digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

prisonplanet.com — The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • OLiberty, on 11/09/2007, -10/+114I love this quote... "The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon."
    • kaelyiesta, on 11/01/2007, -18/+16Unfortunately, hyperbole like that tends to make me less certain of their credibility.
      • kaelyiesta, on 11/09/2007, -6/+12Just to clarify in case anyone cares, this is not to say the claims aren't valid, it's just that the laws of physics seemingly breaking for a complex system that we can't fully model and see (like a building falling supposedly due to a plane crash) is not quite on the same level as witnessing such a direct and obvious disregard of the laws of physics (like the building floating up to the moon). I am not dismissing outright the physics claims the article makes.
      • Rabbit63, on 11/09/2007, -1/+12According to Physics principles like gravity and conservation of momentum, this is NOT hyperbole.

        People who fail to realise that it is impossible for buildings to fall through their own structures, straight down at the speed of a rock falling through thin air, are still struggling I see.
        • ViperDaimao, on 11/09/2007, -12/+6Yes, and none of that happened on 9/11.

          This is dishonest quote mining with a lack of reading comprehension. Reading for comprehension is key.

          "At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution."

          That quote is a couple of lines up from the one quoted. In other words the actual collapse itself is too complicated to model.

          The collapse of the Twin Towers was an absurdly complex event. We can figure out what lead to the collapse of the towers, and why they collapsed i.e collapse initiation (see the NIST report), but the task of determining what happened on every floor of the building during the collapse and making an accurate model of the collapse is simply too difficult and a waste of time. This is what NIST stated in the email. A full collapse model is too complex of a thing to create given the available data. We know why the buildings collapsed, and we can use this information to achieve the goals of the NIST investigation. We can prevent future collapses. The goal of the NIST investigation wasn't to satisfy and entertain the demands of conspiracy fantasists.

          There is no reason to determine what happened during the collapse. The building started to fall, and it finished falling. Figuring out what happened from A - B isn't going to save lives in the future. The collapse initiated (the most crucial thing to investigate), all bets were off, and the lower structure simply couldn't arrest the falling structure. Too much time and money would go into such a complex modeling that would not achieve any purpose other than making conspiracy theorists shout that it is a fraud, despite the fact that they haven't read it.

          Multiple peer reviewed scientific papers confirmed this, and provide mathematical proof that once the collapse started, it was impossible to stop. Wake up and look at this with an open mind.
          • ViperDaimao, on 11/01/2007, -12/+3"Pancake theory revisionists"

            Wrong, pancake theory was rejected by the NIST investigation. See? this is exactly what I'm talking about. You're ignorant of the facts. You refuse to open your mind and hear the other side of the argument. You get all your information from "Truther" sites.
  • dukeeeey, on 11/02/2007, -5/+83I find it interesting that Bush senior met with Osama Bin Laden's brother on 911. I'm sure it was just a simple coicidence.
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11 ...
    Last paragraph.
    • markvand, on 11/09/2007, -1/+41Total coincidence, just like the fact that the building in it's 31 year long excistence changed ownership only once: 7 weeks before the attacks, when Larry Silverstein's bid was accepted. And just like all the Norad drills around 9/11, and Willie Brown being told not to fly to NYC and the numerous put options. Bush having plans for a full blown war against Al-Qaeda 2 days before the attacks was coincidence as well. http://prisonplanet.com/US_planned_for_attack_on_a ...
      • kayaker712, on 10/30/2007, -2/+20I love the put options thing.
        The Kean report acknowledged that the option sales suggested prior knowledge. Then they go on to say that the purchasers had "no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda". Okay, then that sure suggests to me that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with it right? Thats pretty hefty evidence of someone else being the culprits.
        • DestroyFascism, on 10/30/2007, -2/+8But it was Al Qaeda that did so the guy with the put options had nothing to do with it......yer right.....
    • kayaker712, on 11/02/2007, -3/+20i think it was coincidence. Bush and bin Laden meet all the time. They have several overlapping business relationships.
    • markvand, on 11/02/2007, -1/+23Let's not forget it was Osama's brother who invested in one of Bush's first companies, Arbusto Energy. If only Osama bin Laden was the black sheep of the family, but he's not, when the Soviet's invaded Afghanistan he was still the CIA's friend.
      • ViperDaimao, on 10/24/2007, -14/+3bin laden was never the CIA's friend. This is pure delusion to think that bin laden would work or accept help from the US.
        • kayaker712, on 10/23/2007, -0/+9they were called mujahadeen. look it up.
        • ringelman5, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5Delusionary is your own comment. Get some help.
        • BravoLima, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4Hallucinate, like, much? : ^ )
    • dracostimpy, on 10/30/2007, -1/+21Kinda like how Neil Bush had dinner plans with Hinckley's brother the day after Reagan was shot?

      http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38432f49307d.ht ...
  • critthinker, on 11/01/2007, -7/+69FINALLY!

    As critthinker has been telling paid shills like "herkmeister" all along, the "official lie" is IMPOSSIBLE according the LAWS OF SCIENCE!

    So "herkmeister" what does that leave by process of elimination the reason that the concrete in the WTC towers turned to 50 micron sized powders in less than 15 seconds?

    Hint: It rhymes with "erosion'!

    Next question, why is this not front page news and who did the thing that rhymes with "erosion"?
    • flogistan, on 11/01/2007, -3/+30But will this shut Herhimey56 up?
      • artemus, on 11/01/2007, -2/+15Not as long as he works here, he doesn't.
    • kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -4/+28No, herk enjoys his ignorance way too much.
      I used to get amused when his answer to everything was a link to the NIST web site and the claim that all the "science" is there.
      I followed one his links one day and got nothing but meeting minutes, the NIST cafeteria menu and one unreferenced and undocumanted FAQ page.
      Another tried to show pictures of the WTC showing floor warping, I had to laugh at that one since it showed it warping the wrong direction for the floor joints, which is still silly since the floors were poured concrete which does not warp as shown.
      herkimer is a never ending source of amusement. I personally hope he never goes away. As long as the official story has people like that pulling for it more and more observers will ask real questions.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 11/01/2007, -15/+3Show me the NIST report. Just because you find conclusions questionable doesn't mean they are wrong. Just because one person doesn't agree with the methods used doesn't mean they are wrong. Show me the actual analysis instead of a small summary by someone not trained in science.
      • ViperDaimao, on 11/01/2007, -7/+5Read it yourself. http://wtc.nist.gov/

        I'll tell you this though. I'd bet that none of the truthers on here even know what NIST's explanation of collapse initiation is. I.E. they claim the "official story" is false, but they don't even know what the "official story" is.
      • EnricoSuarve, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3"Show me the actual analysis instead of a small summary by someone not trained in science."
        I realize it may not seem like it but the pdf in the post WAS from NIST - yeah I know it seems like they aren't trained in science but what can you do?
        If you think you need a scientific training to be capable of looking at rubble falling through an intact building at the same speed as rubble falling through air and saying "that's wrong", well in truth I don't know what to say. Ignorance is bliss I guess
  • Beck911, on 11/01/2007, -7/+29http://www.justin.tv/trutube
    http://www.justin.tv/wearechange
    http://www.justin.tv/sctruth
    http://www.justin.tv/beck911truth
    www.turtube.tv
  • Samwizen, on 11/02/2007, -6/+52Even NIST's attempt to explain/describe the "initiation of collapse" is weak, torturous, & pathetic.
    And Still Zero explanation for WTC7's 6.6 second symmetric, catastrophic collapse. (i.e, NIST continues to repeatedly delay any explanation for WTC7)
    And check the FBI's own official website for Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted Terrorist poster....any ref to 9/11 after 6+ years? -nope
    What does it take for Americans to become truly Patriotic & ask a few questions about perhaps the most vital issue (leveraged to start 2 wars, torture, privacy invasions, Constitution-shredding, etc) of our time?
    • kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -3/+22My favorite part of the NIST letter is the comment about having such a small sample size with which to do observations with. I seem to recall the shill troop yapping some such nonsense about the great "investigation" that was done on the steel and other debris.
      The vast majority of the steel was IMMEDIATELY shipped off to China under guard not giving any investigators the opportunity to examine it. NIST even admits it.
      So how the hell can anyone have done a thorough investigation?
      The shill troops always post the same nonsense about believing the investigation and the loony herkimer talks as if he was personally trodding about ground zero with a test tube and spectrum analyzer.
      I have to say there herk that of you have so much evidence you better get your ass to NIST HQ and help out pronto.
      I hear the cafeteria is pretty good too, ( thanks to one your posted links)
      • ViperDaimao, on 11/01/2007, -8/+4Here’s Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team, in his testimony to the House of Representatives:

        "There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".
        www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm
    • ViperDaimao, on 11/01/2007, -10/+5There's no explanation because you're making facts up. WTC7 took over 15 seconds to fall, starting with the partial collapse of the penthouse. It was not symetical at all, with one side of the building falling on the other, and damaging wall street and the nearby verizon building.
      • Samwizen, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4Anyone who looks at the videos can roughly measure/time for themselves & see the 47 story WTC7 building collapsed in approx 6~7 seconds.
        People can also look at numerous pictures taken of surrounding structures after WTC7 collapsed & clearly see how incredibly little damage was done to them--even as surprisingly close as they were to WTC7. Plus, some damage to nearby buildings was done by the explosive collapse of the N.Tower.
  • kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -6/+52I find it interesting that they never addressed the thermodynamics. All you get is "jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees and steel loses 80% of it's strength at 1800 degrees" as if one leads to the other.

