back, it would accordion into the structure. Maybe the solid-steel jets might leave a mark, but the planes should have rammed into the structure and crumpled up, then fallen to the ground.

          • Samuel K. Hood

            1.) It is steel and glass structure not a solid steel wall. Each matrial has structural weak points. And glass specifically has shatter points. The type of glass they would ahve used would have been a strong style of glass but even the best will either be penatrated or ripped off the studs iff enough force is applyed. Any point of collision is like a chain and only as strong and stable as its weakest point. Most likely the glass was ripped apart where they attached to the steel structure. 2.) F4 catagory tornadoes have winds speeds of 207 tp 260 MPH. I don’t know the exact speeds of the planes but typical cruising air speed for long-distance commercial passenger flights is 475–500 knots (878–926 km/h; 546–575 mph. Which is double the speeds of catagory F4 tornadoes. Those tornadoes can drive wood through cement or pieces of straws through telephone poles. So that is how. Science is a really interesting subject especially when you get into how high speeds effect things and how it can effect what material can penetrate other materials.

          • dooglio

            Explain how the wings could leave wing-shaped holes without collapsing. Why didn’t the airplane just accordion into the building? Compare this to the round hole at the Pentagon (no wing slots). How can thin, pliable airplane wings smash holes through the iron wheatchex?

            “Those tornadoes can drive wood through cement or pieces of straws through telephone poles”

            You have not explained how wind can actually do this. So there must be another phenomenon at play. Something *other* than wind force must have done this because that’s physically impossible.

          • Samuel K. Hood

            http://www.livescience.com/39270-tornado-straw-into-tree-wood.html

            Specifically this quote, “Discovery Channel “MythBusters” Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman put this bit of folklore to the test in 2006 in an experiment involving an enormous air gun, a piece of straw and a palm tree. The straw reached speeds of 320 mph (515 kilometers/hour) before wedging itself just a quarter of an inch (0.6 centimeter) into the trunk of the palm. And since the most severe tornadoes in recorded history have only reached wind speeds of 205 mph (330 km/h), it’s unlikely that a twister could ever re-create this damage.”

            Also I will point out the words “recorded history” as tornadoes may have been faster than 205 mph it just wasn’t recorded.

            The phenomenon at play is force = mass x acceleration. If the force is more than the tensile strength of the material the material breaks. It does not matter if the accelerated material crumples or not once it surpasses the tensile strength of the material it hits it will crumple while still penetrating the other material as long as it doesn’t lose too much acceleration from the material crumpling. If it loses too much acceleration by the crumple then yes you are right it will accordion off. If it doesn’t it penetrates.

          • dooglio

            Of course there were no wing holes at the Pentagon yet there were on the WTC buildings. Something smells rotten in Denmark…

          • Steve

            Agreed, definitely something rotten. Also keep in mind the doctored news media video that shows the plane approaching the tower just before impact. Look very closely at the left wing; it “disappears” BEHIND a building that is far off in the distance. This is just a fraction of a second on the video, so it is very easy to miss as we are distracted by the main focus of the impact and fireball. Once you spot it, the CGI layering mistake is obvious. Why did the news media show us an altered or maybe even completely computer generated video of a plane striking the tower?

          • momsaid

            Do you have any knowledge of metallurgy? A steel beam becomes malleable at 1500 degrees. The orange flames weren’t indicative of the heat buildup inside the structure. The combined weight of each successive floor, along with the dynamic – NOT static – load, rendered the lower floors incapable of holding. You do understand the difference between static and dynamic, I trust.

          • Tralbry

            I have debated MileHigh dozens of time and I easily won the debate every time. Most people say I eviscerated him. Some say I crushed him. Others say I whipped him mercilessly. You know this is true because I said so. And everyone agrees with me.

          • MileHigh

            In fact you haven’t debated me. In my debate with Steven Jones where I said that I whipped his butt I gave a link that anybody can go and read. So sorry, there was no grand conspiracy to wire the WTC with explosives. Occam’s Razor rules and two jetliners took the buildings down. The fact that it never happened before is irrelevant. Common sense physics that is clearly not so common sense tells you that the larger something is, the more fragile it is. i.e.; if an aircraft carrier hits a dock at one mile per hour the metal structure of the aircraft carrier will buckle and deform like putty. The WTC towers were very big and very light, and they collapsed like crushing sponge toffee. It’s a mind bender that you have to try to wrap your head around.

          • James R. Olson

            Mile high wiped the floor with you. I said so.

          • Paul H

            Truthing the truthers – respect bud.

          • ejáye

            Here’s one example, The Dark Knight “2008”; terrorist known as the “Joker” pulled-it-off! Subtitle, “The Day the Laws of Physics Were Suspended!” multiple times.

          • Hugh Culliton
          • Byron

            Show another example of a similarly engineered steel frame skyscraper struck by an aircraft of similar size with a similar payload at a similar speed. I haven’t heard of such a thing happening, but I’ll keep looking into it.
            Weren’t there significant aspects of the WTC’s construction that were somewhat unusual? Show me a building with similar insulation for the steel beams, similar layout of the beams, etc etc etc.
            Your argument has ABSOLUTELY no scientific value. I’d like to see evidence that little or nothing else was unprecedented about the strikes on the WTC buildings. I’ve been looking for a bit and I have yet to see anything similar happening. I’ll keep looking, and if you have anything to add, I’d be happy to look at it. So far nearly every impact I’ve seen has been either very near an airport, in a body of water, or into the side of a mountain.

          • Hugh Culliton

            OK: forget the towers and look at Building 7 which experienced only fire – no aircraft. Presumably, this steel-frame skyscraper collapsed due only to fire destroying structural integrity. Something else to note is that fire in a building is a natural and asymmetric force – it doesn’t burn evenly. Yet 7’s collapse was a highly symmetrical event – also at freefall.

          • momsaid

            It collapsed at a back corner first. Not very ‘symmetrical’.

          • Hugh Culliton

            Look at the footage of it’s collapse. That’s the textbook definition of “symmetry”.

          • momsaid

            I also saw footage from the back of the building, which clearly showed the back corner caving in first.

          • zimbotry

            See earthquake damage in Japan. Lots of them

          • Hugh Culliton

            That’s not what I’m talking about. However compare the earthquake-destroyed structures to the WTC buildings. Where did all that WTC concrete go?

          • zimbotry

            concrete dust which many rescue personnel are still suffering the after effects of, And that IS a fact. I’ve met some.

          • Hugh Culliton

            Exactly. In a natural collapse, concrete can be broken up into small bits the size of gravel, but to pulverize concrete into the massive clouds of dust requires a tremendous amount of energy. Energy that even such large structures as WTC 1, 2, and 7 couldn’t have had in a natural collapse. However, such pulverization is common in planned explosive demolition.

