I read alot of news yo yo, much more than just the 'mainstream media'..... Both sides of course are a theory, but I have yet to see anything else equated into the picture to show how your theory actually caused the buildings to collapse...Not to mention the severity of the damage from the plane crash...Much of the info on the theory you list also takes such items as I believe a test from an 8 story building? How could anyone compare that to a buildings the sizes of the trade centers and give it any real merit...
The buildings had 10 very destinct patterns while collapsing that should only happen if explosives are used. For one, the official "pancake theory" doesn't take the center core columns of steel into consideration. They could have never "pancaked".. The buildings also fall at a free-fall speed with no resistance... Enormous steel colums are "snapped" into peices... something that ONLY happens in explosions... should they have twist and bend? There was oxidization on the steel... happens from explosives not fires Obviously I can't explain every detail, you can only learn by reading. And there's tons of good reading... infowars.com , reopen911.org , prisonplanet.com The engineers already explained the buildings could handle MULTIPLE plane crashes without sever structural damage. The buildings didn't even shake as much as wind force makes them! There was an actual equation shown in one of the videos that put the planes weight and speed and found how much force it had.. and compared to wind it was LESS. In 1988, a fire in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for 3.5 hours and gutted 5 of this building’s 62 floors but there was no significant structural damage. In Caracas in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely gutting the building’s top 20 floors, and yet it did not collapse. In 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia’s One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the building’s 38 floors, but, said the FEMA report, although “eams and girders sagged and twisted . . . under severe fire exposures. . . , the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damageâ€. Think about it.. the planes didn't hit the base of the buildings, they hit the top. The top floors don't have enough weight to "pancake" the rest of the building.. EDIT: In Caracas in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely gutting the building’s top 20 floors, and yet it did not collapse. WTC 7 was 47 floors and very small fires. How much closer to a match could we have?
All these "coinsidences" alone should be ENOUGH TO CONVINCE anyone that something fishy is going on... for HEAVEN'S SAKE... ALEX JONES PREDICTED EXACTLY WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN! Click the source link and watch the video yourselves!
LIARS LIARS: Two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, an analysis prepared for U.S. intelligence warned that Osama bin Laden's terrorists could hijack an airliner and fly it into government buildings like the Pentagon. That intelligence is in addition to information the FBI received in July 2001 from its Phoenix office that a large number of Arabs were training at U.S. flight schools and a briefing President Bush received in August of that year suggesting hijacking was one possible attack the al Qaeda might use against the United States. In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say. In 1998, U.S. intelligence had information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosives-laden airplane into the World Trade Center, according to a joint inquiry of the House and Senate intelligence committees. The lies just keep coming and coming... all the mean while 99% of americans sit back and do nothing. At least the people who were there, New Yorkers know something is up.... Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed†To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals. half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
I believe the reason most people choose not to believe the conspiracy theories is because the truth, if they are true, is too terrible to contemplate. The next atrocity has to be a nuclear one in order to open the door to 'retaliation' of the tactical nuclear variety. My own opinion is that I wouldn't like to live in New York. Or maybe New Orleans?
In reading all these posts it makes me think of something I've nearly forgotten. I don't want to put oil into the fire but ... As I mentioned in other threads here is that I have an Iraqi friend who worked closley with Udai and Saddam and later then escaped because of the force on him to get trained and that he should have been involved in "Redeem Saddam" operation. He had nothing to do with politics or military activities before. It just happend that he was a trusted Staff at the palace. He had to escape with his family and relatives after refusing this order. Before they escaped, everthing he and his family owned was taken away by Udai - houses, car, taxis, shops, service station. When he and his family were under refugee status, I met him, and went with him to embassies to help them to find a country to migrate to. This is well documented (UN, goverments of various countries and other organisations) in case of someone wants to make a story. I spent lots of time with him and his family and we discussed the situation about his family and Iraq. A couple of times he mentioned something I never intended to give credibility, because it was and still is to some certain extend, unbelieveable. His main-point was: "America has made big mistakes and used tricks to lure Iraq into war with Iran around 12 years ago, using the ambassador and embassy staff to visit the palace and give green light to start a war with Iran". "This time America is right, Saddam has changed from a good leader to do bad to the people in Iraq". This discussions happened while the war was going on and I was very optimistic about progress and quick success but he corrected me rightly: "It is now and will be for long time very dangerous in Iraq, and if this is going to succeeds it will take years".
I have read them, science and what we think we know doesn't always apply especially when you're talking about buildings the size of the WTC towers, and a plane crashing directly into them. Engineers have never been wrong before? They had absolutely no way of knowing if they were correct until an actual incident such as this happened. Sure they could use scale models, computer sims, etc that does not always equate to what will actually happen. Not a very close example at all, did any of these other buildings have 2 buildings the size of the WTC collapse in close proximity to them ?
Sure. So what is easier to believe? Hundreds of independant engineers who see many flaws in the official story, or a 9/11 "commission report" headed by republicans that had to report to Bush and Rice?
Where is the blackbox of 911 flights ? What was recorded in it ? How few guys controlled flights (with or without help of pilots) ? Why scanning of their baggages were not good ?
Or more than 300 experts and organizations that participated in debunking something that never deserved attention in the first place, published by a magazine that can stand on it's own credibility? http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html . . .
From your source Gtech, more bull shit lies: Without any scraps or debris from the building, how exactly did the BIASED NIST investigators conclude this? . They provide no evidence of these claims. Once again, no explanation for the DOCUMENTED MOLTEN STEEL in the basement of all three WTC buildings. . Another claim they can't prove and we can't either because all the evidence was destroyed. But the few beams they kept:
I'm not saying I buy the official story either, but there is still no evidence/proof of anything else besides engineers hypothesising about what could of happened.
If you could read, we established there was molten steel way back on page 8. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=521449&postcount=85 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=521387&postcount=76 Reported seeing MOLTEN STEEL: Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Incorporated. Leslie Robertson, the chief structural engineer for the Twin Towers Joe "Toolie" O'Toole, a Bronx firefighter Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint, Inc.