I encourage all users online to watch this very informative life-changing documentary that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the US govt. was intimately involved in the sept.11th attacks.

Watch it here- www.seeloosechange.com
This might work better-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...&q=loose+change

-copy and paste it into your browser address bar.

Please post to tell me if you have decided to watch it, but do not debate or criticise if you have not watched the documentary yet.

Sorry you can't advertise forums here
-borgster101

I got a google error. Also is this thing over an hour long? I think it may have been posted before.

ive seen quite a few of these "docos" and none of them so far have convinced me....the only thing ive realised is america completely missed it when they could of easily found out what they were planning to do CIA and FBI now work together

Hello random spambot.

As to this, it looks B/S to me, as Hyper had one come up there also. There was some talk about it, then when I found a report that was in New Scientist about it (got to find it), someone pointed out that you shouldn't believe it as the report talks about a department that is part of The Department of Homeland Security (in the US). In case you missed it, that mena the report came from THREM, so you shoud never believe those facts that want you to buy a lie (or whatever crap they believe in about it).

This just seems like a sneaky forum plug.

Did you watch the documentary, perchance?

I'll leave this thread open for anyone interested in the documentary, but you can't direct people to other forums to discuss it.

I haven't watched the docu, but I'm fairly convinced that the world trade centre attacks weren't done by the US Government. But to be honest I don't really care either way. It's not as if mainstream opinion is ever going to think that the US did it, so if they did they're going to get away with it.

Not if me and my mates have anything to do with it. There is a huge 9/11 truth movement, and it is on the rise day by day.

Lex on HA posted the same link a while ago and to be honest, while I've seen a lot of BS and while a couple of points in this doco left something to be desired, this is very credible. I'm not making any assumptions here but that said, I'm not the type to say, "The US Gov could never do something like that!!!", either.

I’ll go as far as to say this conspiracy is a possibility and over all, there is a bit of evidence to back it up.

haven't alot of people stated that an another attack will take place on american soil with the next two to three years, like 99% sure kind of thing??

Well I'm hardly going to download that video on my 31kb connection, so perhaps someone would like to post up a summery of the evidence?

Did anybody see the documentary on SBS a while ago about the anti sematists who claim that 9/11 was actually perpetrated by Jews? They claim that no jews died in the attacks.

The documentary was presented by a jewish man whose brother died in the attacks - it was fairly interesting.

I think it's fairly plainly obvious that 9/11 was not an inside job and the US government had no hand in it happening. It's good that people question what they're told in the media but all the documentaries claiming that 9/11 was an inside job are wrong.

Oh, so they're wrong are they? Okay, prove it wrong. Watch the documentary and disprove the evidence for me.

I'm waiting.

Yes, a few minutes of it. I got sick of the YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD A LIE! crap that is in it. Now from what I did see in it and other website that say they have the "ture" story of what happened. Somthing that those people that call themselves scientist don't know as they lie to you for "them". So they look at this with their tin foil hats that protect them from whatever ray is pointed at them and workout things that "no one else can see". Even if the idea was thrown out by those that "lie for them".

Now the general points that are made are this.
- No steel building has fallen in history.
- The fire was too fast.
- There wasn't the heat to do that.
- The tower would have been able to stand.
- "You can see the signs of the bombs going off before the tower falls."
- Whatever thing they want to point out that I forgot.

Now the reason they list this is to say that the US wanted to make people fear something that wasn't their before for the sole reason they could get a war. That is something that I will not go into at all. What I will go into is the facts about the attack which have come from real studes about the Towers.

Now when it comes to the point about no steel buildings falling, this is a half turth. They have fallen in the past, but not over 30 stories. When they did fall it was because of issues with weak steel, something acted on it (bomb, etc), or just something that people didn't plan. Now the Twin Towers stood after a bomb hit them (in 93), but that changed when a plan that was fueled to cross the US hit them.

On the point about the fire this is when the story of the Tower (forgot which one or which city) that was on fire for 22 hours and didn't fall. Now the fire did happen, but the fire wasn't able to get to the right temp as it wasn't in a spot that would lead to it to fall or to have the heat trapped like it was on 9/11. Now there are many things that would have never been able to get up to the temps to make the steel fail like it did. What did do it was the fact that all that the heat was built up in a small area which didn't have much space to get out of.

With the heat they point out that there is nothing that could reach that level of heat. Now a human body can (if allowed to "slow burn"). What did get it was the fact that fires were in the area that were the building had been damaged the most (i.e. where the planes hit). Now those undameged struts (or whatever they are called) started to bend in the heat. This is something that has been shown under test conditions to happen (see below images).





Now when they struts started to bend like that they weaken the overall support that would have been there. Now without that support the towers would have not been able to hold up as much as they weight as they would normally (the hole in the side of the building wouldn't have helped at all). So when it hit that point, they would have fallen.

As a note, the levels and the shell of The Twin Towers are two sperate things. One could work without the other being if the other was badly damages (say a fire inside). What didn't help was when both where hit like that. Another point that comes out here is that the towers would have stood an impact from a plane as they were designed to. That is ture, but not that type of plane or hitting in those places.

Now that last thing is about the way the building fell, that is in a pin drop. Now it is pointed out that only a explosives could do that (something that they point out can be seen in the photos). What happened was that the weight that could no longer be supported started to build up at the point that lead to the weight became too great to hold in the end, then fell. This happened before the rest of the building fell behind it.

Now this really looks like a crap post (and the damn thing took me a while to type). But there are things which that video gives off as "ture facts" but are wrong.

whoa. now thats a post! there is nothing worse than a doco presenting facts which are clearly not its just so ignorant. it pisses me off

Yeah, if it looks random at times thats because it took me a while to post it.

Yeah good post squto.

I'd also add that there is to my knowledge no examples in history of what happens when a large plane hits a large building so it's fairly difficult to work out what should happen in that situation.

Also the question really needs to be asked of motive. Why would the US government commit those acts? So that they could go into Iraq and control the oil there? That seems to be the only serious reason that they could do that. But look at what is happening in Iraq - and many many people were predicting that what's happening is exactly what was going to happen prior to the war starting. It's hard to believe that the US government could so carefully plan such an event as 9/11 but make such a complete botch of Afghanistan and Iraq. Clearly in hindsight 9/11 happening was not in the best interests of America, the American government or the people of America. The only people to have profited from this are the oil barrons in the middle east and they already have so much money and the prospect of making so much more in the future that is hard to imagine why you would take such a huge risk of setting up an event like 9/11 just so you can get the same money you would make anyway, but faster.