          • zimbotry

            You seriously need to do an urban search and rescue course. Your information is totally flawed

          • Patrick McCarthy

            Okay, other than 9/11, show me a building that had jet airliner fly into it and douse it with tanks full of jet fuel. 9/11 was a unique event. No building has ever been destroyed by a jetliner before, so nothing to compare destruction of wtc to.

          • Hugh Culliton

            That doesn’t account for WTC 7.

          • Patrick McCarthy

            Are you really trying to suggest that while 2 of the buildings were hit by planes and fell, the 3rd building collapsed due to controlled demolition AT THE SAME TIME? At some point, you just have to take a step back and listen to yourself, man. Why do you want so badly to believe this crap?

          • Hugh Culliton

            Not at all – I think that there’s evidence that all three buildings were demolished by explosives. You mentioned the structural damage and jet fuel as a significant factor in 1 &2, (even though the fuel burned off very quickly as at a temp nowhere near hot enough to affect the structure, and the structure was designed to survive an aircraft crash). I mention 7 specifically because, with no aircraft involved, it presents a clearer example. I don’t “want” to believe this. Indeed if I’m 100% wrong, I would be grateful. But I find the official explanation to be flawed and raises more questions than it answers.

          • Al Lawrence

            Never has or will collapse from fire alone

          • Z54

            Not without an assist from Metal Munching Moon Mice.

          • r wood

            Well.. how many got rammed by an airliner with thousands of gallons of fuel? How many had the water fail to do the built in sprinklers or were rendered inaccessable? NONE.

            Your false equivalence does not fly.

          • Modelcitizen

            This is a cointel-professional ladies and gents, lets give this retard a hand!

          • MileHigh

            LOL

          • JM

            YA KNOW MILEHIGH, I ONCE FIRED AN ALUMINUM BULLET INTO SEVERAL GIANT STEEL BEAMS AND SURPRISINGLY IT WENT THROUGH ALL OF THEM!

          • I’mBaaaatmaaaan!

            you really are a “legend in your own MIND” aren’t you…

        • MileHigh

          I wish I could reply but it seems some Orwellian Big Brother is deleting all my comments.

      • Diana

        Bullshit. I’ve watched 3.5 hours of testimony from Architectural engineers to Demolition Engineers who say the same thing and video close-up even supports it. You’re just a MSM-splainer and denier.

        • MileHigh

          I am a common senser.

          • Raphael Bruckner

            Hardly after reading you threads your a follower of the bullshit that was fed to the nation in the 9/11 report…….So your an Idiot

          • MileHigh

            Oh stop it with the silly name calling.

      • ColeySauce

        Sure you did… You rely on idioms in place of technical knowledge to prove your prowess, but still can’t even get those right. It’s clear that you’re just misremembering this so-called argument you won.

        Why are you even here? Someone else said truthers need to get a life… That’s funny considering your objective at the moment.

        • MileHigh

          No, I made mincemeat out of Steven Jones and won the argument. And why are you here? What is your purpose in life?

      • thomas vesely

        first responders were running out of the buildings, talking about strings of explosions, in real time…..

      • Michael Morton

        Very assertive for someone who watched two identical buildings, get hit by forces different in both magnitude and direction, at different level floors. Then they collapse in exactly same manner. The WT7 falls of it’s own volition. You vociferously espouse that baloney, then, you are the crackpot.

      • iggypopforyou

        Yes you are indeed, Mile High. I doubt very much you could intellectually or scientifically punch out Bugs Bunny let alone Mr. Jones. Crawl back under the bridge. You are full of shit. The only complete farce, is people such as yourself.

        • MileHigh

          You are passing judgement on me without even knowing me. I passed judgement on Steven Jones after debating the issue with him over dozens and dozens of postings. Put your brain in gear before you post.

          • Travis Hugh Culley

            I see one posting from Steven Jones, and one arrogant ad hominem by yourself. If Iggypop is not on the mark then I don’t know what to believe.

          • MileHigh

            Steven Jones is a former physics professor that barely knows physics and is incapable of analyzing an electronics circuit. I am telling you this from direct experience. Just go to the web site overunityresearch.com and look for the thread “9/11 debate – enter at your own risk!” and in the middle of that thread you will find me making mincemeat out of him. It’s actually shocking that this guy was actually a physics professor.

      • laurenceofberk

        Should we be surprised, MileHigh, that you present NO EVIDENCE here? Personal attacks are the refuge of people with no valid argument.

        If you look at videos of Building # 7 falling down it is instantly clear that the building is collapsing FROM THE BOTTOM. That could only have been caused by an internal explosion, since the burning debris # 7 was hit with came from the top.

        Take a look.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw

        • MileHigh

          I watched a good hour-long documentary about the collapse of building 7 that explains it very well. I put forth a whole series of arguments to Steven Jones and he was stymied. Modern buildings in many ways are just strong enough to stand up and meet the building code. Building 7 was seriously damaged and coupled with fires burning all day it’s “ankles” shattered and it went down. They have changed their building strategies post-9/11 and big skyscrapers now have an incredibly strong central concrete core that won’t collapse. So they went from an all snowflake/Styrofoam building to a strong center concrete column surrounded by a snowflake/Styrofoam structure.

      • That’s why your parents named you Mile High.

        • MileHigh

          Why don’t you actually make a point and perhaps I will comment.

      • canuckerwestcoast

        you are a fucking idiot w/o any understanding of science….pull your had out of your ass….better yet fuck off you worthless shill

      • canuckerwestcoast

        you are a fucking idiot w/o any understanding of science….pull your
        head out of your ass….better yet fuck off you worthless shill

        • MileHigh

          That merits a LOL.

        • MileHigh

          Yeah I am trying really hard to sell you common sense.

      • El Monciff LM

        Please Help!!!! From thèse compulsive dangerous credules. Ma parole some of the yankees and their idiocy still amazes me for ever… Any Way! I am Glad Most of my American freinds compensate on my sadness.. Enfin! Désolé pour mes fautes d Anglais

      • DENNIS PETRAK

        I don’t know what you are smoking, but stop trying to blow smoke up our asses!

        • MileHigh

          Try to cope with reality. Huge airplanes loaded with fuel crashed into giant buildings and they fell down.

      • Donald Ahlgren

        Those buildings were pulverized. That would only happen by explosion. Multi ton pieces of steel was ejected upwards. A pancake collapse would not do that. Please stop drinking the coolaid. We have all been cheated.

      • Ming1942

        Get therapy, child. You are a shill.

      • djnforce9

        No controlled demolition? Perhaps you missed the part where he said that traces of nano-thermitic material in the WTC dust was found. That’s pretty damning evidence right there. That and the mysterious tower 7 collapse.

      • mike

        NO you didn’t. You are making that argument up out of thin air. If you have the video then post it.