    What they miss out on is jet fuel might burn at 1800 degrees; inside a jet engine. Jet engines feed compressed air at high volume and feed in an atomized spray of fuel at a specific engineered ratio.

    Open air kerosene gets no where near that temp and even if it did the BTU liberation form the combustion is only a fraction of what would be needed to heat the steel. Heat transfer also required mass flow, ie: air flow to heat up the target. The the target material requires a "specific" amount of heat to raise it's temperature conveniently referred to as "specific heat".

    The optimum ratio for combustion is similar to what your car fuel injection does, mixed a measure mass of air with a measured mass of fuel. These conditions do not occur in an open air fire. You need a massive source of fresh O2 which the WTC towers clearly did not have

    When you factor in the heat LOSS from the damage to the building, the connected mass of steel conducting the heat away, the absorption of heat by the moisture in the air you have a set of circumstances that make it impossible to heat the steel above 500 or so degrees. Even that is doubtful, as heating takes time.

    When you factor in the cross sectional area of the steel and the likely combustion temps - this can be easily calculated with open source data - then factor the heat radiation and conduction away from the steel, add in the specific heat of the air, moisture and concrete, add the BTU's from the office contents, but take away from the available O2 to the jet fuel by burning carpet.

    Then to make matters more interesting, you take away the btu content of the fuel burned up in the fireball ( some uninformed people calling it an explosion - it was NOT an explosion, look up the definition and requirements for an "explosion").

    Then just for fun calculate how much fuel ran down the elevator shafts to destroy the main ground floor lobby that the idiots claim. That doesn't leave much in the way of available heat for the steel.

    It is amazing to me how some people not just revel in but actually BRAG about their ignorance. You all know who I am talking about.
    • dukeeeey, on 11/01/2007, -3/+26not to mention the towers were DESIGNED to withstand the impact of jetliners smashing into them
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scQPx539c7M
      • kayaker712, on 10/18/2007, -2/+17Oh yes, even NIST admits that there building were stable after the crash, In effect the crash damage was minimal. Aluminum airplanes tend to shred into confetti when they hit things as was thoughtfully shown by Popular Mechanics. So how Mr. Meigs, if planes shred into tiny little pieces like at the Pentagon how could one have done the damage to did to the WTC? By trying to explain how a plane could do so little damage to the Pentagon they destroyed their own argument about the WTC towers. - oh yeah, I forgot the window glass we reinforced, thats why the engines from 77 didn't break them. Wow I want windows like that in my house. Being able to stand up to jet engines crashing into them at 500 mph and not break. Very impressive indeed.
        The whole thing would be hilarious it wasnt so tragic.
    • puto, on 11/01/2007, -2/+14Great comments here. Keep it up and... added!
    • theinept, on 11/01/2007, -15/+5Just a thought. You state that the combustion of the fuel would have lacked a substantial source of oxygen and that this would be a contributing factor in preventing complete combustion at high temperatures. I would like to suggest that it gets *very* windy at the elevations where the planes impacted and that this high velocity wind could have stoked the flames to higher temperatures than you're willing to acknowledge.

      The velocity of the windborne oxygen may be lower than that of a turbine-fueled jet engine but the volume would be substantially greater. I assert that there would likely be an abundance of forced air for combustion. I've got nothing to say about whether the plane impacts did or could have brought the buildings down because I don't know, but I do think the flames could have burned much hotter than you think.
      • kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -1/+16Windy is one thing, air compression and fuel air mixing in quite another.
        Do the math yourself. Calculate the mass airflow rate that would be required for jet fuel combustion that would yield the required heat. These are not complex equations. The data is available open source all over the web.
      • spartacus409, on 11/01/2007, -0/+15Watch the smoke it will show you how much wind there was.
      • kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -1/+13Again you focus on the wrong thing. Temperature is not the same thing as HEAT. Heat is energy. You cannot get more out of a system than you put into it. You cannot put more btu's into steel from a fire than the available energy of the fuel.. There are no perpetual motion machines.
        I can take a hand torch that burns at 3000 degrees. I can put the flame on a steel beam but have no chance of softening it not matter what the flame temperature is.
        Tomorrow morning make yourself some fried eggs on a gas range in an aluminum pan. Tell mw what happens to the pan. Aluminum melts at 1100 degree. Propane burns much higher.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 11/01/2007, -20/+7The best thing is that the World Trade Center was built on the edge of Engineering in the 1960's. You don't need 80% reduction in strength to get failure. The reduction in strength required could be as low as 10%. And, once the first floor failure happened, the building was coming down. And, if you were trying to cause outrage and destruction with explosive charges, then you would blow them when the planes hit not later on when all the news services are watching.

      The conspiracy theories do not make sense.
      • kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -3/+16No the floor might sag and droop. Watch the videos, onset of collapse occurs i a fraction of a second. steel does not progress from strength to failure that fast. The curve of strength versus temperature shows this. Again you can look it up yourself. As the steel weakened it would bend in what is called the "plastic region". The it would come down over the area that was weakened. Look at the south tower shots. They speak for themselves if you have any scientific or engineering knowledge at all.
      • skotoseme, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4Of course they would wait for the whole world to be watching live before bringing the towers down -- Shock and Awe. Not to mention it makes their absurd fire-melting-steel theories seem plausible to the general public.
    • Samwizen, on 11/01/2007, -2/+11Excellent points & very well expressed!

      I'll just add that the planes almost certainly (even according to official accounts such as NIST) had only about 1/2 of their total fuel capacity (~24,000 gallons) when they each impacted the towers, so they were starting with about 12k gallons, then likely at least 1/2 of that was consumed in seconds in each of the massive fireballs--which leaves at most about 5 or 6k gallons of jet fuel to actually burn inside. Then you spread that around over numerous--perhaps a dozens floors or more (based on how far some of it may have fallen down shafts) & you're left with perhaps only a few hundred gallons per floor--versus 47 gigantic core box columns & scores or even hundreds of floor assemblies, etc that would have to be heated up.. not to mention most of the insulation would've still been on most of the columns & beams.

      So doubt seriously that the jet fuel would've done much other than ignite other materials--which would be no more than a moderate office fire. Folks should look at videos of other office fires which are truly towering infernos. Since the initial impacts (points of greatest structural destabilization) obviously weren't enough to bring them down, then the fires contributed very very little.
  • mesogen, on 11/13/2007, -31/+22I've got a problem with this " NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable
    Implicitly acknowledges controlled demolition only means by which towers could have fallen at free fall speed"

    They are setting up a false dichotomy. This is what creationists do. They say "Since evolutionary theory can't explain X, then obviously Genesis is literally true."

    Just because NIST can't explain it doesn't mean that it HAD to be controlled demolition.
    • kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -5/+17You make a good point, except when you consider the need for a scientific explanation of how and why they fell. NISTS theory had been shown untenable and in fact all other theories fail the same way. So using the scientific method, you devise a new theory, one that does adequately explain the collapse. NIST has had 6 years and failed because they put limits on themselves.
      They asked themselves the wrong question. If this were a criminal or scientific inquiry you leave all possibilities on the table. So far no one has shown the demolition theory to be impossible so it is a legitimate working theory deserving of investigation.
      I have no idea how the towers fell. but I know how they didn't and NIST agrees.
      They failed because the question they asked was "How could planes and fire have caused the buildings to fall?" They failed to answer this question.
      The right question is. "What caused the buildings to fall."
    • commernie, on 11/01/2007, -4/+17Your creationist analogy doesn't apply. We know how buildings fall via controlled demolition, and we observed that the twin towers fell that way. It is very reasonable to assume that this is the explanation.
      In the other case, we've never shown that Genesis is responsible for squat, and we've never observed that it is true, so it is, as you suggested, very irrational to assume this explanation.
      • xOpifex, on 10/19/2007, -3/+6But why can't buildings fall like that and not be a controlled demolition? Just because the official story was false doesn't mean we can jump right to the other end of the spectrum. It just means that more of an investigation needs to happen.
        • ashmael, on 10/19/2007, -3/+15Because buildings have a lot of mass in each floor. As they start to collapse, that mass gets in the way, and prevents the entire building from falling at free-fall speed, as each floor that is encountered causes a bit of resistance. There was some mechanism that got all that mass out of the way instantly so that when the building started falling it hit no resistance whatsoever.
          • Jook, on 10/21/2007, -14/+6Um...ever heard of inertia? When you have a steadily increasing mass impacting an stationary object at loads far beyond what the specifications ever called for the inertial force will be transferred, so the floors will begin to collapse almost at a logarithmic rate. Newton's third law and all...Force=Mass x Acceleration. With the design of the WTC Twin Towers, nearly the entire load of the building and it's floors was carried by the outer skeleton of the building, allowing for less pillars internally, but fatally weakening the whole system if the outer frame is compromised.

