Unanswered 9/11 questions

[b3rtstare]

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2240510.htm

The collapse of New York's World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 is arguably one of the most well documented events in human history. Less well documented is the controversy over why the buildings fell as they did.

At the time of writing, 357 architectural and engineering professionals have signed a petition which directly challenges the National Institute of Standards & Training's official finding that the destruction of these massive buildings was caused solely by structural damage from the impact of jet airliners and the resulting fires.

The petition, demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation, states, in part:

"...the 9/11 investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7."

This alarming statement is based on evidence from many sources, including observations of the structural behaviour of the towers as they collapsed, the known characteristics of steel framed buildings, eyewitness testimony of explosions, and research into the chemical composition of dust recovered from the collapse zone.

Current research indicates that an incendiary (thermite) may have been used to sever the massive box columns of the towers, causing the buildings to plummet to the ground at close to free-fall speed.

Chemical analysis has been conducted by a multi-disciplinary team led by
Professor Steven E. Jones and the results published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

The membership of Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth is worldwide, and qualified Australians have made contributions. Dr. Frank Legge, a chemist, has co-authored a peer reviewed paper, and Dr. David Leifer of the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Sydney is a registered member of the group.

A major focus of research is the mysterious collapse of the
47 storey WTC 7 (Salomon Brothers) Building, which was not hit by any plane, yet suddenly collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001.

Building 7 came down in six and a half seconds, generating a massive dust-cloud similar to the one that had enveloped Manhattan when the Twin Towers collapsed earlier the same day.

Researchers contend that only explosives could have provided enough energy to cause the pulverisation of thousands of tons of concrete into dust, and they highlight the symmetrical, free-fall collapse of the building through the path of greatest resistance, indicating that the supporting columns offered no resistance to the falling mass above.

Historically, the only way a modern office building has ever been made to collapse vertically in free-fall, as observed in WTC Building 7, is through the use of shaped cutter charges detonated in a timed sequence.

This procedure is known as controlled demolition, and requires a precise placement of explosives which are designed to cut through supports successively, usually from the bottom up, pulling buildings down under their own weight.

The collapse of Building 7 is visually identical to a controlled demolition, as illustrated in a side by side comparison on Youtube. Demolition expert Danny Jowenko has gone on record confirming this observation.
"A team of experts did this", he said.

The essence of why we need a new investigation into the World Trade Center collapses is summed up in a recent paper by Dr. Frank Legge:

"As no reports have come to light of any steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, and as all steel framed buildings which had collapsed had done so due to explosive demolition, the logical way to have started the investigation of this surprising event would have been to question whether explosives had been used. This apparently did not occur.

The organisations carrying out the investigations clearly selectively collected data and contrived arguments to support the fire theory and ignored contradictory evidence. This is in defiance of the scientific method and flouts the ethical standard of behaviour which the public is entitled to receive from their paid servants."

The hypothesis of controlled demolition finds further support in many eyewitness accounts, including live TV coverage, which described massive explosions in the lower levels of the World Trade Center prior to the collapse.

William Rodriguez, an acknowledged hero of 9/11 who single-handedly rescued fifteen people from the North Tower, described a massive explosion in the basement which occurred before the first plane struck, pushing him upwards out of the seat of his chair.

The New York Fire Department's oral histories project contains 118 witness statements which are strongly consistent with explosive demolition. Incredibly, none of this shocking testimony was included or acknowledged in any official investigation, including the 9/11 Commission.

There is a groundswell of public pressure from family members of victims and ordinary people the world over, to re-open the investigation of 9/11. As seen in the groundbreaking film 9/11: Press For Truth, it was due to the pressure of a group of victim family members, known as the Jersey Girls, that the 9/11 Commission was created, and yet that same commission failed to answer the majority of questions raised by these courageous women.

Films such as Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries have been viewed by millions on the internet, and opinion polls have consistently shown that a large proportion of the public does not accept the official narrative of 9/11. Many believe there has been a major cover-up, while others believe that September 11 was an "inside job".