      • slap

        I guess that the firefighters first on scene lied then when theysaid they heard the demolition charges? And that clip was shown live once, then never shown again. Sure.

        • MileHigh

          The firefighters heard explosions and they had no clue whatsoever what caused them. See how you have to think and not invent your own narrative? I have seen the clip but it has been a long time now. Even if they used the term “demolition charges” it means nothing because they simply didn’t know. However, I can speculate on a possible reason for the explosion sounds. With so much jet fuel and jet fuel vapor, some vapor could have filled a cavity with an explosive mixture of jet fuel vapor and air. Like the bottom of an elevator shaft for instance. Then the explosive mixture got ignited and kaboom. But I have no clue what caused the explosions.

      • News Across

        Wrongola goobster — its simple — free fall speed is only possible if you are adding energy — such as demolitions do or if you are in an atmosphere free zone then yes you will hit free fall speed — but not in NY you won’t.

        Oh and please don’t try to repeat some of the now defunct responses such as claiming calculations should have considered the distance of the foot (underground) and that it should be added to the distance of the fall — changing the speed to less than free-fall — that one has been debunked and if you attempt to resurrect it I am going to embarrass you greatly in this forum and let you be the moron you will appear to be.

        Let’s Rock!

        • MileHigh

          This is becoming a “turkey shoot” with you. Yes, the buildings fell at near-free-fall speeds because massive amounts of energy were being added all the time. Can you say, “GPE?” Again, Google is your friend. There is no issue at all with the speed the towers fell. I saw a documentary where it was timed and it was one or two seconds shy of free-fall speed. It was all captured by hundreds of video cameras, the speed of the collapsing of the towers is a fake non-existent issue.

      • News Across

        Oh and mate? The entire tank of petrol burned up in the atmosphere around the building (see the videos mate) on the outside and none of it ever entered the building — and even it it had, there is no way it would bring a building straight down into its footprint. But it didn’t. It burned up outside the building and you can see it burn up with your own eyeballs mate (damn my lying eyes, eh mate? lol).

        That means you and Bush want us to believe a hollow aluminum tube can bring down a super strong — hurricane proof building by hitting it near the top of the building. And you know damn well a hollow aluminium tube won’t even scratch a MUCH BIGGER target like one of the biggest buildings in the world — and you want us to believe it happened not once but 3 times — despite all the facts – contrary to your wild-eyed claims?
        Goober can you hear me laughing at you? You would have been better off not saying a word mate. “Cause you look like a complete moron right now.

        • MileHigh

          Obviously a lot of fuel entered the buildings because the wings were super strong and cut into the buildings and the fuel tanks are located in the wings. That was a whackadoo statement that you made. Of course the buildings could collapse into their footprints, gravity pulls straight down. Yes the airplanes could and did bring down the two towers and it all makes perfect sense. Building 7 came down for different reasons that all make perfect sense. Sorry, but your display of arrogance is putting you into moron territory.

      • News Across

        And now lets have some fun with heat and metal mate! My Father is one of the most famous metallurgists in the world. They teach an entire course over his discovery in every university that has a Metallurgic Program. This is what he said:

        Steel will not even BEGIN to buckle until it hits about 2500 degrees F. 2499 degrees F won’t get it. It must reach 2500 degrees before it responds with weakness and that requires several hours at that temp and or it will not do anything at all and then it takes it a whole lot longer to melt. What additional fuel that burns at a temp higher that 2500 degrees F caused the temp to rise to 2500 degrees? It was not jet fuel — it does not even come close to that temp. It was not the plastic in the building — same thing, won’t rise to that temp and burns at a lower temp. It was not wood or paper — that will only burn at 451 degrees. It was not tar, it was not glass, and it was not petrol of any kind.

        So what was it — if it was not controlled demolition?

        Yeah and this is just the beginning mate. Bring it on!!

        • MileHigh

          Sure I will bring it on. Like I just said to someone else, you have to have an innate sense of how the physical world works, or have been educated in these matters, or both, to understand how fuel that burns at a lower temperature than steel melts, can still very easily melt steel. It is as clear as a bell, as simple and as easy as pie. Stating that the steel must be at the very high temperature for “several hours” before it fails does not make a single stitch of sense, so are you sure that you are not “embellishing” your quote from your father? Google is your friend.

      • Greg Cashman

        Why are your arguments any more credible than his? Your comment simply sounds like an ego- filled cheap shot…

        • MileHigh

          You can go to the web site overunityresearch dot com and look for the thread “9/11 debate, enter at your own risk!” and dig back about two years and you will read me making mincemeat out of Steven Jones.

      • News Across

        Oh and mate with 4 to 5 inches of fireproof, heatproof asbestos on each steel tower .. along with your lack of any kind of fuel that can burn at that temp problem — makes the melting and buckling impossible even if you had the mystery fuel that caused a 2500+ temp impossible — and no nothing could knock that asbestos off of the steel towers — especially an big hollow aluminum tube. That won’t explain it or do it. So far you and Bush have nothing but a bunch of lies — why do you feel the need to lie to us goober? Were you involved in that demolition?

        • MileHigh

          Here is the big factoid to blow your mind: The fuel can burn at a lower temperature than steel melts, and yet still melt the steel. It’s absolutely true. Now, you either have to have an innate sense of how the physical world works, or have a basic scientific understanding as to how an why, or both. Obviously, you have neither. Google is your friend.

      • willthink4food

        If you argued with him please state your name and credentials and give a brief point by point reason. If your study of physics is so advanced why do you resort to ad hominem attacks? Seems you are just a paid Troll.

        • MileHigh

          Just go to the web site overunityresearch dot com and find the thread “9/11 debate – enter at your own risk!” and go back about two years in the thread and you can read me making mincemeat out of Steven Jones. Do I really have to flash credentials? I don’t see any of the “truthers” flashing credentials, do you?

      • HipJipC

        And where are your credentials as an expert? You don’t even show your face. YOU appear to be a complete farce. Your ego couldn’t stand being told the earth wasn’t flat so it had to berate, beat or kill those who tried to mess with your subjective reality.

        • MileHigh

          That’s quite a straw man. I don’t really need to flash credentials, do I? Just go to the web site overunityresearch dot com and find the thread “9/11 debate – enter at your own risk!” and go back about two years in the thread and you can read me making mincemeat out of Steven Jones.

          • HipJipC

            So you posted on a thread a few years ago making “mince meat” out of whoever and I’m supposed to track down those threads, read them, and get what out of them exactly? That you’re good at making mince meat? I’ll stick with the people who show their faces, identities, education and work experience credentials. But the “enter at your own risk” sounds exciting … if you’re into virtual excitement and tons of people experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect.

          • MileHigh

            It will take you seven whole minutes to find the discussion I had with Steven Jones. It’s a pretty comprehensive discussion. If you don’t know who Steven Jones is then you didn’t even read the article. You are prejudging me. I have an Electrical Engineering degree, there you go. So what are your credentials?