So basically 9/11 conspiracies are a load of shit and people who believe them will believe anything. Incidentally I have started a fund to make this documentary more wide spread to spread the truth. You can make a donation using pay pal - beast9 at gmail dot com or you can send me an email and I'll give you my postal address to send in cash, cheques or money orders.

I wonder if LoveCraken will come back and post?? :P

Why did the Reichstag fire happen? Why the incident in the Tokin Gulf, why the incident involving the USS Maine, why the lies about babies removed from their incubators? And these are just a select few incidents that you apparantly don't know anything about, so i suggest you look into them.

Now if you read the Northwoods documents, which i suggest you do, then you already have your answer. Governments have conspired and continue to conspire because they need public and/or international support for their political agenda's. And why they pursue these agenda's is because it involves trillions of dollars. You think nobody provits from this "war on terror"? Ironically even the Bin Ladens prosper.

You also might want to read into some of the neo-conservative documents. The things they talk about for example is bio weapons specifically target against a race and their main goal is basically world domination or empire building (Remember the third Reich?). This may seem far fetched to you, but it's all documented by the neo-cons themselves. I'm not making this stuff up.

The truth movement is not about spreading the truth, but about exposing the things that are not true. Of course that means that an alternative to the official story must exist and therefor the truth movement has been forced to give a possible explanation that is supported by all the facts. So in short we do not know what happened, but we know what did not happen and we represent the facts and urge people to do their own research.

The fire theory only stands because it is the only one being considered. People like to point out that experts support the official theories, but remember that very prominent experts claimed that fire melted the steel until people exposed that this was not possible. Then experts claimed that fire severely weakened the steel again till people exposed that this was also not possible and therefor the official theory has changed quite a bit, but still focusses on fire being the main reason why the buildings collapsed (because they don't consider any alternatives)

The funny thing about the fire theory however is that no matter how you look at it, there isn't anything that supports it.

If you look at it from a historical perspective than no steel building has ever collapsed because of fire. The madrid fire was burning for 20 hours totally out of control. Windows broke under the intense heat and fire was litteraly shooting out of every window and evey crack in the wall. The building did not collapse. Not even the aluminum desks inside the building melted. (Fire in madrid has been estimated to reach 800 Celcius). Compared to the Twin Towers, no windows broke under the heat, people where hanging outside clamping on to the steel beams and even people were spotted inside the impact holes of the plane.

If you take a physics approach to this and consider the energy released by jet fuel and the burning of typical office furnishing and then consider the mass and dimensions and the reaction of structural steel to heat for the given time duration of the fire than even under very generous assumptions the maximum temperature of the steel would only be around 300 - 350 Celcius. By far not enough to significantly weaken the steel. To quote NIST:

If you look at conducted experiments, take for example experiments with fires in car parks. The maximum temperature of the fire (not the temperature of the steel) was measured at 360 Celcius.
If you look at how structural steel is tested, the certification ASTM E119, which we are pretty sure the steel in the towers was certified with, means that the steel is certified for 1093 Celcius for 6 hours.
NIST reconstructed an actual model of the WTC, but till this day the haven't been able to get it to collapse. Even with computer models they had to reconfigure the input to even get a possibility of collapse.

If you look at eyewitness accounts, no stories about a raging inferno (we do have many accounts claiming there were bombs going off in the building), but in fact there are tapes from two fire fighters reaching floors near the impact and in one example and reporting, i'm paraphrasing here, "two isolated pockets of fires that can be knocked down with 2 lines". We simply are missing the raging inferno here and we need a fire at least above 1000 Celsius spreading a whole floor to even consider significant weakening of the steel in 56 minutes.

And then if you look at the evidence, and there is very little because most of it was destroyed illegaly, NIST did a paint study of 170 samples from steel near the impact area of the plane and found only 3 samples heated above 250 Celcius and claimed that the study was performed over to few samples to draw any conclusions from it. But that's actually pretty evasive. Steel disperses heat quite well and if you found so many samples heated even below 250 C then they must have been quite a bit away from any section that supposedly was heated above 650 C. So we can at least conclude that a large part near the impact hole was not significantly heated at all.

But i don't consider these the most conclusive parts that the official theory is incorrect. Other things that i found more compelling are:

The methodical manner of the collapse where the top sections pulverize in mid air and the buildings comes straight down at near free fall speed (about 10 seconds for 1 tower and 12 seconds for the other one) defies the laws of nature. Given what we know of physics (and those laws have stood for near 400 years) it just isn't possible. The calculations that you do find that claim the buildings could collapse in about 10 seconds base their calculations on very favorable assumptions and even then still neglect a great many aspects about the collapse.

The fact that molten steel was found under WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7. People have long claimed that the metal might have been molten aluminum, though this has already been debunked over and over (which wasn't necessary since molten aluminum can't be explained by the official theory either) and now conclusive evidence of molten steel has been found. The steel even remained in a liquid state weeks after 9/11 and was found in the basement of the towers. This molten metal simply can't exist if the official theory is true.

WTC 7, the building the official theorists don't want to mention. 9/11 Commision neglects it completely, NIST neglects it completely. Only FEMA commented on it, but even their best theory (which was their only theory) by their own words had a very low probability. And you only have to look at that collapse. The center fails first the exterior walls collapse inward, the building comes straight down and in near free fall speed (the first 100 meters fell at exact free fall speed in 4.5 seconds). The building simply lost all and any structural resistance and decided to come straight down. There is no other way to explain such an event unless some secondary force bringing the building down. Wether this is due to explosives or aliens firing some advanced weapon from their mother spaceship i'll leave for you to decide, but either way it wasn't fire.

Traces of thermate. Though nothing conclusive as of yet, we do have molten iron and sulfur inside pieces of the WTC steel and video evidence of white smoke rising from the base of the towers which could indicate aluminum oxide. Those are all clear signatures for thermate. There is also video evidence of what looks very much like a thermite reaction at one of the towers. The chance of thermate reaction occuring spontanously are very close to non existant.

Now i've read the arguments posted here and i must say that they are really stretching and some don't even make any sense to me, so perhaps some of you want to clarify those.

Fire inside a confined area, though heat may build up in a confined area, the fire can never exceed the maximum temperature that the cotent can burn at. But what i'm really curious about is how did this fire get started inside a confined area? It was my understanding that the plane crash started the fires and therefor there was a large impact hole were the fires started so nothing confined about those fires. How did those fires spread to a confined area? It doesn't make sense. And then we are still talking about temperatures inside the confined space and not the steel temperatures, which would not similary be confined as the steal beams are interconnected.