            No need for the troofers when all we really need to understand this is simple physics.
          • EnricoSuarve, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2Ah but you're forgetting that a major actor on acceleration is friction - 70+ relativity intact floors made of steel and concrete = 1 ***** load of friction. I do not doubt that if a collapse did initiate under normal circumstances it would have a high chance of bringing the building down but it would be slowed up by the presence of floors beneath it. Try playing Jenga and seeing if you can get the blocks to collapse straight down, theoretically possible I suppose depending on how you initiate it but I bet it falls to the side more often....
            "nearly the entire load of the building and it's floors was carried by the outer skeleton of the building" Nope that would be the core of the building manufactured from monolythic sections of steel.
            The outer wall was designed to act like a screen - I've seen somewhere clips of the designer back in the 90's stating it was designed so that a plane could fly into it and the entire outer structure would keep its form in the same manner as a screen door being punctured by a pencil
        • commernie, on 10/18/2007, -3/+3I never said that they couldn't. All I said was that the analogy was inadequate. I agree that the investigation needs to happen. However, if they find no evidence of anything else, then you must agree that the most REASONABLE conclusion is that it was a controlled demolition, yes?
      • xOpifex, on 10/30/2007, -8/+1Edit: What the hell? digg posted my comment twice, way to go!
      • satanatnmtedu, on 10/23/2007, -10/+1Actually, we don't know how controlled demolitions work every time. There are several examples of buildings that failed differently than expected. There are instances of people hitting the charges, the charges blow, and the building continues to stand. It is not a perfect science.
        But, we are taking a conspiracy theory website at their word that NIST doesn't know what happened. Still, no one will ever know what exactly happened unless it is a set up and controlled test.
      • siszam, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2If Genesis was a lie then we wouldn't be here. You didn't randomly occur from a random big bang. Now that's outrageous and unbelievable.
    • plowerman, on 11/01/2007, -2/+6Do we have thousands of hours of video of Evolution and saying, "look, you can see the Creationism"? It's not a false dichotomy, it's a lie. Your government told you the buildings fell due to fire. This explanation has been proven to be impossible, thus, a lie. A conspiracy theory is a theory. You get foccused on how this or that theory is wrong and you ignore the fact that YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO!
      • jcm267, on 10/21/2007, -3/+4I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that supports your theory.
        • raitchison, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1They don't need evidence they have a video on the internets
        • ringelman5, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4To paraphrase, None is so blind as he who is paid to not see.............
  • hyperqube714, on 11/01/2007, -9/+18i don't think we're ever gonna get the answers to what happened. it's too late. 9/11 2.0 will be here on 11/7, bush will declare martial law, and then what?
    • bumblefoot, on 10/17/2007, -2/+8911 2.0?

      whats that more planes hitting towers but they're colourful, community based and have nice rounded edges on everything?
    • plowerman, on 10/25/2007, -3/+6I think Alex Jones put it best when he compared us to Ninevah. Jonah preached to Ninevah and they were given a 100 year reprieve. Or another example, the Unsinkable Molly Brown. She was on one of the few life boats that escaped the Titanic. She pleaded with the others on the boat to go back and help the people still in the water. Would those people have capsized the life boats? Maybe. But history remembers her as being the moral hero of the story. There is something to be said for fighting the good fight against all odds. And history shows us, some times the underdog wins, Martin Luther King and Ghandi come to mind.
  • tehowe, on 10/30/2007, -5/+30So this is what being gamed looks like. It's been called externalization of the hierarchy - the fraud of 9/11 will go mainstream and once we're all hopping mad, we'll be looking for blood. If I were a betting man, I'd say it goes down like this: convinced that we've been betrayed and that American democracy and free markets have failed us, in the ensuing domestic chaos we eagerly accept the solution of UN control and integration into the global hierarchy. And then America is just another feudal satellite state of the financiers. Vive le revolution! And the Fabians see check and mate.
    • digitalhair, on 10/18/2007, -2/+17Yes! Your perception is right on! People need to start looking at the past 8 years as if they were some sort of freak accident or the result of some sort of miscalculation. The truth will only be revealed after more people in the mainstream start framing so called "failures" under the context of not "how could they have failed so miserably that this could have happened" but instead that they knew this would happen, were possibly the perpetrators or at least facilitated the event, put on a show as if they did everything possible to stop the event, but in the end attribute the problem to some sort of unavoidable failure or pin blame on one person, two people, or a small group of people to satisfy our sense of justice so that the actual conspirators are never held fully accountable and their initial plan moves forward. Start asking yourselves how, statistically speaking, so many random but collective errors could have naturally compounded into these huge governmental sovereignty-threatening mistakes and you will realize that they are not mistakes at all, but in truth are trending toward a goal that is not clear but certainly does not favor the safety or well-being of the citizens of our great country, the USA.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/21/2007, -15/+2Wow. Take one kooky theory and expand it to super tin foil hat level. Thanks for showing how delusional some functioning people are.
    • digitalhair, on 10/18/2007, -2/+4Correction... LINE 1: People need to [STOP] looking at the past 8 years...
    • plowerman, on 10/18/2007, -1/+6Vive le Revolucion!
    • pleiadianagenda, on 10/18/2007, -1/+7You make a great point. If 9-11 as an inside job is exposed mainstream, the elite will try to take advantage of hopping mad emotions once again and try to make it an "evil America" thing, a Bush and Cheney thing, and try to justify America going under UN control. Which is exactly why it needs to called for what it is. This inside job was pulled off by global elitists, the same global elitists who have hijacked America for the last 50 years. The same global elitists who Eisenhower warned us about in his 1961 farewell speech.

      Locking up Bush and Cheney will not be enough. That would be like putting a bandaid over the wound of a ripped off limb. We have to go right to the source. The central banks, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellars, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, the shadow govt. Names need to be named, and the entire cabal needs to come down at once.

      If we don't, it will be just like you said. America will be assimilated into the next chess move.
  • tinyfunkmaster, on 10/30/2007, -4/+18The beginning of the end? I hope so...
  • ErikSw, on 11/01/2007, -4/+31I'm going to make copies of this article and pass it out with 911 dvd's. This article is important because it shows the official story is not possible and that leads to many questions and hopefully research by those who have those questions.
  • sept11insidejob, on 11/01/2007, -6/+34Hey...NIST, psst, psst...maybe you outta include that "explosives planted in the building theory"---it might help explain why they fell the way they fell?
    Ya think?
    • jcm267, on 10/30/2007, -21/+6The buildings fell because the fire burned hot enough for the steel to weaken to the point where it could not support the weight of the floors above the point of impact and the subsequent effect of the kinetic energy created by the floors falling on top of each other.
      • spartacus409, on 10/30/2007, -2/+16Wrong, impossible.not enough heat regardless of any "flame temperature" to weaken the steel.
        You forgot the static inertia of the remaining floors. Factor that in and there is not enough energy for a collapse.
        They use the scientific ignorance of the general public to float this nonsense.

        • jcm267, on 10/21/2007, -16/+5http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Ea ...

          The fire burned in excess of 1800 degrees, more than enough to weaken the steel (which is over 1400).
        • ruforealz, on 10/21/2007, -1/+9@jcm:
          quote from your precious page:

          "No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large"

          all those statements are ridiculous.. nice "evidence"
          • jcm267, on 10/21/2007, -10/+2That source was written by "Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso, graduate research student, are at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "

            When the plane hit, it took out a large percentage of both the inner and outer core. The impact blew much of the combustible material to the walls, and much of the steel's fireprofing material was blown off on impact. The fire reached temperatures over 1800 degrees, which is more than enough to weaken steel.