          • HipJipC

            Why should I bother? We sit on opposing sides and I’ve seen and heard enough over the last decade +. My credentials? I’m not making a “personal” claim to knowledge or expertise in this whatsoever. I am waiving the credentials of those architects and engineers that spent all these years and much money and other resources compiling data. Anyone can claim they have degrees. In the virtual world you can claim pretty much anything. That is why I am more apt to believe a large group of people who are seasoned in their knowledge combined as there is less chance of corrupt data. It was easy to do background checks on them as well. None of them hid their faces or their real names. You have done both.

          • MileHigh

            So I take it you have no credentials and you have two large groups of people with differing views on the WTC collapse. And you have decided to go the “whackadoo truther” route and decide that that group is right. I had a two-week involved discussion with Steven Jones and put a lot of effort into it but you can’t be bothered. Since the early 1970s with Citizen’s Band radios the tradition of having an anonymous handle has been established. It’s to protect oneself from the crazy and disturbed people out there on the Internet, or listening to you on the radio. It looks to me like you have an anonymous handle yourself and you are expressing an opinion on 9/11 and yet you are giving me flak for having an anonymous handle and expressing an opinion on 9/11. That makes you a hypocrite.

          • HipJipC

            Wow, “whackadoo truther”, was that part of your alleged college curriculum, to continue acting like someone who is still in grade school? Well that didn’t help you at all. We are on opposing sides, deal with it. I understand that it’s difficult to control one’s ego. But you obviously don’t need my approval if you truly believe what you believe … and I do not need yours. I also understand fear and that most people have this illusion that if they do this or that it will protect them. You also assumed that I am a hypocrite because I use my nickname. That nickname is tattooed on my body and was actually the name of a business I had back in the 90’s. I saw my photo and thought I was signed in with my facebook which clearly shows my full name. As I am not fearful of people knowing my identity, I will tell you my full name is Sherry Colleen Duchaine. If you would have searched HipJipC, you would have found that out yourself. Yes, I am well aware of the crazy and disturbed people. I am a survivor of many of them. Sexually molested at age 3, raped at age 25 and most recently almost killed by a middle-class slumlord’s neglect. They were not the poor, they were not the homeless, they were not the drug addicts. They are/were ALL normal, well-to-do white folk that one “thinks” they can trust. Evil very rarely comes from someone who “looks” and/or “acts” weird, crazy or evil. Real evil is like a sneaky, slithering snake that takes it’s time consuming it’s prey. And I will state this one more time, we are on opposing sides, deal with it. Have a talk with your ego and let IT know that it needs to grow up and evolve. Embrace your truth and I will embrace mine. I had this same conversation for over a decade with people in regards to weather modification/geoengineering, aka “chemtrails”. So every derogatory name you can sling at me has been used over and over and over and I’ve become quite bored with them. The least you people could do is come up with some new ones. Also, be aware, those who think that they are normal and need to watch out for the crazies … they are the fearful ones. It’s the fearful ones that are the most dangerous because they are the most reactionary. Their primal instinct for survival is so strong that their reactionary stances cancel out all rational and logical thought. You see these “normal” people in the news every day. They kill their entire families and then themselves. They are the police officer that is trigger happy, the list goes on and on. When they interview neighbors and acquaintances you always hear the same thing … they were so normal, polite, nice. People can ACT, they wear MASKS and many times it is the least obvious ones that are the most dangerous. Normal society in and of itself is insane. Prime example: Many continue to take pride in joining the military to rape, kill, maim, destroy, steal and die for a LIE. They do it for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. The truth is, they do it so that a small number of people can profit, steal land and precious resources and continue Agenda 21 towards a one world government. But that’s just all “conspiracy”, right? Lol!

          • MileHigh

            Well you really are a full-blown whackadoo agent. Of course the towers were wired up by demolition experts and the planes were just holograms. All aviation fuel trucks driven by ordinary Blue Collar men and women stop off at special secret depots to add the additives to the fuel that are used to turn you and your ilk into an army of dupes that post whackadoo nonsense on the Internet. That’s done to keep the “crazy crazies” in check and comfortably numb. It’s a false false-flag operation. Not to mention what they put in Corn Flakes. I would tell you if I could but then they would kill me. The center of Greenland houses a Nazi redoubt and the first thing they are going to do when they make their move for global domination is nuke the whales.

          • HipJipC

            Take a deep breath. Maybe you need a vacation? I told you before, I am impervious to your low-brained verbal assaults. They do nothing but make you look bad. Low self-esteem, check. Needs constant approval, check. Functions from ego alone causing emotional and psychological immaturity, check. The warning signs of snapping are there. Should I expect to see you on my doorstep?

          • MileHigh

            LOL you are trying way too hard.

          • HipJipC

            You Lol’d, obviously it worked.

          • MileHigh

            You have to read your comments about me and then look in the mirror because that’s where the problems are.

          • HipJipC

            Here’s a clue, EVERYONE has problems. Those who admit they have problems can deal with them. Those who don’t do nothing but pass their baggage onto others, even complete strangers. And when one doesn’t deal with their problems they fester and that is when one usually snaps or blows like a volcano. But this psyche session is getting us nowhere and I’m not getting paid for it. You may have the last word as I know that it is important to you. I wish you much success in your endeavors, big and small. I won’t be back to read your last comment as this session is burned out. You’ll have to find someone else to make “mince meat” out of.

          • MileHigh

            Just go read me tear apart poor Steven Jones. He is an ex physics professor and he tried to do some simple electronics experiments on an electronics forum and he fell flat on his face like a rank amateur. He can’t punch his way out of a wet paper bag when it comes to electronics even though he presented himself as someone that is competent in electronics. Why wouldn’t you expect him to be competent in electronics, he was a bloody physics professor. That was very telling. It was easy as pie to make mincemeat out of him when it came to 9/11.

      • Michael Waters

        “it;s a complete farce put forward by people that either can’t think or are conspiracy enthusiasts.” Said the one that didn’t notice the semicolon where a comma should have been. Ah, but we all screw up now and then.

        Beyond that, to insinuate everyone who disagrees with you either can’t think or is a conspiracy enthusiast, is a non-starter from the beginning. In other words, you lose credibility by such a sweeping and clearly untrue claim.

        The reality is that the Official Story is weak, while the alternative hypothesis’ are much more credible.

        But since the government hauled most of the rubble to China within the first few weeks, it was tough to do a correct forensic investigation, which in itself, implies government corruption by dint of tampering with a crime scene.

        Since you’re so smart, and Dr. Jones was like a child before your phenomenal insight, explain how buildings with asymmetrical damage could have collapsed symmetrically and completely, something paid implosion experts are paid millions of dollars to achieve.