Burning human bodies reaching high temperatures. You seem to forget that the human body consists for 60 percent out of water, for humans to burn efficiently we have to dry up first. To cremate a human body for example requires 900 Celcius for 2 hours.
Besides that i'm not sure about the max burning temperature of human flesh, but are you implying that burning human bodies were stacked in large quanties? And even then when you heat something you put the flame under the object to be heated, something burning on top of a concrete floor doesn't seem like an effective way to heat up the steel below it or the floors above. And i very much doubt it could possibly cause the diagonal steel structure of the floors to bend.

Weight building up. You claim this is what happened, but what is your proof? I see two 110 story buildings suddenly collapsing without prior indications before the collapse. Yes there might be a couple of pictures that show a little sagging just moments before the collapse, but it's very minor and not by any means significant. And all those pictures are below the impact hole, as if it would then somehow make sense that the collapse occured below the impact point.

The claim that the building wasn't designed for the plane impact. I get your point in that it wasn't specifically stated that it was designed for a Boeing 767, because those did not exist at that time. But it was designed for a fully loaded Boeing 707, which ammounts to more fuel than the planes that hit and isn't that much smaller. Some other actual design claims however are more interesting.

The fact is that these were highly over engineered buildings, designed to pretty much withstand anything. That those towers could collapse like a house of cards just does not make sense.

Loose Change Debunking

Maddox has a take on 9/11 conspiracies

The buildings were hollow. That is the function of buildings: to provide an enclosed space. Skyscrapers are about creating the maximum of enclosed, usable space on a small footprint. Any architect will tell you that buildings are hollow. Your house is hollow. My house is hollow. If it wasn't you couldn't put stuff and people in it, or move about in it.

We're dealing with buildings that take complicated engineering to raise, which have strict tolerances for everything from weight to applied force to heat. Upset any one of these greatly, the structure will fall.

Those 2 links you posted are among the links most official theorists supply and therefor i have read them for most part. However they are also among the worst in being for most part non argumentative and overal just quite silly.

I'm not going to comment anymore on your someone's explanation.
If you want to argue anything specific on those site then i'll be willing to challenge it, but i'm not going to do so in a vacuum.

As for your "everything is hollow" hypothesis, that isn't any kind of explanation at all. Steel buildings are amongst the strongest engineerings made by man. The Twin Towers were the tallest buildings in the world when they were constructed. They were highly over engineered to withstand very great upsets (e.g. even when cutting away 25% of the columns on 1 side the structure would still not fail)
Some 60 percent of the buildings live loads were carried by the inner core of the building consisting of 47 steel box columns. So the building was in fact not hollow.

Look at the Hiroshima dome. The atomic bomb exploded some 600 metres away and exposed the building to temperatures of about 4000 degrees Celcius. To this day the building still stands where every other building that was not framed in steel was completely destroyed.

Sorry, but no. I don't feel like going into the technicalities of highrise construction to explain why the Twin Towers collapsed and whatever building in Hiroshima did not. I'll hear an architect's view on this, but not those of some conspiracy nuts, or just of people on the ground who were working in extreme and stressful circumstances and hardly got an overview.

It's rubbish mate. It is just unsubstantiated rumour and hearsay without conclusive proof. Sometimes outrageously bad stuff just happens for stupid reasons. Deal with it.

Hollow... apart from the 47 inner core columns. Which NIST promptly forgot to include in their report. Popular Mechanics also dodges around this issue.

It wasn't 1 Jew that died.. it was 1 Israeli, just to straighten that out.

And Loose Change is composed of mainly questions. It doesn't tell you to beleive anything.

Of course their are many other documentaries and books out there. Loose Change is simply the most popular. Try "911 Mysteries", or "911 Press for Truth", or "Who killed John O'Niell".

The thing that I thought was suspicious was World Trade Center 7 (1 and 2 were the big ones), that thing couldn't have collapsed like it did so long after the first 2 towers had fallen.(think it fell at 5 in the afternoon, where-as the others fell in the early morning)
If you can find footage of it falling, you'll see what I mean.


One of those documentaries was on TV a little while back, and while most of it was on flimly evidence, there were some very suspicious things it brought up...the Pentagon stuff was probably the most intriguing.

The funny thing is that if you hadn't specified your beliefs there is no way to tell which side you are arguing.

Like many others you seem to forget that the official theory too is a conspiracy theory which assumes 19 islamic fundamentalist conspired against the United states because they hate freedom. If you study the entire scope of this official conspiracy theory than you would find out how unsubstantiated, rubbish or nuts that theory is.

It already starts with the supposed terrorists. Some of these men were well known for drinking alcholol, eating pork and enjoying lapdances. They never attented mosques and overal their behavior would be really ackward for a devowed muslim. Yet we need to believe that these men where so fundamentalistic that they gave their lives for the islam.

And while these terrorists were at a mission to cause as much devastation as possible to the infidel Americans they actually flew right past a very huge nuclear power plant. Had they crashed there hundreds of thousands of people would have died and it would have been devastating to the US economy. The explanation we have to accept in the official theory is that the terrorists had considered targetting that, but figured they would get shot down. So they decided to hit the Pentagon instead? In the only section that was just undergoing renovation to withstand such an attack and was at the opposite side of where the top officials were located and the most difficult side to plunge a plane into as well? And they flew the first plane into the world trade center at 8:46 AM, i guess in their planning they forgot to consider American work hours as well.

But that really isn't even the crazy part, what's crazy is that none of the terrorist names were on any of the original flight manifests. And some have reportedly turned up alive (e.g. by the Associated Press and BBC).

You say it's all hearsay, yet in my first post i layed out a couple of the very substantiated facts. And thats just a very minor part of all the evidence that exists. Yet you dismiss it by grouping the truth seekers as a bunch of conspiracy nuts. (And yes there are some nut cases that also claim to be truth seekers, don't group everyone together though).
And imply you would rather accept as gospel what some expert tells you. Even though there are no expertsm since no complete collapse of a steel framed skyscraper has ever occured by any other means than explosives, no building has ever collapsed into itself at near free fall speed and no research so far has been succesfull in recreating any natural occurance in which the fires could have melted the steel.

There are people with professional opinions, but you have to be careful because their professional opinions are more biased than the opinion of your average citizen. Also the professional oppinions are in conflict, the truth movement has some very committed scientists who study 9/11 and make it their lives work and even the professionals in support of the official theory more often than not unknowingly contradict the official theories.

Consider also that so called experts claimed fire melted the steel in the trade towers. They were simply wrong.

Any way i suppose what i'm telling you is that you shouldn't take what anyone (myself included) tells you as gospel. Unlike a certain person who pretends to be president by and for the people the truth seekers encourage people to do their own research. And again remember it is not as important wether specific conspiracy theories are correct, but what is important is finding out if the official conspiracy theory is correct. I would love to see any conclusive evidence that links Osama Bin laden and the taliban to 9/11, but like the Iraqi WMD, no such evidence has yet been provided. And thats after 5 years, 2 wars and several destructions of people's constitutional rights.