            Are you a scientist? Probably not. Do you have credentials on par with Thomas W. Eagar? Definitely not.
          • kayaker712, on 10/25/2007, -0/+6NIST offers no evidence or even a mechanism for the supposed destruction of core columns.
            No was there any evidence or mechanism for th elos sof fireproofing. Not that it is relevant anyway.
            "Appeals to Authority" ,mean nothing. 1800 degree flame temperature is not relevant. It could have been 3000 degrees and it would have made no difference. In fact it would have meant more heat loss elsewhere. You are arguing nonsense. Eagar is arguing nonsense and man of his qualifications should know a little something of first year thermodynamics.
            Nothing in your post is supported by any evidence whatsoever on conjecture and an attempt to explain how a plane "might" bring down the towers. But, the necessary conditions were never met.
            If Eagar said that steel loses such and such amount of strength at X temp. He is probably being accurate, but that is not relevant to the WTC.
            Do the math yourself. Calculate the BTU liberation of open air kerosene, calculate the mass of steel, concrete and water vapor. Calculate the air flow required for combustion at X temperature, then get the specific heat in MJ or BTU/ kg of steel, concrete and water vapor. Then approximate the surface area of the concrete and steel. After you that, estimate the fuel load of the plane, minus the volume burned in the fireball, minus the estimated volume that "flew down the elevator shafts (hahaha) to destroy the main lobby. then plug the numbers.
            What you will get when you combine the equation is a T-Rise number for each material.
            Standard heat transfer formula are available from a variety open source web sites. energy content of the fuel and office contents are also available free.
            When you do the heat transfer rates you can ignore the fireproofing and use the surface area and R value of raw steel.
            Do it yourself. Tell us the results you come up with. Cut and past your numbers into a reply.
            If you get an 1800 degree T-Rise I'll eat my hat.

        • kayaker712, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4The flame temp is not relevant to this discussion, only the BTU content of the fuel. The flame temp could have been 2500 degrees and it would have made no difference other than transferrign what heat you do have a little faster
          This is the problem we have today, no on understands basic science.
          I will repeat: temperature is not heat.
          Just one more time. TEMPERATURE IS NOT HEAT.
          It takes heat which is energy, to raise the temperature of any material. All temperature does is raise the rate of heat transfer. It does NOT increase the available energy of the system. You can hold a hand held torch at 3000 degrees and not you will run out of fuel before you get the steel anywhere near the flame temperature.
          Like it rt not this is real science.
        • ringelman5, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2@kayaker They got ya paddlin' only on one side.
          jcm and the other shills are paid to disinfo and get us to waste time responding to their BS posts. I tried with the heat release / content thing. It just ain't worth it unless you do it for the non-concrete mind -- that's NOT all mixed up and permanently set.
          I think part of the problem is the dumbed down products of today's schools. Glad to see you're not one of them.
      • Heilige, on 10/30/2007, -3/+14@jcm267 Why don't you think for yourself for a change?
        • jcm267, on 10/21/2007, -14/+5I do think for myself, and I personally think that the experts have a better grasp on the subject than Alex Jones and his followers.
        • kayaker712, on 10/18/2007, -0/+6Oh yes, James Meigs:Expert
        • ringelman5, on 10/21/2007, -0/+3'Cause the pay's better this way............
          jcm267 = shill provocateur
      • JBURNES, on 10/30/2007, -0/+6Did you laminate the the Popular Mechanics article and hang it on the fridge> ( Brainwashed )
      • kayaker712, on 10/30/2007, -1/+7@jcm you have NO grasp on the subject as you are completely ignorant of basic thermodynamics.
        Sorry, it's a hard truth.
        See previsions post for how to do the math yourself.


  • benjorino, on 11/01/2007, -22/+3This video PROVES that there was more to 911 than the official story says.
    Please watch, its full of FACT not fiction like some of the other videos out there.
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=39DOiqsVHlU
  • Yggdrasil, on 11/01/2007, -29/+14Have any of you actually read the PDF in the article? NIST in no way said that the collapse was the result of a controlled demolition. What they say is that they don't know for sure, which in science is pretty much a constant state; they couldn't know for sure unless they were there at the time. Please submit an article from a slightly more reputable source than prisonplanet.com, or get out with your hasty conclusions. It's like a meeting of the elvis was an alien that shot JFK from the grassy knoll club in here.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 11/01/2007, -16/+8Troothers are not interested in truth.
    • spartacus409, on 10/18/2007, -2/+11Talking about aliens and you accuse us of being unscientific?
      ROLTFL
      Try googling the "scientific method".
  • glideforlife, on 10/18/2007, -2/+15Let Freedom Ring!!!!!!
    • floridiot2, on 10/17/2007, -1/+7The bell is cracked.
      • ascolti, on 10/21/2007, -0/+2But it will still sound better than "Let the eagle soar." - If you know what I'm referring too.
  • reeder, on 11/01/2007, -6/+36No one ever talks about the molten metal pools, nor the presence of thermite, thermate, and cross-cut steel columns, all of which can only be present in a controlled demolition. I use to be a doubter too, until I looked at all the facts.

    We are being conditioned.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/24/2007, -17/+1Did you observe these items? How can you know that they aren't concoctions of the people who want you to rebel for their own selfish reasons? If you were really distrustful, then you would question the motives of the troothers just as much as the motives of the government. Troothers are just as much sheep for their screams of conspiracy as the people who accept official explanations when they have no background in the science.
    • plowerman, on 10/24/2007, -1/+9I think you get into conspiracy mode after you start questioning reality for the first time. But Saint Paul said it best, look at their fruits. The Bush administration shows you horrible things and gets you to react, "Something must be done!" And that something is war and death and murder. The 9/11 truthers show you some horrible things and again you react, "something must be done!" But, they ask for a re-investigation of all the facts. They ask you to exercise you civil liberties, to protest, to vote for Ron Paul, to write your congressperson, to exercise democracy and free speach and free thought. They don't say to riot or kill or murder or mame, only BUSH is saying that. So what are the motives of 9/11 truthers? Maybe they just want the truth to be heard and respect for the victims of 9/11 to be truly made. Maybe their motives are respectable, and decent, and human. And we know them by their fruits. Distrust those most who ask you to kill in the name of truth and liberty.
  • xero040486, on 11/01/2007, -32/+12Baaa....baaaaaaa.

    You're all a bunch of ***** sheep. Every time a troother posts an article like this, it's always the same copy and paste replies.
    I find it odd that most of the 'facts' uncovered by the trooth movement come from 13 year olds, philosophy majors, and people who haven't emerged from their basements in years for fear of government mind control rays. Where are the engineers? The scientists? Anybody who has a firm grasp on reality?
    • card51short, on 10/18/2007, -3/+15xero, here are 600+ professionals, including architects, engineers and scientists. Of course, they're all with Al Queda right?

      www.PATRIOTSQUESTION911.COM
      WWW.AE911TRUTH.ORG

      Research for yourself. At the very least there deserves to be a debate.
      • Herkimer56, on 10/21/2007, -10/+5Again, those sites do not check the professional credentials of the people they list. They just take their word for it that they are who and what they say they are.
        • kayaker712, on 10/21/2007, -1/+5So what qualifications do YOU have then herkimer?
    • funhouse1970, on 10/21/2007, -4/+15Here are the engineers and architects:

      http://ae911truth.org
    • kayaker712, on 10/19/2007, -3/+10Address my points in the thermodynamics post I made above.
      Address and dispute them. I dare you to try.
      It's easy to namer call which is all you "skeptics" seem to be able to do.
      You answer with nonsense posts that address nothing.
      Take it down point by point, do the math and show me the results.
    • plowerman, on 10/25/2007, -2/+6Hmmm, you repeat our langauge to us but use it to make us sound unreasonable. Please, tell me how to sign up with the New World Order? Do I just write up a contract in my own blood or do I have to send my resume to someone?? Thanks for all your help in this inquiry.
  • puto, on 10/30/2007, -7/+14OMG finally!!! YEAH!
  • burchie2, on 11/01/2007, -22/+11you are crazy if you think there was an intentional "explosion" triggered inside the WTC that led to its collapse....just saying....
    • card51short, on 11/01/2007, -3/+13www.patriotsquestion911.com
      www.ae911truth.org

      tell the experts they are crazy.
      • Herkimer56, on 11/01/2007, -9/+4How do you know that those people are experts? Neither site checks professional credentials.
        • kayaker712, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4Well they seem to have better than you. A backroom IT mouse commando that plays HALO.
    • kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -3/+10Tell us why you think it is crazy?
      Give us a reason to say that.
      • Herkimer56, on 11/01/2007, -10/+4Because there is absolutely no evidence to support your belief.
        • kayaker712, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4Again you have ti totally backwards and your heroes at NIST agree with me that there is no evidence to support their view, but they say they maintain it anyway.

          How was the chili?
  • fuzzmeister, on 11/01/2007, -31/+20Yet again, "truthers" twisting scientific uncertainty into "proof" of their opinion. How the hell does this "implicitly acknowledge" a controlled demolition? To make that leap only shows that you _want_ to believe it is a controlled demolition, and will take anything as evidence for it. Everyone here should go read section F of the PDF report linked. It specifically says there is no evidence for a controlled demolition, and that a collapse was completely possible, if not inevitable.