        • MileHigh

          Wow you noticed a minor typo, impressive. I am probably being too harsh with the “can’t think” statement because I now realize that many people have almost no common sense or unconscious competence when it comes to physics and related matters. Many people have no understanding whatsoever how heat works.. Sadly, they don’t undertake to educate themselves to fix that problem when all that you have to do is use your computer. It’s so easy in this day and age but they don’t do it. You can go to the web site overunityresearch dot com and find the thread “9/11 debate – enter at your own risk!” Go back about two years in the thread and you can read my entire debate with Steven Jones where I make mincemeat out of him and go into all of the technical explanations for how the towers fell. The fact that the towers fell makes perfect sense to me, and I have always been pretty good at understanding things like that.

          • Michael Waters

            Except for expanding a bit on how smart your are, you’ve merely reiterated your first post,MileHigh. That’s telling.

            Again, three skyscrapers with asymmetrical damage collapsed symmetrically and completely, a result for which the real world pays demolition experts millions of dollars. You’re super intelligent and educated, you say, so please explain in ordinary English how this occurred. This is the second time I’ve asked you this.

          • MileHigh

            I put two weeks of sincere effort into the technical debate with Steven Jones. You could easily find it in seven minutes flat. To answer your question for starters gravity pulls straight down. A modern building is like very fragile super-light sponge toffee. Once you “break the crust” it loses its structural integrity and it will crumble like a tall vertical stack of snowflakes and that’s exactly what the WTC towers did. It was crushing sponge toffee in a single straight direction – downwards. Something similar happened with Building 7 but the initial crushing of the sponge toffee happened at the bottom instead of the top. Modern buildings are just strong enough to stand up, meet code, and cope with the wind stresses. The larger they get the more they get like very fragile sponge toffee and the less they can cope with any “breaking of the crust.” There is your answer.

      • Queen Mennon

        Your insults don’t change facts

        • MileHigh

          Indeed. The facts are that 19 Islamic terrorists hijacked planes and flew two of the planes into the WTC towers and they collapsed from the damage and the fire.

    • PhD, Steven Jones Still Lying About Tritium and Thermite and Caught in the Act https://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/phd-steven-jones-still-lying-about-tritium-and-thermite/ #DrEd

      Still waiting on Jones to address the referenced evidence.
      “7. This is my ‘fave’ because lies tend to eat their young. Muon physicist Steven Jones calls 1,000 TUs “The graphs below show that hydrogen-bomb testing boosted tritium levels in rain by several orders of magnitude. (Ref.:
      http://www.science.uottawa.ca/~eih/ch7/7tritium.htm ) – http://www.journalof911studies.com/lett … -jones.pdf Yet, calls the EXACT SAME LEVELS quoted in nCi/L as “Traces” and “These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure…” Interesting isn’t it. Actually, Jones calls 1,000 TUs ‘boosted several orders of magnitude’, one of the two samples of WTC 6 water was 1,092 TUs so to be more precise, the WTC water sample was even LARGER than ‘exact same level’.
      Jones continues his lies by the ‘implied’ scam. As I’ve noted many times before, there were no tritium exit signs in the WTC’s.
      “Presence of RL EXIT signs in the buildings would have implied large available source of tritium. We were informed by PANYNJ authorities that there were no tritium signs at the WTC, only photoluminesent ones (33)” https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf This pdf also notes that in a dry fire all tritium escapes into the atmosphere. Link is in my article Update: The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs – Domestic – WTC http://www.usavsus.info/WTC-MoreEvidence.htm
      Photos:

  • Cassie

    delete your bullshit website.

    • Harley Smith

      Don’t read it asshole.

  • Krystofer Bakka

    It’s damn troubling….
    If we accept the idea that this may have been a controlled demolition… we have to believe that our Government was involved in the planning & cover up of all those involved..
    That’s an enormous achievement for any Government agency these days….

    It’s almost EASIER to accept the Official Report…because otherwise, we are left to live with the belief that our own Government is complicit in the killing of thousands of citizens…. with impunity.

    It’s just damn troubling either way.

    • Tony

      You should read “The Franklin Cover-up”. Talk about troubling. Not a very entertaining read, being mainly police reports and witness statements, but it is very troubling and informative and involves some of the same people behind 9-11.

    • Harley Smith

      Yes, it is very depressing, it’s one of the reasons I came to Thailand. Sure felt good leaving America while Bush was President. Sadly I (along with much of the World) thought things might get better when Obama was elected, but sadly that was not to be. He obviously takes his orders from the same people Bush did.

  • junktex

    Or you can believe O’Reilly.lol

  • Harley Smith

    Most thinking rational adults know this was staged as the second Pearl Harbor the Neocons needed to fulfill their agenda, but most also know nothing will ever be done about it. Maintaining ones sanity requires that he or she accept the things they cannot change.

  • Chris KillsEnemy

    Now that this new evidence has come to light when will they start looking into the big picture and the reason for knocking down the buildings. Start with what we know that it was to spread terror to the public, there is also all the fact that company’s and private contractors had cashed in on all the things that came with that level of terror i.e. Gas masks, weapons, even bottled water, etc. Now these professors need to start looking into the fact that those buildings we lined with asbestos that would cost millions if not billions of dollars to remove, so instead of paying some company to take and remove it they found it cheaper to just knock the buildings down and rebuild. Kill 2 birds with one stone, but what wasn’t foreseen was all the people who were the first responders who contracted major respiratory problems from inhaling all that asbestos from the debris and the fact that people were trying to save people from a tragedy that was government sanctioned.

  • MisterWIzard

    So, let’s say for a moment that all this conspiracy theory is correct (I’ll admit I’m not even slightly convinced but let’s proceed assuming it’s true).

    Here’s the real question that there doesn’t seem to be any good answer to:

    Why?

    Why destroy three major business centers in downtown New York, kill thousands of innocent civilians, turn the economy and many industries upside down for months or years (the airline industry is still recovering), Do major damage and additional loss of life to a government building, and supposedly fake another jetliner crash into the ground?
    I don’t buy it being a ruse to get the country into another war, we had no problem starting the Gulf War without killing thousands of our own citizens, and destroying half a major city, so why for the flimsy purpose of starting another one?
    And let’s continue….what happened to the 4 actual missing airliners and their passengers? Were they all sacrificed as well? Are we to believe that those flights never existed?
    In the end there is far more solid evidence that this happened as seen and as explained than that it was all some incredible conspiracy theory that doesn’t seem to have a good reason for even existing.