As an Australian, I believe there is an urgent need for a new investigation for several reasons.

First, there is the war in Afghanistan, which has already claimed thousands of lives, and appears to have no end in sight. If the 9/11 official narrative proves to be false, then the attack on Afghanistan may be a war crime.

Second, there is the continued erosion of civil liberties in the form of anti-terror legislation, and increases in police powers of surveillance and detention, which relies largely on 9/11 as the primary justification.

Finally, there are core values of truth, decency and justice at stake, which I wish to uphold and which I ask all Australians to join me in upholding as I say to our elected leaders, with all due respect, we need a new investigation.

[ParanoiaComes]

Clearly a government cover up, but to what extent may never be known.

[b3rtstare]

Clearly a government cover up, but to what extent may never be known.

Unfortunately, I think you may be right. It's been over 46 years since LBJ, his cronies, and the international elite took out JFK and though we have damning evidence, the full extent still hasnt been admitted to. We have managed to uncover mountains of evidence against this sick plot but still not everything has been uncovered yet.

[Stizzel]

Clearly a government cover up, but to what extent may never be known.

Doesn't matter, government knows best. If they don't tell us its because we're better off not knowing.

[NotStandingBy]

I'll debate you on 911.

[ParanoiaComes]

Unfortunately, I think you may be right. It's been over 46 years since LBJ, his cronies, and the international elite took out JFK and though we have damning evidence, the full extent still hasnt been admitted to. We have managed to uncover mountains of evidence against this sick plot but still not everything has been uncovered yet.

Yea. I mean the evidence is there, but no matter how hard the public pushes, the government isn't going to be like "yea sure lets do another investigation". An investigation that will expose them. They will fight any reinvestigation and dismiss the thought that they covered anything up as "appalling and a slap in the face."

Hopefully I'll be wrong, but since it's been 8 years already and no new news, it's not looking good.

Doesn't matter, government knows best. If they don't tell us its because we're better off not knowing.

(Not sure if serious)

[Puresweat]

They forgot to mention Michael Jackson was killed because he figured it out

[b3rtstare]

I'll debate you on 911.

eventually, Ill take up a debate on 9/11. But since its a formal debate, I still need time to prepare mentally since I cant use youtube videos. I need time to dig up formal sources.

[jimbob007]

There is only one unanswered question-

Why are so many people so determined to think the US Government wanted to help kill thousands of it's civilians? Why are people banging on about how the building could not collapse- have all these expert architechts who are making these statements ever built a building & then flown two planes into it at great speed?

The answer is simple- the truth that terrorist nutjobs with no regard for human life, orchestrated & pulled off this event is far too much for them to handle, therefore they & the conspiracy nuts who jump on every bandwagon- have to spend years trying to blame the government, who of course are also responsible for the NWO, Illuminati, Alien Abductions, Swine Flu, Fema murder camps & a thousand other conspiracy theories.

[b3rtstare]

Yea. I mean the evidence is there, but no matter how hard the public pushes, the government isn't going to be like "yea sure lets do another investigation". An investigation that will expose them. They will fight any reinvestigation and dismiss the thought that they covered anything up as "appalling and a slap in the face."

Hopefully I'll be wrong, but since it's been 8 years already and no new news, it's not looking good.



(Not sure if serious)

he isnt serious.

in b4 Nutsy, Dragger, and Fenixarizona

[Puresweat]

There is only one unanswered question-

Why are so many people so determined to think the US Government wanted to help kill thousands of it's civilians? Why are people banging on about how the building could not collapse- have all these expert architechts who are making these statements ever built a building & then flown two planes into it at great speed?

The answer is simple- the truth that terrorist nutjobs with no regard for human life, orchestrated & pulled off this event is far too much for them to handle, therefore they & the conspiracy nuts who jump on every bandwagon- have to spend years trying to blame the government, who of course are also responsible for the NWO, Illuminati, Alien Abductions, Swine Flu, Fema murder camps & a thousand other conspiracy theories.

x2 and I know the government does a poor job at just about everything but wouldn't it have been much simplier and easier to cover up if they just blew the towers up and then put up a video of Osama admitting to it without the airplanes and all that?