    Also, on a more logical point: if the government was behind the entire attack, meaning they are competent beyond all possible belief, don't you think they could at least get NIST to fudge a bit of data for them? I mean, come on, you are claiming they are almost god-like at one moment, and incompetent at the next.
    • card51short, on 10/18/2007, -5/+14NIST has fudged previous data. This report, which us troofers have waited for for almost 2 years, was supposed to answer our questions.
      Instead they say they can't determine why it fell.
      Keep believing lies though
  • MajorD, on 11/01/2007, -30/+16This article really opens up the floodgates for all the conspiracy *****. Buried until proven true.
    • plowerman, on 10/30/2007, -3/+14To summarize, your position is, "I only believe what I see on FOX news and I never think for myself."
    • Herkimer56, on 10/30/2007, -11/+6To summarize, your position is, "I only believe what Alex Jones spoon feeds to me because I'm too stupid to think for myself and must be led by a con-man to believe the biggest lie of the century."
      • kayaker712, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3How about you: "I have not a clue what I am talking about, but I'll be damned if I'll let that stop me."
        That work for ya herk? It pretty much summarizes all your uh, "points" [sic]
  • kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -5/+24They there no evidence of controlled demolition or they have no evidence?
    They themselves admit that they have little material to work with so it cannot be ruled out
  • ZenFountain, on 11/01/2007, -4/+22Grab your bull horns and start parading down the streets chanting "9/11 was an inside job!"
  • Clogs, on 11/01/2007, -8/+29Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/
    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

    Twin Towers – the case for explosive demolition
    http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/case4EDca ...

    How The Towers Fell -- Richard Gage, AIA, Architect gives a technical analysis of the World Trade Center controlled demolition on September 11, 2001.
    Full presentation: http://blip.tv/file/306082
    Intro & WTC 7: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-176550002 ...
    Twin Towers: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3673080104 ...
  • TenebrousX, on 10/30/2007, -13/+11Can anyone find a link to the actual NIST report (from NIST themselves)? If not, I can't trust this.
  • metapop, on 10/30/2007, -8/+26i just saw loose change last night... and i'm still in shock.
    • jcm267, on 10/30/2007, -22/+6Check out this site.

      http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

      And if you're in the mood, the following:

      http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar ...
      http://www.debunking911.com/
      http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
    • spartacus409, on 10/17/2007, -4/+9Comedy is often the antidote for shock.
    • card51short, on 10/30/2007, -6/+15yeah look at all those sites...look at the bad names they call us.
      now look at:
      www.patriotsquestion911.com
      www.ae911truth.org

      Go ahead and read the "debunkers" see how ignorant they are.
      • jcm267, on 10/23/2007, -10/+7I know for a fact that www.ae911truth.org is *****. You don't need any credentials to join, and for some time they didn't even review who signed up. I was able to join as "Albert Speer".
        • kayaker712, on 10/21/2007, -0/+5Oh so you admit to falsifying things on the web? I guess we know how much to trust what you say then.
        • virtualdc, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2He is like the witness who just perjured himself on the stand. Way to go minion jcm.
        • ringelman5, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1How appropriate. Albert Speer, as I recall, was a nazi at the Nuremburg trials.
          Seems like he committed suicide to avoid being hung.
          You trying to tell us something, jcm??
    • plowerman, on 10/21/2007, -2/+12I talked to my friend in Bulgaria she says it's common knowledge there that 9/11 was an inside job.
      • Herkimer56, on 10/21/2007, -10/+4In Bulgaria? And exactly how do they know this? You people have been trying to prove it was an inside job for six years and you've yet to be able to produce even one piece of credible evidence but to people in Bulgaria it's "common knowledge" that it was an inside job?
        • grinchdec23, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1HAHHA, i talk to people from round the world,, the Germans teach this in school,, they are quite disturbed by how America is these days,, it reminds them of something.
      • kayaker712, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4How about Japan then? Really smart guys there. I just spent two weeks there. It is common knowledge, but then the Japanese school kids know way more science than you ever suspect exists.
  • ansecos, on 10/30/2007, -30/+17This article makes me cry. In fact, most of the comments here make me want to cry, too.
    9/11 was NOT an inside job. Every single "scientific" article, frankly, are all written by the "truthers", the ones who have it set in their mind that 9/11 was an inside job in the first place! This letter that they allegedly sent, which allegedly said that they couldn't explain it all: proof or GTFO.
    Also, how can you know that the collapse was aganist the laws of physics when, well, you're not even a specialist? It's like a guy doing the Drive-Thru at a McDonalds telling you that there was no Moon landing. Why? Because the moon is made of cheese, duh!
    • puto, on 10/18/2007, -4/+15Scientific like the NIST report?
    • DG190, on 10/21/2007, -4/+13I am a metallurgist from Austin Texas and along with many scientists from NIST, the conclusion has been reached that there is more to the events of 9/11 than what was presented to the American people by our politicians.
      • GeyserShitdick, on 10/21/2007, -12/+4I'm an astronaut and also a kangaroo and I can definitively tell you that the moon is made of cheese and that George Bush eats babies.
      • kayaker712, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3Making jokes is all they can do. Notice in all the posts here not one puts forth any evidence whatsoever nor does any attempt to refute a single argument.
    • plowerman, on 10/30/2007, -3/+12Yes the 9/11 truthers are such a crazy group of University students and Engineers and Scientists and eye-witnesses and family members and just plain old concerned citizens! They just got in their heads that the world is actually a peaceful place and that people who are Muslim aren't always terrorists, and, and, they think so highly of the human race that they can only blame a few powerful elite instead of just admitting the truth, that all human beings are born evil and that's why there's war and violence in the world. Not this crazy conspiracy theory that integrity of man is actually rock solid! Not this crazy conspiracy that human life actually matters! It makes me cry so much when I think of all the people who aren't watching FOX news for their facts and and doing research for themselves! I mean, what is this world coming to when people are actually ACTIVE in politics??? I just want to cry my eyes out that people are actually thinking for themselves! I mean, what's next? Peace in the Middle East? I suppose next you all want us to love each other and be happy?? Is that it??? Please, stop this message of freedom before it's too late and human beings are actually free!!!
    • lobotomyxx, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2so. . . an 8th grade math student needs to go to college, and get a degree, so he can be a specialist, before learning / attempting a simple equation for that which proves freefall, in absence of resistance?

  • onisamsha, on 10/30/2007, -26/+12I might actually click the link to read the report if it hadn't been filtered through a BS website.

    Seeing as it's from prisonplanet.com, an alarmist conspiracy haven that takes thin strands of truth and then weaves them together into an elaborate lie/half-truth, i'll just search google for "NIST report."
    • card51short, on 10/18/2007, -3/+9you do that!
      because people are the liars...the big corporate media would NEVER lie.
      • onisamsha, on 10/21/2007, -7/+4Stop insinuating things i never said.

        I get my news from all over the internet, i just try to steer clear of websites which are very obviously irrational, sites like prisonplanet.com.
    • plowerman, on 10/18/2007, -3/+7Yes, they take this collection of irrefutable facts and amazing coincidences and just spin them together into a larger picture! FACE FACTS: If this is a war on terror why are our borders neglected? SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT IT! Arabs come through Mexico! It's been documented! Our open borders are the greatest threat to national security our country has ever seen. Arabs even are of similar skin color as Mexicans, the blend right in! What? You think it's impossible for a radical Muslim extremist to learn Spanish??? Seriously, do you believe that??? Is that what sells as safety in this county, Arabs can't learn Spanish? Is that our only tacit security of Radical Muslims not coming in through Mexico, is that Muslims speak Arabic and Mexicans speak Spanish?
      • onisamsha, on 10/18/2007, -4/+4I have no idea what you're talking about, nor any semblance of understanding as to how it could, in any way, relate to my comment.

        Did you respond to the wrong comment?

        And yes, i agree, Arab people can learn Spanish.
        • plowerman, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2My understanding of your comments was that the thin strands of truth where weaved into the Conspiracy Theory of the New World Order and the larger picture. I can see how I made that jump in logic too fast. I was going in a broader direction and I guess I misunderstood you in that you meant specifically the report in question?
          I was questioning the motives of the Bush administration itself. If 9/11 really happened as the results of terrorism and the Government is super concerned with our security, then they would put military bases all along the US Mexico border. With everything associated with 9/11 I find too many "coincidences". So maybe you can explain it away a few as "strands of truth" but if you look at the big picture then you'll find there are many many strands out of place. That's more or less what I meant.
  • jcm267, on 10/30/2007, -23/+5http://digg.com/videos_educational/How_the_twin_to ...
    • spartacus409, on 10/30/2007, -4/+16Quick someone notify NIST, jcm solved the mystery. Hold the Nobel prize folks we have a winner.
      • Herkimer56, on 10/30/2007, -11/+3That was the best argument you could come up with? Lame. Even by truther standards.
      • kayaker712, on 10/25/2007, -0/+7herkimer you are the patron saint of lame.
  • DeviantDragon, on 10/30/2007, -18/+6To backup fuzzmeister, here are direct quotes from section F.