    • Real Truth stings

      did 9/11 not change the world? Did it not deliver the world into the hands of the right wing neo conservatives all over the world offering security in exchange for freedom? Did not a massive redistribution of wealth occur that moved it from the hands of the many to the very few? Did not israel get it’s american tax payer paid garrison in the middle east? did we not destroy one of his israel’s regional rivals in hussein and iraq? Didn’t larry silverstein get his massive payoff and get to build a bigger, more beautiufl, more modern structure when he could not have before? Did we not eliminate nearly 1 million human lives from iraq and greatly weaken their nation? did we not maximize the profits of oil for over a decade. Did we not great a bigger and more intrusive government to “save” us from terrorists? isn’t al-quaeda, the taliban and the muhajadeen not our old CIA special operations team in the ME…

      perhaps you need to take a closer look. There are many moving parts here. I didn’t even get into the massive profits that the haliburton made on the deal or even the many mercenary firms that we employed. This was an absolute feeding frenzy for war profiteers.

      • lori abeyta

        Couldn’t of said it better! How can someone not see how it all “worked” out….

    • Georgann Putintsev

      To Take the U.S. down from Within! So many Win/Wins at so many Levels here, it’s hard for a Novice to understand. We could go back further in time, but let’s take more current events from 1963 to Now: 1.) President Kennedy’s assassination put several Political (Corrupted) Players into Key positions. Today we know a majority of our Elections are Rigged ( Nixon, Ford, Reagan/Bush, Bush (his 2nd term), Clinton, Obama; a majority of our now 8 Supreme Court (Corp) Judges, many Federal/State Judges/Prosecutors et.al., 2.) the changes in Congress (separation from EQUAL Law (illegal for the “General Public”, increases in pay, vacation, retirement plans unlike their Constituents, Campaign Funding/Parties/Corp Monies, 3.) Infiltration of Key positions in ALL Federal Agencies that augment Usury of the People: FDA: approving Fluoride, Aspartame, MSG – Maltro Dextrin, GMO, Palm oils, Opiates … and a long list of other Corp Drugs that do more harm than actually HEAL people & the illegalization of drugs/plants/herbs that CURE our ills -> yet they allow PATENTS of them? HUD: approving CIA drug / crack houses in predominately black/poor neighborhoods, other harmful chemicals building products into the HUman environment, maintaining different discriminatory practices that disenfranchise the poor and yet strengthen the control and expansion of ownership by the wealthy. EPA: increasing the levels of harmful chemical/metals/poison et.al. into our OVERALL environment. The TRENDS continue across all Federal Agencies, the allowances of Crony Capitalism expanded to the point where Too Big to Fail (removal of Glass-Steagall), “Bottom Lining” & “Carpet Bagging” became Business as Usual, Trade deals like the NAFTA & the TPP loom darkly on the reduction of “Good Will” Production / Manufacturing to large Industry Corp Umbrellas (comprised of billion to million dollar subsidies) control and manipulate our HUman population and U.S. Citizens to become built-in Consumers of Usury/enslavement. What are WE promoting now? – Food (Factory / GMO Farm to Plate), Health vs. Healing, Core Education vs.Realized Aspirations. Our USURY / Our Greed must be recognized. Who Wins? Who Looses? Who is pulling the Strings? What if it’s Not only the U.S. they are going after, but our Very Enlightenment, our HUmanity? 4.) Why as George Bush, Sr. with the Bin Laden Family in the Mason Temple in Washington, D.C. on 9/11 and then they were allowed to fly out after the FAA downed all planes? Why were 1M Summarian tablets removed by Nasa & the USAF from Iraq and why are the so-called terrorists still destroying Ancient sites in the Middle-East? How far back does this internal conflict go? Why are we “fracking” the shit out of the Earth’s crust and putting in poisoness/carcenigens back into it? Physics doesn’t lie, Forsenics doesn’t lie, Cancer is starved out by Oxygen. Our Light in us will always shine on the Darkness that exists within our Souls. Question Everything under the Sun?

  • static rage

    First a Few actual Facts
    There are two rather important points to start with …

    Europhysics News is not a peer-reviewed science journal, it is just a magazine
    The article does not contain output from a formal study, it is just a magazine article
    The editors did also add the following note:

    This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.

    In other words, they are telling you clearly that it is not scientific, and is instead just speculation.

    Incidentally, here is a link to the article in question itself.

    Who Wrote it?
    Four authors are listed, Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti, Ted Walter are all well-known 9/11 truthers and are not exactly un-biased sources.

    Steven Jones, is a retired Professor of Physics from BYU. In reality, after he started pursuing his 9/11 beliefs in 2005, the reaction of his university was to initially place him on paid leave due to the “increasingly speculative and accusatory nature” of his various claims, and then with his agreement, cut all ties and formally retired him.

    He was a professor of physics, so perhaps we should not be too quick to dismiss him, after all he does have some notable career highlights. For example …

    He was part of the cold-fusion fiasco and worked with Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann.
    He has written a paper in which he asserts that Jesus visited America (Seriously, he really did).
    I’m not exactly convinced that this guy is the poster boy for the title “credible source”.

    Robert Korol, is another retired elderly academic who perhaps quite enjoys a bit of public attention.

    I have quite honestly no idea why Ted Walker is identified as an author. His only credentials consist of a Public Policy degree, he has no expertise in either engineering or physics.

    Has anybody debunked this “study” yet?
    Yep, it has only been a few days and already there is some reaction. Here is an extract …

    In terms of our usual metric, TTFLMO (time to first lie, mistake or omission) this one actually does pretty well; it is almost three paragraphs into the article. Talking about why high-rise buildings usually do not collapse due to fires, they write:

    2) Most high-rises have fire suppression systems (water sprinklers), which further prevent a fire from releasing sufficient energy to heat the steel to a critical failure state;
    True enough as far as it goes, but it omits one critical detail: when WTC-2 (the South Tower) collapsed, it took the water mains with it, and thus there were no sprinklers running in WTC-1 and WTC-7 to prevent the fires from spreading. As a practical matter, I suspect that the sprinklers in WTC-1 and WTC-2 were already not functioning after the plane impacts, but even if they were they would have been insufficient to put out the massive fires in those two buildings.

    But after that, the errors and omissions abound. Next paragraph:

    3) Structural members are protected by fireproofing materials, which are designed to prevent them from reaching failure temperatures within specified time periods; and
    Ignores the obvious, which is that the impact of the plane debris stripped away a good deal of the fireproofing. This is the usual Truther nonsense of focusing solely on the fires and not considering the enormous energy released by the two 757s when they hit the two towers.

    It will not be the last word on it all either.

    Is there any truth within any 9/11 Conspiracy Claim?
    It is perhaps almost akin to a religious belief that is embraced by zealots for whom no quantity of evidence will ever convince. If faced with one of the many claims, then a great place to start is on the Debunking 9/11 website.

    For a quick understanding of the entire 9/11 Truther landscape the Wikipedia article sums it up quite well …

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the technology magazine Popular Mechanics have investigated and rejected the claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theories.[13][14] The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.[15][16] This also was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission, chaired by Governor Thomas Kean.