[NotStandingBy]

eventually, Ill take up a debate on 9/11. But since its a formal debate, I still need time to prepare mentally since I cant use youtube videos. I need time to dig up formal sources.

At least you are honest. Now that you have admitted you'll take up on it, just remember me. Now that I realize you are doing your research and still need time to prepare...

[ParanoiaComes]

have all these expert architechts who are making these statements ever built a building & then flown two planes into it at great speed?

This is a pretty shaky argument. Physics don't lie. I'd imagine it would be fairly easy for a college educated engineer to figure out if a building would be stable after adding in the mass and speed variables of an aircraft.

Opposing what one person says is understandable, but opposing 357 engineering and architectural professionals on a topic that they have spent years studying, while you have not, is pretty ludicrous in my opinion.

[b3rtstare]

There is only one unanswered question-

Why are so many people so determined to think the US Government wanted to help kill thousands of it's civilians? Why are people banging on about how the building could not collapse- have all these expert architechts who are making these statements ever built a building & then flown two planes into it at great speed?

The answer is simple- the truth that terrorist nutjobs with no regard for human life, orchestrated & pulled off this event is far too much for them to handle, therefore they & the conspiracy nuts who jump on every bandwagon- have to spend years trying to blame the government, who of course are also responsible for the NWO, Illuminati, Alien Abductions, Swine Flu, Fema murder camps & a thousand other conspiracy theories.

You honestly think the designers of the towers didnt think of airplanes potentially hitting it? The towers were designed with airplanes in mind. They were designed for 707's and as you can see in the chart below:



The comparison between a 707 and a 767 is very mimimal. (The above chart was taken from Fema.gov) They have nearly the same amount of fuel, the 707 is faster, and the weight difference is minimal. The WTC skin was designed as a mosquito netting. As you know, if you poke a hole in a mosquito net, it doesnt hurt the structural integrity of the netting except theres a hole in it. It's the same concept. Never before in the history of mankind has a steel framed skyscraper collapsed in it's own footprint at freefall speed solely from fire....EVER...

Jet Fuel burns at around 1400 - 1500ish degrees and the melting point of steel is around 2400-2500 degrees. I know what you are going to say, "You only need to weaken the steel for it to collapse". That arguement is invalid in this situation because Molten pools of liquified STEEL were found at the WTC site and burned for weeks on end. It took weeks to put the fires from the melted WTC Steel out. Jet Fuel doesnt liquify steel.

Next point, the FBI was prevented from doing it's job. There are agents who are on record as to saying they were stifled from doing their job properly and could not make the proper arrests even though they had major leads. This wasnt necessarily some catestrophic failure in security per se... on 9/11 there were drills being conducted of simulations where planes were hitting the twin towers. That's how the higher ups got Norad and the other air defenses to stand down. It's also on record from Former FBI Translater turned Whistleblower Sibell Edmonds that Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset up to 9/11.

[jimbob007]

Planning for one thing is good in theory, but a totally different thing in reality. This is why things have to be tested, obviously it is pretty difficult & costly to build a dummy building of that size & then fly two planes into it- whcih is the only 100% way of knowing. Anyway here is an interesting article.

The attack and following collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 shocked the world. The enormous travesty occurred so fast and so surprisingly. But what may also shock you is that architect Minoru Yamasaki designed the World Trade Center towers to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707 airplane (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). The Boeing 707 is similar to the Boeing 767s that actually crashed into the towers, the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and slower. The impact from the plane that hit Tower One was well within the force limits of the design and the impact from the second plane was only ten percent above the force that Tower Two was designed to absorb (?Nerdcities: The Guardian? 2002). So, from an engineering perspective, the World Trade Center towers, at least Tower One, should have been able to withstand the collisions on September 11th. Why, then, did the towers collapse? A government report entitled ?World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations? by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (2002), may have the answers.