The conspiracy theory itself rests on one firm unproven belief: that the towers could not have collapsed without human assistance. And there is simply no unambiguous evidence to support that. Whereas history has shown us, time and again, that structures we considered to be infallible, can indeed fail. On balance of probability, I find the hypothesis that the buildings just fell as a consequence of multiple factors converging with the impact of an airliner, much, much more likely to be correct than the hypothesis that the goverment had some dark hand in it.

Sorry, but the system used on the forums forces me to reply like this.

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM] Why did the Reichstag fire happen? Why the incident in the Tokin Gulf, why the incident involving the USS Maine, why the lies about babies removed from their incubators? And these are just a select few incidents that you apparantly don't know anything about, so i suggest you look into them.[/QUOTE]

It has never been said why the fire started, but it is belived that the Nazi's did it (I broke Godwins Law, YAY!). The USS Maine was shown to have sunk because of a mine from the way that the hole in the side of the ship, but say that is like saying that the Titanic only sunk because of what it hit.

Now you gave those cases, as they are events that lead to wars. Are they that important to an issue with 9/11, no. Whats more, I'm not sure of the baby one, other then the bad report that comes up every few years in the media.

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]Now if you read the Northwoods documents, which i suggest you do, then you already have your answer. Governments have conspired and continue to conspire because they need public and/or international support for their political agenda's. And why they pursue these agenda's is because it involves trillions of dollars. You think nobody provits from this "war on terror"? Ironically even the Bin Ladens prosper.[/QUOTE]

Now you are right to say that people do make money from War, but you are wrong to think that business wants war. One good reason for not wanting war is that people will not speand more if there is a war going on, as they soeand less, then people make less money (other then those that make bombs).

Now saying that the military-industrial complexis behind this and all wars (as many like to point out), is nothing more then a weak point to show their point is right. It also lets you say that as they don't believe you, they they are part of it (nothing better then saying that they don't get it because their one of them men with the trackers).

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]You also might want to read into some of the neo-conservative documents. The things they talk about for example is bio weapons specifically target against a race and their main goal is basically world domination or empire building (Remember the third Reich?). This may seem far fetched to you, but it's all documented by the neo-cons themselves. I'm not making this stuff up.[/QUOTE]

You do know that race is nothing more then a term, and that there is nothing to more then a few little things thatone race may have which makes them different on a gentic level. I say that, as it is outdated to think that nowdays. ;)

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]The truth movement is not about spreading the truth, but about exposing the things that are not true. Of course that means that an alternative to the official story must exist and therefor the truth movement has been forced to give a possible explanation that is supported by all the facts. So in short we do not know what happened, but we know what did not happen and we represent the facts and urge people to do their own research.[/QUOTE]

The turth movement is all about looking for the men behind the curtain, when this is not the Wizard of Oz.

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]The fire theory only stands because it is the only one being considered. People like to point out that experts support the official theories, but remember that very prominent experts claimed that fire melted the steel until people exposed that this was not possible. Then experts claimed that fire severely weakened the steel again till people exposed that this was also not possible and therefor the official theory has changed quite a bit, but still focusses on fire being the main reason why the buildings collapsed (because they don't consider any alternatives)[/QUOTE]

Now, it was not the only one that they looked into. It was used as it was the one that looked right from what had been shown from years of research that gave them something that they could use to workout what happened from what they know. Whats more, it stands up beeter then a threoy that needs as few people as it could to work, but would need over 40 000 people to pull that off.

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]The funny thing about the fire theory however is that no matter how you look at it, there isn't anything that supports it.[/QUOTE]

There is, you want America to have done that because America can only ever lie.

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]If you look at it from a historical perspective than no steel building has ever collapsed because of fire. The madrid fire was burning for 20 hours totally out of control. Windows broke under the intense heat and fire was litteraly shooting out of every window and evey crack in the wall. The building did not collapse. Not even the aluminum desks inside the building melted. (Fire in madrid has been estimated to reach 800 Celcius). Compared to the Twin Towers, no windows broke under the heat, people where hanging outside clamping on to the steel beams and even people were spotted inside the impact holes of the plane.[/QUOTE]

That fire was in a limited space (only 4 or so floors, not the many floors in the Trade Center), there was no major hole that had damaged the side of the building before the fire was able to take hold, whats more, the fire was not able to stay at that mark for a long enough time to do damage. Ass to those people at the windows, those that could call their loved ones said they did it to say away from the heat. Whats morethose that had been at those holes had been in a position that by chance aloowed them to not be killed as the planes hit.The sad fact is that they could not get out, or find a way to move from their place, so what chance had given them, fate took away.

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]If you take a physics approach to this and consider the energy released by jet fuel and the burning of typical office furnishing and then consider the mass and dimensions and the reaction of structural steel to heat for the given time duration of the fire than even under very generous assumptions the maximum temperature of the steel would only be around 300 - 350 Celcius. By far not enough to significantly weaken the steel. To quote NIST:

[QUOTE]It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.
But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

It only needed to weaken a beam, which would put pressure on the others as they take up the weight. Over time more and more weight is put on a system that is heading to it's tail point from the stress placed on it by the fire and the impact. It was going to fall anyway, what is amazing is that it held that long that people could escape.

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]If you look at conducted experiments, take for example experiments with fires in car parks. The maximum temperature of the fire (not the temperature of the steel) was measured at 360 Celcius.
If you look at how structural steel is tested, the certification ASTM E119, which we are pretty sure the steel in the towers was certified with, means that the steel is certified for 1093 Celcius for 6 hours.
NIST reconstructed an actual model of the WTC, but till this day the haven't been able to get it to collapse. Even with computer models they had to reconfigure the input to even get a possibility of collapse.[/QUOTE]

A carpark design, and the design used in something like the twin towers are not the same. Whats more, those tests are in building that are not able to match the height.

I ask, where did you get that computer model point frrom. As I have never seen it used before as an example. I ask, as I would like to know before I say anything else on that point.

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]If you look at eyewitness accounts, no stories about a raging inferno (we do have many accounts claiming there were bombs going off in the building), but in fact there are tapes from two fire fighters reaching floors near the impact and in one example and reporting, i'm paraphrasing here, "two isolated pockets of fires that can be knocked down with 2 lines". We simply are missing the raging inferno here and we need a fire at least above 1000 Celsius spreading a whole floor to even consider significant weakening of the steel in 56 minutes.[/QUOTE]

We have reports of heat and smoke from those above the fire. The point made about the bombs was from those that had see and been trained to think about bombs in events like this. Now they are trained to figth fires, but not to know what a bomb would sound like.