    "In the case of the WTC Towers, NIST has established that failures initiated in the floors affected by aircraft impact damage and the ensuing fires resulted in the collapse of the towers. This conclusion is support by a large body of visual evidence collected by NIST."

    Later it goes on to say:

    "Taken as a whole, the interviews [of emergency personnel] did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC Towers."

    Still later:

    "Finally, NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue and as noted above, such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.

    This letter IN NO WAY acknowledges, whether explicitly or implicitly, that explosives caused the collapse. In fact, it says just the opposite. Furthermore, the letter defends the findings that the collapse were caused by the impact of the airplanes into the towers. This article is buried for inaccuracy. Large amounts of it.
  • StopTheLie, on 11/01/2007, -3/+25While we're pointing out the obvious, how about an obvious yet unasked question: Why weren't explosives the first thing considered as the cause for the WTC buildings' collapse? Terrorists regularly use bombs to attack their targets, countless reputable eyewitnesses reported bombs going off, buildings have never collapsed in the manner witnessed on 9/11 without the help of explosives, and in 1993 explosives were successfully placed (by terrorists) and detonated in one of the same buildings that fell on 9/11! To have the government bend itself into an intellectual pretzel to make their "fire initiated collapse" theory stick (without spending any time looking into the more plausible theory) makes no sense whatsoever.

    (The above taken from "Fire Initiated Collapse - Primary Arguments Against") http://www.joeplummer.com/fire_initiated_collapse. ...
    • DeviantDragon, on 10/21/2007, -18/+5Well I think the fact that a freaking PLANE FLEW INTO THE BUILDINGS kinda stole everyone's attention and directed common sense to look at that as a possible source of destruction for the building. The second statement is true, however, terrorist also use guns a lot and no one is saying that they shot the towers down. Eyewitnesses only reported what SEEMED like bombs going off which can be explained by other factors. The WTC Tower impact was a very unique situation given the type of airplane that flew into it and the design of the WTC itself, and lastly the bombs that were detonated in 1993 failed to do anything which says a lot about the effectiveness of bombs in this case.

      Here are some questions going the other way. How did were the alleged bombs planted in the WTC in such a brief time that nobody that normally works in the tower noticed any disruptance? Surely it would require extensive bomb distribution in a very large area populated daily by office workers. But no, questions like these are the ones that go ignored.
      • StopTheLie, on 10/18/2007, -3/+14WTC 7? Not hit by a plane (not burned with "jet fuel.") And the molten metal? Sure, we've got the "raging jet fuel theory" for the towers, but even so, it could have never generated sufficient heat to produce the molten metal found in all three buildings. In a logical world, we can't even begin discussing what caused the collapse of the buildings until we've identified what burned hot enough to create the molten metal. Why? Because whatever burned hot enough to create the molten metal is (logically) the most likely cause of collapse!
        • DeviantDragon, on 10/21/2007, -13/+3Well there's this possibility to explain the molten metal: Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. - NIST
        • puto, on 10/29/2007, -2/+12BBBBUT there was molten steel under WTC7 as well.
        • kayaker712, on 10/29/2007, -0/+8"long exposure to combustion within the pile"
          What energy source? What air source? A pile will smother, not get hotter.
          Sheesh science education sure has turned to ***** in this country
      • skotoseme, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4Total power-down the weekend before and witnesses saw workers going in and out of the building with tools and spools of cable. Cameras weren't on and bomb-sniffing dogs were pulled off detail for the whole week. Look it up "skeptic".
  • speedystriper, on 10/30/2007, -4/+29Good point. Why did they not even consider the possibility that terrorists planted explosives in the buildings? Well I'll tell you why: because terrorists did plant explosives in the buildings, only the terrorists were not from the middle east, but from the bowels of the military industrial complex/national security apparatus. We don't know their exact names, but we know that it was somebody from inside that world that pulled this off. How they ever thought no one would figure this out is stupefying. I truly believe that someone is going to fry for this within the next six years or so. It's sickening, abominable and unacceptable. Whoever was involved should be very frightened right about now. We're coming for you.
    • onlytruth, on 10/30/2007, -2/+10Hell Yeah!!!!

      We want the criminals!!
  • SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/23/2007, -25/+4Buried because the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is a excessively reaching conspiracy theory that is both an insult to the victims and (yes) the perpetrators. It have been put down again and again by everyone from Popular Science Magazine to South Park to Maddox.

    NEWS FLASH: All you need to take down a state-of-the-art sky scraper is an airliner full of fuel and a VERY disturbing set of moral ideals! YES, the world IS this chaotic! YES, it's THAT easy. Welcome back to reality.

    Now, please, stop digging this absurd *****. It won't change what happened on 9/11 no matter how much you wish it would. Sure, I agree that the Bush Administration is evil, but no way in hell are they that smart. They can't even keep their own secrets or staff members. How does it make sense that six years later still nobody would have stepped forward and spilled the beans?

    For those of you about to tell me to watch "Loose Change", I suggest you Google "loose change debunked" read through even one of those sites OBJECTIVELY and then tell me it's absolute evidence of anything.
    • spartacus409, on 10/30/2007, -6/+15Oh yeah, South Park. Kinda dipping to the bottom of the barrel there dude.
      Cartman, certified structural engineer sat on it, or was Kenny killed in the collapse?
      Ha I actually put more stock in Cartman than James Miegs.
      • Herkimer56, on 10/30/2007, -8/+5So you cannot argue the findings of NIST or even the Popular Mechanics article so you focus on South Park because you feel that you can safely ridicule it. South Park is not the bottom of the barrel. Alex Jones has sole ownership of that location.
        • BrapAllgood, on 10/30/2007, -4/+8South Park is a HELLUVA lot more fun than you are. It figures that you wouldn't like it.
          • Herkimer56, on 10/30/2007, -9/+4There you going making assumptions again, Brappie. Do you know what they say about making assumptions? I have every episode of South Park on disc. Now begone, stalker.
  • satanatnmtedu, on 10/21/2007, -20/+9Here is a link from NIST.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.ht ...

    It explains all the troothers allegations. No where does it state they do not know how the towers fell.

    • jcm267, on 10/21/2007, -7/+3Thanks. I'm adding that to my favorites list.
  • speedystriper, on 11/01/2007, -4/+26Doesn't really matter what they say. We know how they fell, and it's not because of the planes and fires. The towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts of planes almost identical to the 767's that hit them. They did not collapse at the moment of impact, because they were specifically designed not to. The explanation that the resulting fires caused the collapses does not cut it. Not by a long shot. You are on the losing side of history. Have fun.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/21/2007, -11/+3Actually, they weren't designed to withstand the impact of multiple planes. That's a truther lie. They were designed to withstand the impact of a much smaller plane moving at slow speeds and the effects of the fule was never taken in to consideration because they assumed that it would be a plane in a landing pattern for one of the area's airports.
      • puto, on 10/21/2007, -0/+7Show me a document that dates before 9/11 that will back up your claim.
        That's right, such a document does not exist.
      • kayaker712, on 10/21/2007, -0/+7Yes herk, lets see the evidence there dude
      • virtualdc, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3Herkle does not want to be confused with facts and evidence.
  • caulfieldrye, on 11/01/2007, -3/+21So the "experts" that are the basis of the official story now admit they were wrong! This should be #1 on Digg.
    This is the biggest story of the year. Hillary being a criminal is old news. Can we please get this article to the four corners as I'm kinda tired of people telling me we truthers have no experts on our side and that these are the experts we SHOULD be listening to?
    • DeviantDragon, on 10/21/2007, -12/+4Guess you didn't actually read the NIST letter.
      • kayaker712, on 10/18/2007, -0/+5I did. Every word, and I actually understand these things unlike herk and the rest of you.
        • DeviantDragon, on 10/25/2007, -2/+1Look, even if you dispute their findings, I don't see how you could objectively say that NIST is admitting that they are wrong.
  • tinyfunkmaster, on 11/01/2007, -3/+25Okay, okay, okay... Let's clear the smoke a bit and hopefully shed some light. Basically this is an argument about the definition of truth. One side says A, the Twin Towers were brought down by the force of the collision of the planes into the buildings and the resultant fire, side B says this is not physically possible and that a more plausible explanation; namely explosives, were used to bring down the buildings. Let's briefly explore "truth." To be true means to "be the case" or that a statement corresponds to our external world. There can be many truths for one object and since we are limited beings (we can only be in one place at one time and our vision is restricted to a certain field and we be distracted) we rely on the perceptions of others to corroborate what we see. In this sense, truth is come to through the process of dialogue. This is why universities and the printing press are such great things. To help disseminate ideas that we can dialogue with. Okay, now it is not possibly to have many "truths." The fundamental nature of the truth is that it is one. If I say that this character is an "A" and display an "A," then this would be a true statement. An A cannot be a B or any other letter of the alphabet. It can only be an A. There is an objectively valid truth that holds no matter what. Such is the nature of the laws of physics which, while not perfect, hold for the large percent of phenomena we observe. To claim that a fact is not valid because it is a) completely, 100% unassailable or b) has not been stated by a "professional" are both illogical critiques. Just because the WTC towers were larger and had more mass, the same laws of physics apply. Either steel softens at 1259 F or it doesn't. Either falling objects seek the path of least resistance or they don't. Either the support columns were blown into sections or they weren't. It can't be both ways. In conclusion, I have yet to see the "professionals" give a cogent rebuttal of the work that Steven Jones and other professionals in the Truth movement have done and have continued to do. They have denied open requests to debate the fine points. They have refused because they cannot let this turn into a rational debate or this smokescreen will be blown away. They will not because the truth does not change, minds change.
    • card51short, on 11/01/2007, -3/+19i appreciate your attempt, but these idiots aren't going to look into anything if they haven't already.
      Anyone who doesn't know 9/11 is an inside job by now is totally out of it or totally in denial.
      Good post, though!
    • Herkimer56, on 11/01/2007, -13/+3Be careful calling anyone an idiot, card51short, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. According to NIST the temperatures in parts of the towers reached more than 1800 degrees. That's more than hot enough to weaken unprotected steel and allow it to lose structural strength. There is only one truth and that truth is that there were no explosives in any of the WTC buildings.
      • kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -0/+7It is not. Do the math yourself. Temperature is NOT heat even if the fuel burned at 1800 degrees which it did not because there was insufficient airflow.
        IT DOES NOT MATTER. You are ignorant. ENERGY is required. E-N-E-R-G-Y. You know, KW's, MJ's, BTU all that technical stuff.
        Say it: "E-N-E-R-G-Y." Look it up.. One more time E-N-E-R-G-Y. " Ennnnn-errrrrr-geeeeee"