    Why do such ideas become popular and what can we actually do?
    The observation that many people take this all seriously and truly believe is itself quite interesting. There are a couple of important points to remember when encountering people who embrace conspiracy ideas …

    They are quite sincere in their beliefs.
    The degree of human intelligence plays no part, there is no correlation between the belief and how smart they are. The smarter somebody is, the better they are at dreaming up rationalizations for utterly absurd notions.
    It is not specific to a particular demography, they are not all white nerdy guys living in their moms basement.
    It is not about a lack of some information and misinformation. Generally no quantity of rebuttal to the justifications for the conspiracy belief changes the minds true believers.
    Not everybody who articulates a conspiracy idea is actually buying into the conspiracy belief, instead there are some who are simply carried by the tide of popularity for an idea. If presented with a well-reasoned fact-based verifiable arguments, then they tend to be persuaded. Others however, when faced with such arguments, do tend to demonstrate an immunity to any rebuttal.
    It has perhaps always been like this with humans. What is different about 9/11, and other more recent conspiracy ideas, is that since about the mid 2000’s the Internet has acted like an amplifier for such beliefs.

    So why do such beliefs take root and flourish within human minds?

    University of Miami political scientists Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent looked into what really explains this. They noted that in laboratory experiments …

    “researchers have found that inducing anxiety or loss of control triggers respondents to see nonexistent patterns and evoke conspiratorial explanations” and that in the real world “there is evidence that disasters (e.g., earthquakes) and other high-stress situations (e.g., job uncertainty) prompt people to concoct, embrace, and repeat conspiracy theories.”

    In other words, when faced with a high-stress event such as 9/11, people embrace beliefs, perhaps religious or perhaps simply a conspiracy, as an attempt to explain it, and so gain some degree of control over the emotional trauma. Because it is embraced at an emotional level, any debunking of the idea will be ineffective.

    It is perhaps part of our humanity that we are like this. The pattern seeking engine between our ears jumps to rapid conclusions as an attempt to explain what we encounter and we grasp that emotionally. Being able to do that gave us as a species a distinct survival advantage, hence it has been naturally selected. If we are really going to address it and overcome it, especially now in an age when the flow of information has been greatly increased, then we need to teach people to start thinking things through, not at an emotional level which leads to incorrect conclusions, but to also think things through rationally, and so empower them to work it out for themselves.

    We can’t tell people what is and is not actually true, but if we equip them with richer set of cognitive tools, then there is a good probability that they will be able to rise to the challenge of this new age of myth-information and work out what is really true.

    • Rob Gross

      Yup, this is complete BS written under the cover of a “legit” journal. A simple calculation can be done by any physicist to show it pancaked.

  • yourmomsaidso

    SOOOOOO they let hundreds of people die while a “controlled demolition” happened? I’ve heard many recordings of voice mails from people calling their family members after the planes hit. You people are morons

    • lori abeyta

      Population control and fear tactics. You sound like the moron here! Of coarse people where calling. People died that is not disputed!

  • How the towers went down is clear. The Europhysics article on the subject was idiotic, and the main character, a physics professor, believed in cold fusion and that Jesus visited America.
    The towers collapsed from poor architecture. As I said, they were steel tents. The steel was not deep within concrete, but just protected by a thick asbestos paste. That paste was stripped on impact at 260 meters per second by large 767 jets. So steel was directly exposed to fire around 1,000 Celsius, force fed by self generated wind.
    At 500 Celsius, steel loses half its strength.

    The thickness of the asbestos paste was below code in most of the WTC. Where it was respecting the New York fire code, being twice thicker, the steel resisted twice longer.

    The WTC’s architecture was unique in the world. It was made to have large floors, clear of any columns. After the impacts, the architect who conceive them, who saw the scene, was aghast: he knew that they were going to collapse.

    Architectural stupidities are nothing new. The Millennium Tower in San Francisco was build on top of a sort of raft of concrete and steel, swimming on top of sand, by the old seashore. Guess what? The raft is sinking and tilting, so is the tower (which went up after 9/11). How come? Contrarily to the WTC, actually, in the exact opposite way, the Millennium Tower is entirely built of pure concrete. Thus, whereas the WTC was all too light, the Millennium Tower is all too heavy.
    Patrice Ayme
    https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/

    • lori abeyta

      Can you explain the clean cuts on the beams rather than melted metal?

      • Of course. The forces generated by hundreds of thousands of tons of metal and concrete in free fall are enormous.

    • dooglio

      Where did the 500,000 tons of steel, concrete, glass, etc go, then? Because there wasn’t enough material in the bathtub. In fact, if that much weight per tower had actually slammed down into the ground, it would have registered at least 3.2 on the Richter scale and would have destroyed the bathtub, causing the Hudson river to flood Lower Manhattan. Where did all of that material go?

      • Too dumb to answer: it took years to remove the debris.
        http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/EricChen.shtml

        • dooglio

          The quantity of material removed was a tiny fraction of the full content of the towers. This is all documented and a matter of record. There was not 1.2 million tons of steel and concrete on the ground. Just look at the photos of people standing at what used to be the lobby entrance of the towers. There should have been a rubble pile at least 12 stories high. Instead WTC6 towered over the tiny remains.

          And don’t say the material went subterranean, because stores in the basement concourse were relatively untouched. Like the Warner Brother’s store, for example. The subway should have been flooded as this force surely would have breeched the slurry wall.

  • Say What!?

    If you know metallurgy, you’ll know the facts. It’s time for all to face the facts and leave their believes behind.

  • Bill Smith

    What would be the purpose of a controlled demolition of the 3 buildings? Would it be to spare lives in the surrounding area? If someone, some entity or government would let 3000 people die including firefighters and police, would there be any other conscience to save more lives when they hit the ground? I think not.

  • Nosferatu

    “they” needed something BIG to change the rules of the game

  • QuackOdium
  • Daniel Griffith

    no Duh!

  • Komissar of Reeducation

    Not one of you slackers has blamed Bush! Get your head in the game!

  • Komissar of Reeducation

    I know nothing about engineering or physics, so I’ll add nothing there. But it fascinates me that we allegedly have a government willing to kill its own people and silence all who would dare to expose it. How is it that the conspiracy websites are still up and running 15 years later? Their own existence seems to testify against their theory.

    • Atropos

      I know nothing about engineering or physics either, but there are actual scientists that published their findings in the magazine mentioned in this article, which are pretty much…extraordinary.
      So, I cannot understand why people in comments try to prove them right or wrong with urban legends, theories and fundamental psychology.
      Never the less, I have to admit and agree with you that after 15 years without solid proof, all discussions tend to approach to another of history’s urban legend…

  • Steve Rusk

    Isn’t it obvious? Building number 7 collapsed from the weight of all the secrets kept there.