As a note, one of the reasons for their training in knowing what a bomb would do in a building like the Twin Towers came from the fact that it had been bombed in 93, something that New York had never forgotten about.

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]And then if you look at the evidence, and there is very little because most of it was destroyed illegaly, NIST did a paint study of 170 samples from steel near the impact area of the plane and found only 3 samples heated above 250 Celcius and claimed that the study was performed over to few samples to draw any conclusions from it. But that's actually pretty evasive. Steel disperses heat quite well and if you found so many samples heated even below 250 C then they must have been quite a bit away from any section that supposedly was heated above 650 C. So we can at least conclude that a large part near the impact hole was not significantly heated at all.[/QUOTE]

Paint means very little in a fire, or an event like this.


[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]But i don't consider these the most conclusive parts that the official theory is incorrect. Other things that i found more compelling are:

The methodical manner of the collapse where the top sections pulverize in mid air and the buildings comes straight down at near free fall speed (about 10 seconds for 1 tower and 12 seconds for the other one) defies the laws of nature. Given what we know of physics (and those laws have stood for near 400 years) it just isn't possible. The calculations that you do find that claim the buildings could collapse in about 10 seconds base their calculations on very favorable assumptions and even then still neglect a great many aspects about the collapse.[/QUOTE]

Both fell at 10 seconds, you can see that in the videos. As to the point, they do work in the laws that Newton had worked out. The only reason I can see that you are right in saying that they don't follow those rules is if Newton was wrong in the first place. If you can show that he was wron, then you are on the way to wining a Nobel prize.

As this is not the case, you are wrong here.

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]The fact that molten steel was found under WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7. People have long claimed that the metal might have been molten aluminum, though this has already been debunked over and over (which wasn't necessary since molten aluminum can't be explained by the official theory either) and now conclusive evidence of molten steel has been found. The steel even remained in a liquid state weeks after 9/11 and was found in the basement of the towers. This molten metal simply can't exist if the official theory is true.[/QUOTE]

Planes are made of a number of alloys, aluminum is just one of them. As to that claim, I have never heard of it before. Nor has anything been shown about it in those that claim it as an example (as in the data to show it with the photos).

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]WTC 7, the building the official theorists don't want to mention. 9/11 Commision neglects it completely, NIST neglects it completely. Only FEMA commented on it, but even their best theory (which was their only theory) by their own words had a very low probability. And you only have to look at that collapse. The center fails first the exterior walls collapse inward, the building comes straight down and in near free fall speed (the first 100 meters fell at exact free fall speed in 4.5 seconds). The building simply lost all and any structural resistance and decided to come straight down. There is no other way to explain such an event unless some secondary force bringing the building down. Wether this is due to explosives or aliens firing some advanced weapon from their mother spaceship i'll leave for you to decide, but either way it wasn't fire.[/QUOTE]

Building 7 fell for diffenert reasons then The Twin Towers did. That is why it was given it's own report to deal with it. You should know, that those inside the building say that it was damaged by the fact that a major building fell on and around it. To show that you are right here you need to forget those eyewitness accounts (even if you use others for the Twin Towers).

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]Traces of thermate. Though nothing conclusive as of yet, we do have molten iron and sulfur inside pieces of the WTC steel and video evidence of white smoke rising from the base of the towers which could indicate aluminum oxide. Those are all clear signatures for thermate. There is also video evidence of what looks very much like a thermite reaction at one of the towers. The chance of thermate reaction occuring spontanously are very close to non existant.[/QUOTE]

That was shown to be aluminum which had melted. The thermate point has been shown to be a weak case elsewhere and by others (those links show you, but you don't believe anything that isn't the same thing you believe in).

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]Now i've read the arguments posted here and i must say that they are really stretching and some don't even make any sense to me, so perhaps some of you want to clarify those.[/QUOTE]

Funny, I could say the same for you. Tell me, would you see my points as "stretching" or not making sense?

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]Fire inside a confined area, though heat may build up in a confined area, the fire can never exceed the maximum temperature that the cotent can burn at. But what i'm really curious about is how did this fire get started inside a confined area? It was my understanding that the plane crash started the fires and therefor there was a large impact hole were the fires started so nothing confined about those fires. How did those fires spread to a confined area? It doesn't make sense. And then we are still talking about temperatures inside the confined space and not the steel temperatures, which would not similary be confined as the steal beams are interconnected.[/QUOTE]

Do you have a degree in buidling design? If not, then you really can't debate something that you know so little about (as many don't).

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]Burning human bodies reaching high temperatures. You seem to forget that the human body consists for 60 percent out of water, for humans to burn efficiently we have to dry up first. To cremate a human body for example requires 900 Celcius for 2 hours.
Besides that i'm not sure about the max burning temperature of human flesh, but are you implying that burning human bodies were stacked in large quanties? And even then when you heat something you put the flame under the object to be heated, something burning on top of a concrete floor doesn't seem like an effective way to heat up the steel below it or the floors above. And i very much doubt it could possibly cause the diagonal steel structure of the floors to bend.[/QUOTE]

What about the fats and meat in a human body? Cook a pig and see what happens there. As to the point I made, it was something that would help to keep the heat up for a long time.

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]Weight building up. You claim this is what happened, but what is your proof? I see two 110 story buildings suddenly collapsing without prior indications before the collapse. Yes there might be a couple of pictures that show a little sagging just moments before the collapse, but it's very minor and not by any means significant. And all those pictures are below the impact hole, as if it would then somehow make sense that the collapse occured below the impact point.[/QUOTE]

The proof is in those links given, but you don't believe them as they are not right. So what is the point in debating this point with someone that will not let the idea that they are wrong enter their mind.

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]The claim that the building wasn't designed for the plane impact. I get your point in that it wasn't specifically stated that it was designed for a Boeing 767, because those did not exist at that time. But it was designed for a fully loaded Boeing 707, which ammounts to more fuel than the planes that hit and isn't that much smaller. Some other actual design claims however are more interesting.[/QUOTE]

What I said about the planes still stands, and the links given by others show as much. So I need not say anymore.

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM][QUOTE]For the perimeter columns (83% of total columns), "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]One "could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=MDM,Oct 3 2006, 05:36 AM]The fact is that these were highly over engineered buildings, designed to pretty much withstand anything. That those towers could collapse like a house of cards just does not make sense. [/QUOTE]

No, and anyone that has seen anything on TV will know that they did. The fact that they did is a fact that all agree on, unless you can show that we have been lied to, and their still stand. As to those points, yes that could happen, and that is what allowed them to stand for well over an hour after they had been hit. Did it matter in the end, no.