      • dforty3, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6According to Dr. Quintiere, the former NIST Chief of Fire Investigation, nowhere in the final NIST report did they ever document any evidence that proved the temperatures reached the high degree their explanation relies on. That also goes for Dr. Quintiere's own alternative explanation of the collapse due to the structural steel failure with the insulation intact. Not to say the temperatures didn't necessarily get that high, but they weren't able to prove it by looking at the small sample of debris they had access to. Maybe some of the dozens of other agencies you claim had studied the debris were able to show evidence of it before the evidence was sold off. Maybe you could provide links to the reports of those investigations you constantly claim occurred.
  • tinyfunkmaster, on 11/01/2007, -4/+17Okay, okay, okay... Let's clear the smoke a bit and hopefully shed some light. Basically this is an argument about the definition of truth. One side says A, the Twin Towers were brought down by the force of the collision of the planes into the buildings and the resultant fire, side B says this is not physically possible and that a more plausible explanation; namely explosives, were used to bring down the buildings. Let's briefly explore "truth." To be true means to "be the case" or that a statement corresponds to our external world. There can be many truths for one object and since we are limited beings (we can only be in one place at one time and our vision is restricted to a certain field and we can be distracted) we rely on the perceptions of others to corroborate what we see. In this sense, truth is come to through the process of dialogue. This is why the university and the printing press are such great things. To help disseminate ideas that we can dialogue with. Okay, now it is not possibly to have many "truths." The fundamental nature of the truth is that it is one. If I say that this character is an "A" and display an "A," then this would be a true statement. An A cannot be a B or any other letter of the alphabet. It can only be an A. There is an objectively valid truth that holds no matter what. Such is the nature of the laws of physics which, while our understanding of them is not perfect, hold for the phenomena we observe. If they don't, we change the model to reflect this. To claim that a fact is not valid because it is a) completely, 100% unassailable or b) has not been stated by a "professional" are both illogical critiques. Just because the WTC towers were larger and had more mass, the same laws of physics apply. Either steel softens at 1259 F or it doesn't. Either it reached no hotter than 500F which was stated by the NIST report, or it didn't. Either falling objects seek the path of least resistance or they don't. Either the support columns were blown into sections or they weren't. It can't be both ways. In conclusion, I have yet to see the "professionals" give a cogent rebuttal of the work that Steven Jones and other professionals in the Truth movement have done and have continued to do. They have denied open requests to debate the fine points because they cannot let this turn into a rational debate or this smokescreen will be blown away. They will continue to refuse to accept these invitations because the truth does not change, minds must change.
    • GeyserShitdick, on 10/30/2007, -11/+1Wow, a double post that actually gets voted UP?

      I wonder if we have a truth site spamming digg? IT'S A CONSPIRACY!
  • Gursha, on 10/30/2007, -21/+7Terrorists hijacked 4 planes on September 11th.
    Terrorists crashed two planes into the WTC.
    Terrorists crashed one plane into the Pentagon.
    Terrorists crashed one plane in Pennsylvania.

    Even if the towers had not collapsed, the US government would have exacted the same response. There was no reason for the US government to bring down any of the buildings.

    If the US government would have brought down the buildings, they would have had to plant the explosives, coordinate the explosives and then detonate the explosives. They would have had to do this in three buildings.

    They would have had to move the explosives into position (with no one noticing), they would have had to lay down miles of cables (with no one noticing), they would have had to set off the explosives only on the floors below the impact points. Don't you think people would have seen the colorful cables running all over the building? Have you seen how long it takes CDI to set up a controlled demolition?

    Face it, the Islamic Terrorists hijacked the planes.
    the Islamic Terrorists used the planes as weapons.
    the Islamic Terrorists used these weapons against the WTC and Pentagon
    the Islamic Terrorists actions caused the WTC to completely collapse
    the Islamic Terrorists actions caused part of the Pentagon to collapse
    the Islamic Terrorists actions caused the plane to crash in Pennsylvania
    the Islamic Terrorists did it!!!!
    • vinwal, on 10/30/2007, -1/+12Gursha: "Have you seen how long it takes CDI to set up a controlled demolition?"

      Yes it does take a considerable amount of time to set up a controlled demolition, especially if you are going to strip all hazardous materials from the building, and salvage anything of value from the structure, and ensure there is no danger to persons or surrounding property.
      http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna39.htm
    • plowerman, on 10/18/2007, -2/+12Watch 9/11 Mysteries. Marvin Bush was the guy in charge of the company providing security for the WTC. The weekend before 9/11 the power was turned off in the buildings and there were reports of strange people coming in and out of the towers. The Bush administration has motive, (money), and oppurtunity. Have you ever imagined what it was like to live in Nazi Germany in the lead up to World War II? Do you think the citizens of the country didn't think it strange that all the Jews were disappearing? Do you think there were a few conspiracy theorist nut jobs in Nazi Germany who weren't saying Sich Heil? Or is that just impossible for you?
      • Herkimer56, on 10/21/2007, -12/+3Marvin Bush was NEVER in charge of security of the WTC. He was a board member of a company that did some contract work for the WTC after the first terrorist bombing. That contract ended in 1998 and Marvin Bush left the company in 2000. 9/11 Mysteries is nothing but a pile of inaccurate theories and suppositions.
    • onlytruth, on 10/23/2007, -2/+13There was no commercial airliner at the pentagon.. don't fool yourself...

      If it was islamic terrorist they were funded by the US government!!!!

      • jcm267, on 10/21/2007, -9/+3No commercial airliner at the Pentagon? Proof?
        • puto, on 10/21/2007, -0/+8It's the government's job to prove their theory
  • moogman5, on 11/01/2007, -3/+16Kind of like all those bombs that were going off that morning huh? Unexplainable?...Unexplainable to an idiot who doesn't know just how easy it is to demolish huge structures with strategically placed explosives!!
    • Herkimer56, on 10/21/2007, -8/+3How do you explain the total lack of physical evidence of explosives? What kind of explosives leave absolutely no trace of their presence?
      • kayaker712, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4How do we explain..... errr because no one looked?
      • grinchdec23, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1Thunderous destruction and masses of building flying up in the air isnt evidence ?? and kayaker is correct,, noone looked.
    • kayaker712, on 10/30/2007, -0/+5Lesse explain the lack of evidence. Oh they looked? They must have asked the workers at the Chinese recycling mill if they could see any residue of explosives.
      Well the recycle mills were in region that speaks Cantonese and NIST only had translators that spoke Mandarin. the Cantonese word for "explosives" sounds just like the Mandarin term for "Hey guys is it hot enough for you?"

      Of course they all answered "No" except Ching who said "yes' but he got shipped off to a labor camp for complaining.