  • Bruce Brown

    Of course they did. Two buildings don’t just fall in a perfect straight line from being on fire. Just doesnt happen. The question now is who is behind it?

    • Drakar2007

      “Two buildings don’t just fall in a perfect straight line”

      Convenient then that this isn’t really what happened.

  • Boba Vette

    idiots.
    .
    “Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort. The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors. Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing. Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, “How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash […] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?”[95]”

    • Drakar2007

      Pssh. The twoofers have hand-waved away much bigger logical issues than the fact that planning for CD would take hundreds of workers months to do (yet none of them have ever come forward after the fact).

      • Boba Vette

        Yea, the sad part is when I tell them that my loved one died in the north tower, they go on about how I need to look into the government murder of my aunt when I physically saw the planes hit….SMFH

        • dooglio

          You saw the planes themselves? You were there? Or did you see them on tv?

          • Boba Vette

            Corrected the mistake. It should be “She” instead of “I”

          • dooglio

            So I’m supposed to believe a second hand account? That’s called “hearsay.”

          • Boba Vette

            She was effing there you tool. Since you where NOT there EVERYTHING you have heard is second hand…SMFH…..My aunt died in that tower and she saw the plan hit…..you on the other hand just have your masturbation and fake videos…hope you die….

          • dooglio

            All I have is your word. Some stranger on the Internet.

            For the sake of argument, suppose your story is true (which I have no evidence at all, and hence no reason to actually believe), she didn’t see it hit. She saw the explosion and was told it was a plane. That happened a lot with the people interviewed who were there, many first responders. Many of them didn’t even see any planes, but were told that must have been what they were. That is basic human physiology–memory is often very flawed and susceptible to suggestion.

            I do not wish you to die. I wish a long and happy life to you. And I hope you will actually start to look at the evidence of what happened that day and stop believing the professional liars on the TV and in our government.

          • Boba Vette

            People in new York SAW the plane. They have over 7k in witness said THEY saw the plane hit. She saw AND heard it. SMFH

          • dooglio

            They were *told* they saw a plane. Memory can be like that. We seek to explain things we don’t understand when the see them.

            You have no proof that there were any planes at all.

          • Boba Vette

            NO they saw the plane. I have eye witness you have conjecture….and obviously mental issues.

          • dooglio

            I have your word for it. That’s all. Sorry, but I’ll go with the evidence, and the evidence does not allow for planes to actually have smashed into the buildings. The evidence is that it was a huge fraud.

  • Sunny’s Therapist

    Why was the site hot and molten for months afterwards?

    • Drakar2007

      [citation needed]

  • Michael Petch

    If one actually opens the actual EuroPhysics article and reads it, you’d find the editors prefaced the article (page 26) they were publishing with:

    “NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
    This feature is somewhat different from our usual
    purely scientific articles, in that it contains some
    SPECULATION. However, given the timing and the
    importance of the issue, we consider that this
    feature is sufficiently technical and interesting
    to merit publication for our readers. Obviously,
    the content of this article is the responsibility
    of the authors”

    The fact the editors have to point out that it involves speculation should clue people into the idea that this article doesn’t “conclude” anything on the matter and that it diverged from their normal purely scientific articles. The editors even distance themselves from content by pointing out the content was the responsibility of the authors. It is yet another speculative piece of work that happened to be published, and the right wing conspiracy nuts avoided to mention the disclaimer.

    http://www.europhysicsnews.org/…/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

  • dooglio

    The towers were not taken out with conventional demolition, either.

    http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/

    • moflicky

      come on, don’t leave us in the dark! tell us what really happened! your link requires me to buy something to find out. spill! spill it!

      • dooglio

        Fine. Don’t buy the book. Pirate a PDF from The Pirate Bay for all I care.

        Or go to Dr. Wood’s site itself:

        http://www.drjudywood.com/new.html

        If you read anything at all, just read the “Billiard ball example.” That refutes the official story of a gravity-induced collapse brought on by weakened steel supports in the building’s superstructure due to fires caused by burning jet-fuel.

        • moflicky

          I spotted several logical fallacies in Dr. Wood’s billiard ball example.

          first of all, she’s measuring from the top of the towers. the first debris fell from about 2/3 up on the south tower and about 3/4 up on the north tower – so all her calculations are off.

          secondly, the videos show much of the debris was ejected with force from the collapse zone of the buildings – some of it down.

          next, if you look at every video of the collapses, you’d see that only the outer debris field fell at freefall speeds. the building inside the dust plume took much longer to reach ground level – the tell tale sign that the main part of the building is still falling is the dust cloud being sucked in and down after it – replacing with air and dust where the building used to be.

          finally, if you think that every video tape of the 2nd plane was altered – even the live coverage by networks, which I watched live – despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses saw a jet airliner fly into the building, you’re even a bigger fool than I first thought and you’re not worth my time.

          • dooglio

            No, her calculations are not off. You need to go back and reanalyze. In order for those floors to hit bottom as fast as they did, they would have to fall at free-fall speeds. What is described is physically impossible. Don’t try to pass this off as a miscalculation.

            All of the video collapses do show debris being hurled out, but also an inordinate amount of dust. Very little debris hit the ground at ground zero. The Bathtub, for example, was almost completely undamaged. 500,000 tons of steel and concrete, per building, slamming down into the ground would have ruptured it and flooded Lower Manhattan. That didn’t happen, so we are missing most of the buildings.

            Yes, every tape that was shown to Americans on 9/11 that had a plane in it was altered. I am not being foolish, I am going with the evidence. There isn’t that much footage of the planes–and everything that was shown was shown by the networks. Unless you have more footage that I haven’t seen? If so, I would like to see it.

            I’m sorry you feel that I’m not “worth your time,” but the truth is sometimes hard to take, particularly when it butts up against deeply-held faith.

          • moflicky

            read the rest of my post. and you aren’t worth my time if you think the jets were figments of 100k people’s imaginations.

          • dooglio

            And you aren’t worth my time if you believe the official conspiracy theory, and aren’t going to confront the science and evidence behind what Dr. Judy Wood is saying.

          • moflicky

            I gave you my reasons for not accepting Dr. Wood’s nonsense. besides, if the vast media conspiracy can edit live video to insert jet airliners on the fly, they could have edited the building collapses to make them last long enough to satisfy you.

          • dooglio

            That’s your problem for not accepting reality. I mean that’s on you, dude.

          • moflicky

            lots of videos of the 2nd plane. that’s some pretty amazing work to get all these people to let the gubmint take their videos and alter them before giving them back.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk

  • Nathaniel Peterson

    People keep claiming that the towers had to burn for them to collapse. That’s not true. What, is it hard to believe that a Boeing 747 jet could produce a sufficient decrease in structural integrity for them to collapse on their own?