Because they say something other then what you say, they are wrong. I get it.

So you want to spam this place on this one single thread and not post anywhere else here other then this one single thread on this forum.

.....RIGHT

Those points show why it was able to stay up for so long after so much damage was done. The fact it that that damage lead to the building hitting their failpoint, which lead to the thing which we all remember.

It was out of range of the main zone of the bomb (i.e. the part that destroied everything). Whats more, other building also had been able to stand after the bomb hit which had been closer to the site of the bomb. Now the reason that theose others had been pulled down and this had not was for the fact that they had been damaged beyond the point that they could be rebuilt, so they were pulled down as they wre unsafe.

No, they and I said that it helped them stand.

Ok, that is just going out there to say that.

Yes, because it is a known fact that if you makes you points in the framework of a question, then you make the person think they are able to come to the same point by themselves because they could think of that on their own.

It's much the same trick as those that say they can talk to the dead.

Seen them, got nothing from them that was worth a damn.

I'll say that it makes more sense for those people to fall in between the holes in the system (something that wasn't in the best shape then), who could then train for sometyhing of this scale before doing the attack, then the US government carring out an attack like this (which would have needed more people, more money, and more poeple not knowing just what they are part of), they the offical story.

Whats more, none of those people have come out to say, and show they had been part of it.

The men behind the attack in London last year, and in other places like that had lived their lives in those nations. They had not been overseas, yet killed many of their own people in these acts. Did it stop them because they lved their, no as it gave them a reason to carryout those acts.

That is pure bullshit that story. THey had planned to hit those building from the get go, that Nuclear Power Plant had bnever been a target. Hell, the orginal plan called for morte men to take over 10 planes. 9 of those planes would have hit building all over the US in much the same way, and the final plane would see the women and child killed live on air after all the men had been killed. The only thing that stoped that plan was the fact that it was too large, and a smaller plan would fly under the rader (as happened).

Those names had been other names that they used to get on the plane. Whats more, it was their family saying they are alive because their child would never do something like that. Not the first time that has happened.

I'll say your grouping everyone that doesn't belinf all your facts as wrong on this. Whats more, all points made against you are dismissed as wrong without looking into the data that was shown. Those other points I have made before and find pointless to say again.

So your more right then they are. Got anything to show that one your? Say like a degree or something like that? Now that isn't to say that people will miss things or points because their mind is on something else. IOn this case, the data backs up the claim it was a plane that did it.

So says you.

See, you showed that this is all because you believe that the only reason that this happened was to allow the US to have a reason to go to War for oil. For that to be the case, you need t forgwt more or less everything else that is happening in the world today as yout making this a black and white thing.

I have nothing else to say, and unless you post in other areas here, nor do you really.

No i gave those cases because they are proven conspiracies (except for the Reichstag fire, although hardly anyone still questions that) from governments to provide pretext for war. I can give you plenty more examples that you should look into too, though i'm starting to doubt that you will.

They are important to show the mindset of governments and how far they will go. People dismiss the possibility of government conspiracies out of ignorance, but these things have happened throughout history.

There is just too much to explain here so i'll make a seperate post on this if needs be. One thing that does stand out though is that you clearly not know enough about this. It's my hope that you will at least attempt to educate yourself.

Outdated to think that? I think it's outrageous to think that, but apparantly those neo-cons don't consider it a problem to document their ideas of empire building. I think the document "Rebuilding America's Defense was released in 2000, might have to check that one up again.

So now we are just going to throw out random numbers? Is that really your best guess? And what do you base this guess on?
I find it quite silly that when you question the fact that 19 amateur hijackers could pull it of then you are a nutcase, but when the government is involved then suddenly those same people calling you a nutcase say the operation would require thousands of people.

I reject that kind of baseless and uncalled for accusation. Not that it has any relevance but i felt litteraly sick for weeks when i started to learn about the lies of 9/11. It's the opposite, i do not want to consider that the government is involved, but i also can't just burry my head in the sand and pretend to believe the official story.

You really want to compare?
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/windsor7.jpeg
Now tell me again how many floors are burning there.

It only burned for 20 hours, but i agree that it wasn't long enough.

You won't put your hand in boiling water either and that's only 100 Celcius. You don't put your hand 5 inches above a burning candle and keep it there for 20 seconds. We have a body temperature of only 37 Celcius. On hot summer days people can even die from temperatures of about 40 Celcius.

Heat isn't even the biggest issue why people would go to the windows. It is the smoke from the fire that would prevent anyone from escaping.

But i'll accept your point that the temperature near the fire was above 50 Celcius. I never contested that though. Facts is that if it were above 150 Celcius at the windows those people would not be standing there. And if the steel was above 60 Celcius they would not clamp on to it.

Oh come on, now you can't be serious. It only needed to weaken 1 beam? <_<. You act as if these beams were designed to carry the exact weight they did though even in ordinary engineering buildings are usely designed to carry 4 to 5 times the weight necessary. The WTC towers however was not an ordinary engineering project. These were hugely over engineered constructions.

To quote NIST again since you just seem to neglect it:

I did not argue wether the carpark would collapse, i argued the temperature of the fires. Parked cars are actually quite similar to office burnings. You got some car fuel that can burn as well as the content inside a car. With multiple cars catching fire these were the highest temperatures measured in 4 countries.

I'm pretty sure it was in the NIST report that they admitted they had to tweak the computer models. I'm arguing from memory here so i'll have to look up exactly were it was written down.

I doubt firefighters are trained to think about bombs, but i'm pretty sure the janitor wasn't trained to handle bomb treats. Nor the media or any of the other dozens of witnesses who's accounts tell of bombs inside the building.

That's your very first argument that i will agree on. However does this now mean we should ignore all the eyewitness accounts and consider that they just imagined 50 ton hydraulic press being reduced to rubble inside the basement of one of the towers?

The color of burning metal tells you the temperature of the fire, regardless of the metal. There are a couple of exceptions, one of them being aluminum which would appear silvery gray in a liquid state.
The metal pulled out from the rubble was still solid and burning bright yellow, which would indicate a temperature of around 1900 Celcius. It doesn't even matter if it is aluminum, which is impossible.

I think you misunderstood, the paint study was performed by NIST to determin the temperature to which the steel beams were heated at. Only in 3 out of 170 samples could they find a temperature above 250 Celcius.

I didn't mention Newton, but surely there are quite a few more laws of nature than only 1 law from Isaac Newton. Conservation of momentum is one, conservation of energy, law of inertia. Quite a bit more that reject the official claims.