      How's that for a NIST-quality working theory?
  • plowerman, on 11/01/2007, -2/+14CNN is hosting their YouTube debates for the Republican presidential candidates. Please, we need to flood them with questions for Ron Paul to give him face time, and embarrassing questions for Giuliani. If CNN receives 100,000 videos asking Giuliani about the Fire Fighters not having proper working radios on 9/11, or how the Ground Zero workers are now getting sick due to the toxic air they breathed from working in Ground Zero without protection, CNN may just use one. And if they get 100,000 questions specifically addressed to Ron Paul, they will ask him more questions, giving him more time to speak.
    www.youtube.com/republicandebate
    spread the word
  • plumber3, on 10/30/2007, -7/+12binladen construction helped build the towers, explosives were built into towers it was a military project from the going up to the pulling down.
    • onlytruth, on 10/30/2007, -4/+9This is a very interesting tidbit of information here!!
    • Herkimer56, on 10/30/2007, -8/+6That's the stupidest idea you truthers have ever had. If the explosives were built in, why didn't any of them go off in the first terrorist attack on the towers? Why take the risk of driving a truck bomb into the basement in the first place if the explosives you needed were already there? There was more than one fire in different locations in the WTC prior to the attacks on 9/11. Why didn't those fires set off any of the charges? If you had pre-planted explosives, why not detonate them without warning and kill tens of thousands of people? Why bother with the airplanes at all? Do you people have no ability at all for critical thinking?
      • ringelman5, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5Agent Herky obviously never had his mitts on setting up a claymore perimeter and knows JackSquat about demo.
        Time for yer handlers to educate ya some, Herk'n'Horty.
      • grinchdec23, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Yeah, we all know that explosives are set off by fire,, get out your cig lighter boys !! we gotta light the fuse !
    • GrabAss, on 11/01/2007, -7/+4Thanks plumber, I needed a good laugh. You're full of *****, just like the toilets you unclog on a daily basis.
  • Look4Truth, on 11/01/2007, -2/+17Gee, what a surprise. Anyone else waking up yet?
  • Ebulating, on 10/21/2007, -15/+8God you troofers are idiots. You remind me of Creationists with your intellectual rigor.
    • spartacus409, on 10/21/2007, -2/+6Is that all you got? How about addressing a single point. Just one. Go ahead try. We promise not to laugh ( too hard)
      • Herkimer56, on 10/21/2007, -10/+5I already have. I've been telling you people for months now that your conclusions and theory are crap and I've addressed your issues point by point. It's not my fault that you're so blinded by your own ignorance that you can't think for yourself.
        • kayaker712, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4Where have you done that? I just searched your posts. You have done no such thing.

          I have been anxious and waiting for you to do just that but you chickened out of my challenge.
        • spartacus409, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4We're still waiting
        • ringelman5, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4Agent Herk -- comes to a gunfight armed with a (dull) knife
        • virtualdc, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2And leaves with a soiled diaper.
  • sw33tsarin, on 11/01/2007, -2/+14I urge all you "debunkers" to comb through the NFPA 921 standard for fire/explosion investigation. You will see that the removal of evidence (i.e. steel) from ground zero is consistent with a coverup and was truly illegal. Why dispose of all that precious evidence the 9/11 commission and the NIST could have used to conduct their experiments and test their hypotheses in a highly inconsistent and illegal manner?
    • Herkimer56, on 10/30/2007, -13/+4Really? It took almost a year to remove all of the debris and the entire time hundreds of investigators were combing through it for evidence. Hundreds of samples were taken and preserved for laboratory study. So please tell us how that would be considered illegal.
      • kayaker712, on 11/01/2007, -0/+7You're a smart boy, read the NFPA standards for yourself. In fact look them up and enlighten us poor ignorant truthers.

        There are certain requirements for an investigation. You obviously have no clue as to what they are yet you argue they were followed. Standard for you guys I guess.
      • grinchdec23, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Hmm, with the costs of steel, youd think they would have kept it all, instead of shipping it all , and/or burying it on an island and surrounded with armed guards and fences.
    • sw33tsarin, on 11/01/2007, -0/+8considering the fact that the majority structural steel was being cut up and sold for scrap within the first 3 months after 9/11when such a procedure goes against our national fire/explosion standards, Id say its illegal. Since you seem so intent on your laboratory studies, look up the good Dr. Jones. He found traces of thermite and thermate in debris from the towers using an electron microscope. read NFPA 921, all youre answers pertaining to chain of custody of evidence is right there.
  • critthinker, on 11/01/2007, -3/+14For those of us who have studied engineering, we understand that if the "official lie" were true, everything we learned in our Static Mechanics, Dynamic Mechanics, and Strength of Materials classes was wrong, and every building in the world is unsafe because Issac Newton was wrong, since FORCE does not equal MASS times ACCELERATION, which is the only way the "official lie" could be true.

    Where do we engineers apply for the refund for the thousands of dollars we spent on our worthless degress!

    But fortunately you do not have to be an engineer to know that the WTC towers were exploded, because the photographic evidence showing the explosions in the picture the link on our site: http://www.ae911truth.org/

    Every child knowns that when you stack books vertically and horizontally and knock down the vertically supporting books, all the books above that knock down point fall DOWNWARD and do not distintegrate into DUST!

    From the picture you can see steel beams being throw UPWARD and OUTWARD and away from the building and the concrete being disintegrated into dust BEFORE the structure hits the ground and the destructive FORCE equal to MASS times DECELLERATION occurs!

    If the "official lie" were true the 2007 Nobel Prize in Physics would have to have went to the "official lie" author's for invalidating Issac Newton's discovery that FORCE equals MASS times ACCELERATION!

    Obviously EXPLOSIONS are the only way to make the building materials take the path shown in that picture, so the idea that demolition cannot be proven is sheer and utter non-sense when we have pictures that prove it!

    • Herkimer56, on 10/21/2007, -12/+6Please explain the total lack of evidence of explosives. When you're done with that, please explain why no one in the academic world that has studied the collapse agrees with you.
      • critthinker, on 10/21/2007, -1/+8See what we people with an EDUCATION in engineering have to say: http://www.ae911truth.org/

        You OBVIOUSLY will not visit our site here is summary of what is on the first page along with the photograpic PROOF:

        As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:

        1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”

        2. Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)

        3. Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)

        4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos

        5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

        6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

        7. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

        8. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

        9. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint

        10. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

        11. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

        12. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.

        13. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)

        14. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

        15. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

        16. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

        And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

        1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

        2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

        3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

        4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”


        Now are you gonna reply with links to the NIST cafeteria menu again?
        • Herkimer56, on 10/21/2007, -6/+21. That's why they call it a collapse and not a "slowly sinking in to itself".
          2. Steel beams were shattering under the load. This is what caused the collapse in the first place.
          3. What, exactly, do flashes designate? Breaking glass? Exploding transformers? Wiring shorting out?
          4. Air was seen rushing out of the windows as the pressure wave caused by the collapsing building advanced.
          5. Kinetic energy. Google it.
          6. Hundreds of tons of drywall and concrete crushed in the collapse.
          7. Did you expect it to fall upwards? Gravity pulls things straight down.
          8. The columns were designed to handle the load as a static load. They were never intended to catch it as it fell.
          9. Your point? Did you expect it all to fall neatly in to a pile? Drop a penny off of a ten story building and see if it lands directly below where you're standing or if it lands several feet away from the building. Now try it from a hundred story building in the process of collapsing.
          10. Did that happen when the building collapsed or when the planes exploded in a huge fireball?
          11. They were pushed out of the way of the advancing collapse which was thousands of tons heavier than the beams. They were simply brushed aside.
          12. Again we need to discuss weight, gravity and kinetic energy?
          13. Thermate burns up completely in a matter of seconds and leaves no residual heat. Fires burned underground for days after the collapse. If there was molten metal, and I believe there was, it was far more likely to have been aluminum.
          14. Jones did not find traces of thermate. He found sulfur. Drywall has sulfur in it. Jones fails.
          15. Don't doubt it. It got very, very hot in there. And how could FEMA have discovered this since the truthers have been telling us that FEMA wasn't allowed access to ground zero or the debris?
          16. Bodies liquefy when compressed by enough weight. We are, after all, bags of mostly water.
          None of the characteristics?
          1. The building was clearly deformed prior to the collapse. There is photographic evidence that as the floors collapsed they pulled the outer structure of the building inwards, eventually to the point where the outer structure failed.
          2. Again, you fail to understand the effects of massive weight, gravity and kinetic energy.
          3. The NIST report states that temperatures inside the building reached more than 1800 degress at times. More than hot enough to weaken steel.
          4. None of those buildings had been struck by a fully loaded and fueled 757 travelling around 500 mph.

          Anything else I can do for you?
        • ViperDaimao, on 10/21/2007, -7/+2Can you please point me to some of these "expert's" peer reviewed white papers and articles in engineering and architectural magazines? You know, if they're actual