The Real Cause of 911?

Just wondering how many people have actually considered the idea that 9/11 didn't happen the way the Goverment would like us to believe.

Some very well educated people (including: Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University) are very convinced that the Twin Towers COULD NOT HAVE collapsed from the plane crashes and fires, and from what I've read they're pretty convincing guys.

Has anyone here actually spent the time looking into these theories and come up with any conclusions? And I'm not looking for any smart ass comments from the Righties.. you know who you are


Articles:

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Quick preview:

 

oops mispot sorryadi!!!!!!!!!

 

Both pages you linked to have a PR of 0, and that's what they are worth. IMHO

 

Why? Because it's not what George Bush told you to believe?

I expect nearly everyone to disagree with the articles, and I'm not saying I agree with them, but if you're going to say something, at least dispute it with facts and science instead of stupid comments that don't add anything to the discussion.

 

One more possibly relevant fact is that then Mayor Rudy Giuliani, talking on ABC News about his temporary emergency command center at 75 Barkley Street, said:

"We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse, and it did collapse before we could get out of the building."

This is an amazing statement. Prior to 9/11, fire had never brought down a steel-frame high-rise. The firemen who reached the 78th floor of the south tower certainly did not believe it was going to collapse. Even the 9/11 Commission reported that to its knowledge, “none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 302). So why would anyone have told Giuliani that at least one of the towers was about to collapse?

 

Let's see, first it was not an ordinary fire, it was fueled by jet fuel. Second, metals do melt or at least weaken from heat.

If there were bombs placed why the need for the planes? Why not collapse the builing and kill even more people instead of giving them time to get out.

Why did it take 4 years for them to come up with this theory? Just attention seekers.

Now if you want a real conspiracy http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

 

Thats the whole point.

If a few drops on gasoline can take the engine temp. of your car engines to a few hundred degrees.... imagine the amount of heat produced when the fuel in the two planes combusted in a short period.

 

You obviously didn't even read the article at all, it covers this in the very BEGINNING

Since that probably isn't enough:

Even provides other building fires for examples:

 

All the steel had to be was weakened and it could/did take hours to finally give in. If there were explosives the odds that they survived the crash are slim as they had to be placed on the same flolrs as the planes hit because that's how the buildings collapsed. Now you have new pilots able to steer the plane into the exact floors where the bombs are placed, pretty skilled pilots no?

I read an article where by science they proved that 2+2 does not equal 4 and was pretty believable more so than a bomb theory to me.

Those building in your example were not hit by jets.

 

Now, I love a conspiracy theory as much as the next man. But:

I doubt any of these fires were fueled by plane fuel. Nor had such structural damage been cause to help them. Have you felt the draft that comes up a lift shaft at that height? With a dirty great hole torn through the building, I'd imagine that would have helped somewhat.

Well, things have often failed spectacularly to do what they were designed to do. And in fairness, the buildings did survive the actual impact.

 

It would be nice if people read the article before they made comments against it , it would save a lot of copy-pasting

 

The guy obviously spent some time doing research including stuff that supports his theory and omitting stuff that doesn't An average person does not have all the information and most likely will not research it either to dedunk his claim.

I have a theory that makes more sense to me. He is bringing attention to himself because if you are trying to sell something then attention is good.

As for the studies, they do not show a single one where you have a combination of jet impact and intense fire.

 

Roman, how much more plain and simple could that possibly be stated???

I wonder if everyone who visits the links will be going on Bush's terror watch list and have secret wire taps for the next 2 years.

 

If they had the bombs or whatever planted and the planes " hardly hurt structurally" what was the point of the planes. If the towers just collapsed without being hit there would have been a lot more destruction.

If someone educates themselves on a subject they can appear pretty smart to the average citizen. I'm sure that if I spent enough time doing research I could convince a lot of people of a lot of things, but that does not make them true.

 

This is a waste of time worrying about.

What are you going to do if it is true?

Get outraged?

The best thing to do is focus on building a residual income that flows to you while you sleep, talk on the phone, get a bite to eat or enjoy a relaxing vacation on the beaches in the Bahamas, or Hawaii, or some other hedonistic place, while oceans of money wash over your naked body. (Or maybe you could just enjoy an ice cream)

 

The obvious answer is to hide the fact that controlled explosions did it. And to play on the average American's stereotypes that Middle-Eastern people are out to get us...

I like to stay open minded. I'm not convinced of what really happened either way. I'd rather read both sides of each story and form my own conclusions. Instead of just believing George Bush, I'd suggest other people do the same.

And this article isn't just some "average" citizen, he's a Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University. You'd think a physics professor would be pretty good at researching things like buildings falling from the sky and fires burning steel. And then you'd have to ask why a professional professor at a universtiy would put his job and reputation on the line with something like this.

 

Nope, I wouldn't, there have been some very prominent people do some prety stupidly amazing things that get them fired, charged and sentenced.

I love a good conspiracy theory, I just find this one hard to believe.

 

-James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/fetzerexpandedx.doc

 

If I were to plant the thermite or whatever was supposedly used to collapse the building...

First off, to cause a symetrical collapse you'd have to have experience.

If I had the experience and already wanting to cause damage I'd have the building fall like a tree and take out as many other buildings as possible.

Using science you can pretty much make a valid argument for anything, but using commen sense this theory seems highly unlikely.

 

It's the Michael Moore syndrome...

People start from a theory and look for facts to back it up, omitting the rest, and look for some attention.

Yes, Blackbug and roman1 are right, and you are a little Michael Moore, so I'm out of this timewasting and attention seeking thread NOW!

Farewell...