I think the second tower to fell actually took a little more time, about 12 seconds. It's pretty difficult to get an exact number, i've seen people claim it took as much as up to 17 seconds, but those are really bullocks. And i've seen people claim it took as little as 8 seconds, which again i think is false.

Never heard about that, would be interested in the source. I know about accounts saying and i'm paraphrasing "no observable debris inside the lobby" (i think those were from firefighters).
The problem with the claim that there was major damage from the debris of the towers is because there is no proof of this. It doesn't even make sense. The heaviest debris fell close to the tower and lighter debris was ejected about 100 to 200 metres. That ammounts to about 20 m/s (or 45 mph) at most in horizontal velocity. Such would not slam very far into WTC 7 that stood 100 metres away from the North Tower.
Another problem with that is that WTC 6 (and the Vesey street) was between the North Tower and WTC 7. Though WTC 6 was impacted straight on top by the heaviest debris and very much more debris, the building did not collapse. In fact if you look at the entire area, many buildings were closer located, but WTC 7 was the only building to completely collapse.

How so? An aluminum burn would look quite a lot different then the bright yellow burn we see there.

Just for funsies:
http://www.3men.com/bbq_whole_pig.htm :lol:
It's not like you cook a pig in under an hour either.

Again you are being unreasonable. I said i would debate any particular points in the links, but if you are just posting links then you should be happy enough that i even give a general comment on those sites. I mean just look at your own comment:

:rolleyes:
I could also throw in another dozen links that debunk your links, but then where would be at? Some contest on who can provide the most links of people who share your viewpoint?

Yes but with a very big footnote :)

How ruthless. The entire line throughout my post was clear, but because my last line was not specific enough without the context of the entire post before it you are going to twist my words, when you knew very well what i meant.

I see you are very quick with drawing baseless conclusions.

I didn't realise i was spamming this place. Another terrific follow up of derogatory comments. It is funny though, as you just made 4 posts after another in this thread.

Of course i can argue against this, but to what point? If buildings even closer to the impact of the Atomic Bomb survived than thats even a more compelling difference with the WTC collapses.

The people behind the attack in London (which incidently has many conspiracy theories as well that i have not looked into) did not sacrifice their lives for the Islam. I'm uncertain at what your argument is here. That because these men lived their they didn't hesitate in killing their own people? Perhaps the same applies to governments as well...
It seems almost from your last two points if you are just reply to disagree, but lose track of what side you are arguing on. I hope you're not making these huge posts just to disagree with everything i said.

It isn't according to the september 11th commision and their source Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM). But we are in agreement, the official story is bullshit.

What names? There are no arabic names on the manifest.

Not according to several reports.
Abdulaziz Alomari was interviewed by the London based Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper.
Abdulrahman al-Omari contacted the US consulate in Jeddah to demand an explanation.
Waleed Alshehri contacted both the Saudi and American authorities.
These are just a couple of examples. I have no way of verifying these, but resources like the BBC and the Associated Press are supposed to be reliable.

You can say it, but it's again another unsubstantiated claim.

No i asked for clarification because they did not make sense to me and i explained why they did not make sense to me. Quite opposite from what you claim here now.

Like i've kept saying do your own research. Don't accept what i say as true. Of course i don't think anything i've said is false, else i would not have said it. And yes i think i've shown quite a lot here to support my claims.

Just restating what is proven fact by science.

Did i say oil anywhere? Your inability to stay factual again shines through very brightly.

Let me guess, you get your info from the mainstream media that covers terrorist scares every day. (Even though more people die in the US being struck by lightning than from any terrorist attack).

The things that are happening in the world today follow the neo-conservative agenda. Lets not forget that the war against Afghanistan was under preparation even before 9/11 and the plan to attack Iraq also existed long before 9/11. And that is just a small slice of the stuff that is happening. This is another topic that could span over another 20 posts, so i'm not going to address all that here. In any case lets indeed not forget what really is happening.

whoa

If 9/11 was an inside job answer me this. Why would the American government which just over 5 years ago was in a 270 billion dollar surplus cause an attack on it's own soil? Not only would it's financial capital be crippled but also severly affect it's tourism industry? Look at America now, they're in a 600 billion dollar deficet because of the terrorist attacks and the war on terror.

The cost of war

Take a look around the rest of the website, it pretty much explains it.

I concur! :whistling:

ahem.......

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/...ntry/page9.html

Next! :P

Your country would have a lot more money if the Pentagon hadn't lost $2.3 TRILLION dollars. When was this announced? Oh yeah, Sept 10th.

Heres some footage from the Senate to back that up, along with some other disturbing revelations. Please watch. It is only a few minutes long.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinn...ls_rumsfeld.htm

Oh Graham, it is great to know that Australia is in fact the 51st state of the union. I say that, as this is an Australian forum that has mostly Australians on it. Since a US department is using OUR money, then you know what, that means that we merged with YOUR country without anyone here knowing about it. Because thats the only answer I can get from your point.

Also, if your going to hint that because he died, then Israel (and the US) was behind it all. Please say it, so we can see the weak link for what it is. I say that, as this is the number lost they are not the only natio to have lost people in low numbers on that day (or from the Middle East). Whats more, if you use that point, then because the ratio of men to women killed was 3:1, then you can make a case that the attack was carried out by feminist who wished to let their sisters in amrs march and take over this male world because an act like that would be stopped in a world in which male drives would be forever stopped.

As that is an idea that has never been made before, then it is either too stupid for words, OR THEY DID WIN THAT DAY!

I'll say it is too stupid for words.

No, they are matters that have a known issue, not something that the offical answer was never know about. Neither then, nor now (also, you didn't say how the baby one lead to a war). Now yes, people in power will and have lied to get what they want, look at Watergate for that point. But you are mistaken in thinking that I don't look into things because "I believe the lie", the reason why I "believe the lie", is because I have looked into all the data that is out there, used what I learned in school, and picked up myself, and from that came to the belief that the offical story is the one that tells the real story with the facts known. You can think otherwise, but your not going to make me think otherwise because you say I'm wrong.

Oh no, I know that wars have been started in which money was a key issue (American War of Independence for one)m. But your claim rests on the idea that money (and oil is a trade good that sets the world markets), or just on this point that it was driven by that. Now if you wish to make a point that money has lead to wars in the past, please use these wars for your point.
- Norman Conquest of England.
- The Crusades
- The Wars of Genghis Khan
- Wars of the Roses
- Thirty Year War
- English Civil War
- War of Jenkins Ear
- French Revolutuion
- Crimean War
- US Civil War
- Franco/Prussia War
- WW1
- WW2
- Korean War
- Vietnam War
- Six Day War
- Iran-Iraq War
- Falklands War
- Yugislavian Civil War

Just to name a few. ;)

That paper was written for ways that the US mitlery (and it's foreign policy) should be geared in the years after 2000. The reason for that is because the system in place was designed for a war between America and Russia. As that war never came after Russia fell or a soical revolutuion over their planned nuclear war that would have seen both lose more then gainned, then changing their miltery was a key issue. Now one of the key issues was against small terrorist groups that the US and Russia had created in the years of the Cold War, but left out in the cold had come to make sure they remembered them (the system created them). This is shown in Afghanistan when the groups fighting the Russian had funding from America, and the fact that America helped push Islamic studies as a way to counter Soviet designs on the Middle East.

So does it say that we need to make something that will kil Arabs? No, and there is nothing in that which says that.

Oh, so I am a nutcase to think that the offical report is right. Can you please show me the reports that you have that say I am in fact a nutcase, as I have never seen them. While you show me those reports that say that, can you please tell me how they came to study me without my knowing it?

Now that have done with the name calling (which does nothing for a debate), can we try not to do that again thank you.

As to your point. You find it hard to believe that those 19 mean could carry out this attack. What allowed those men to do that was the fact that they had support from others around the world who fundded them, trained them, and made sure they were ready to do that act. Something like that (and this act), needed 1000's of personal to help carry it out. Everyone from those on the top (Bin Laden), those that carried out the attacks, and those that helpped the carry it out (from message delivery, to setting up their bank details, etc, etc, etc). It was not 19 men that lead that attack, but 19 at the end of a chain of people who had helpped them to carry it out. Hell, this plan had been in the works for over 10 years beforehand (in one shape or another).

Now your case here rests on the idea that there is a group inside America (and some say who contorl the World), who not only planned to kill people that day, who not only have the will and the way to do it, but the skill to cover it up so well that no few would question it. Whats more, those that do are allowed to do so as it helps the offical story if they find the data which they could never cover up in the first place (and allow them to do so).

Now if theyu had in fact done that, there is a massive number of things that they would need to do before they could carry out this attack. Each of those items would add more and more people who would be part of this project, but would need to make sure they would and could never tell what they did to help it (or link it). For one, they would need to work for years designing and testing things that would have allowed them to crash a plane into a building (or buildings in this case). Whats more, they would need to have people planting things like bombs to help make sure those building come down right when they what it to (without anyone noticing it). Then on the day they would need to fly the planes they use into those buidling to make sure their is something to link to it (the general view on this point is that they are AWACS, and the real planes got show down in the sea. To do that they would need people to control the planes, hide those planes, and shoot them down so as to remove those planes.

So to carry out an act like that means the 40 000 is on the small scale. Whats more, you have many people who are going to have to be part of that chain who may not know what their work is for, or even part of the chain. Now the thing is that no one has come forward to say that they had worked on that day and noticed something odd or out of the place. Now if you are to believe that not only could this group carry out this act, that why would also go as far as to make sure those in the chain either don't talk or know they had been part of it (saying nothing about getting rid of those that question the offical story like this). Whats more, they would need to cover their trail and make it look like the terrorist did it, and the fact they funded it (one thing we do know it the chain the money used). Now since I have not heard any stories of people that question the offical story getting killed in strange ways, or those that had been in a postion to notice something coming out, or their deaths, then I really do find it hard to let this claim hold any water.

Now as to where this fact came from (and it is based on real life), you will need to know how The Trinity Test, the Moon Landings, and Stargate are related.

Now you should know that what the The Trinity Test was. One of the key things about it was that it used many people to fund this project, and to make sure that no one would link what they had been doing to it. What in fact happened was that many did discover what was going on (in all oevels of American life), but they never said a damn word about it as they knew the matter was far too big and important to say something about. The result of that is known history.

The Moon Landings are a matter that still to this day are debated about. The reason for that is that some believe that it was staged and that no Americans travelled to the moon because they couldn't make their design work. Whats more, as they couldn't get their ship to work, they came up with another plan to fake it so as to make it look like they won the space race with Russia. Now there is enough data to show that they did make it (and it can still be show to this day), but that is not what links them together. That matter is the point that over 250 000 people had some part to do with the Moon Landing. Those people lived all other the world, and not one of them noticed something that looked wrong with what NASA was telling them.

Now to the final one, Stargate. Stargate is in fact a TV show, so it shouldn't have anything to do with this debate. On this point, no and far from it. One of the things that Stargate has done over the years isto show that events happen that came as a result of the Stargate programme. Whats more, over 10 million people around the world know about it in some shape or form. Now time and again someone links the story of what happens, and the story is shown around the world (someone seeing a funny light in the sky is an old one). yet by matter of plt, the cover story holds (no matter how out there it is).

So saying that, I really do find this idea to be out there at the best of times. In part as there is nothing there to show this group (names, faces, etc). Now if there was in fact a real group, then taking them down will make all the wars in history look like a sideshow.

I look at thesee claims, and I really can't help but wonder just how they came up with these ideas that really can't work in the real world. Now I the reason I said the US government in that is because an act like this would need them to do something to help them in some way/shape/or form. So far, none has been given to show it.

Looking at that photo you can see that the fire engulfed the top floors. Something that never happened to the Twin Towers. Whats more, the fire would have removed items like office equipment and related so that what weight impact they would have on the building is lost in the smoke. Whats more, I see on gaint hole from a bomb or plane to weaken the design in the first place.

The heat that was reported was said by those in those levels above the impact site. Now that heat was from the fire, so they knew not letting in air will feed the fire. The other item they reported about was the smoke was that thick that some did smash windows to let air in (and to climb towards). Now those that did hold onto the metal which was heated from the fire (not all, as claimed), did so as it gave them the only place in which they could get fresh air and was the coolest spot for them. Did it matter in the end? No, as they died when the towers fell.

No, I pointed out that the system could take a large amount of stress. Taking out a few, and impacting on the rest forced the others to share the load. This load become greater as more and more failed. What helped them stand as long as they did was the fact that they had been designed to take a greater load then world be needed.

Wich four nations? As to you point, I stated that the design of the two would mean that a fire in a carpark is not the same asinside a building like a tower. A fire inside a carpark would be limited to that area, and even if it was able to lead to a collapse, it would be limited to the side of the main fire, not the whole building (or at once at least).

If you find it (and in the real report), please link it.

Why do you think that people like Firefighters and Cops would not be trained to know what a bomb is, how to look for one, and what to do when they go off (as they are the people that will deal with them). As to the janitorm they would have been trained to know what to do if they find a bomb in the trash (or anywhere). As to the media and those that inside it, well that was because the idea that a bomb was i