The Twin Towers had many novel safeguards and design elements to strengthen the buildings against a possible collision by an aircraft and prevent their collapse. Examining the structures of the buildings, one sees that the World Trade Center Towers were among the first to use a steel structure instead of masonry or concrete used amongst earlier high rises (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). The Twin Towers also used a new system called the tube structure for the majority of support of the building (Ashley 2001). They are made of a rigid hollow tube of closely packed steel columns with floor trusses (braces along the floor) that extend around the building to its center, further enhancing structural strength and the prevention of collapse (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). This tube structure enabled the Trade Center towers to withstand higher winds and higher lateral (horizontal) force loads, like those of high velocity impacts, and it also eliminated the need for interior columns (?Nerdcities: The Guardian? 2002). Additional lateral support came from exterior columns along the perimeter of the two towers, set only 22? apart (?Nerdcities: The Guardian? 2002). The five-inch-thick concrete floor and floor trusses supported most of the vertical weight of each story.


The most consequential designs that were not included in the Twin Towers were sufficient fire-suppression systems and fireproofing. Even though the towers were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner, they were not designed to withstand and remain standing during a fire of such great magnitude. The jet-fuel fire caused by the impact was impossible to contain in the Twin Towers. The World Trade Center had not been designed to fight hydrocarbon fires of such magnitude and high temperature ? up to 1500 degrees Celsius. The fire-suppression system consisted of water sprinklers that were useless because water, at this temperature, would vaporize almost instantly. Instead, these fires had to be fought with chemical foam, which the Towers lacked (Ashley 2001).


The fireproofing system in the Towers was also insufficient. First, the Towers were lightweight because of their extensive use of steel and were devoid of masonry or concrete which made them difficult to insulate from the fire. Second, a more sophisticated fireproofing system could have been incorporated during the building process. Most of the supports and trusses could have been coated with extra fire proofing material (Ashley 2001). Third, the World Trade Center incorporated a novel, yet very flammable, elevator system (Wilkinson 2002). The engineers worried that, without masonry, the conventional elevator shafts would buckle and collapse with the intense air pressure exerted by the high speed elevators. To solve this problem the engineers used a drywall/plaster system fixed to a reinforced steel core; this made the shafts more flexible though much more flammable (Wilkinson 2002).


Another design shortcoming that made the ensuing fire even more destructive was the use of weak floor trusses which spanned abnormally long distances (Ashley 2001). In the Twin Towers the steel trusses spanned nearly sixty feet without any support and were only four inches thick (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). The extremely high-temperature fire heated the relatively thin floor rapidly, making the floor almost flexible because it lost most of its rigidity and consequently buckled. Since the floor buckled, the extra support needed to come from the remaining exterior perimeter columns, but many had been destroyed by the planes? initial impact. But those columns also depended on the core steel columns for support, but these columns were being subjected to extremely harsh conditions of the fire and were failing themselves. The exterior columns began to buckle onto the floor which buckled on the floor beneath and started a gigantic domino effect of the plunging stories. So, in effect, the fire caused all structural supports to weaken and fail within the Twin Towers.


Fire was the Achilles heel of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, for they did not have sufficient fireproofing nor fire-suppression systems. Designers of future skyscrapers may install retrofitted aqueous film-forming foam extinguishers, similar to those used for aviation fires, to enhance fire safety in future projects. In addition, new high rises may have plans that have more evacuation sites as well as possible external ways like giant escape tubes or parachutes (Ashley 2001). In the future, architects, engineers, designers, and builders will look to further the safety and security to all those in skyscrapers and learn from the events of September 11.

[zodiac666]

I'll debate you on 911.

eventually, Ill take up a debate on 9/11. But since its a formal debate, I still need time to prepare mentally since I cant use youtube videos. I need time to dig up formal sources.

You don't need time to prepare, just make the rules up to 72 hours between posts. That should give you plenty of time to "dig up formal sources".

I'm looking forward to this debate...

[Arlecchino]

Very good.

[690]

Jet Fuel burns at around 1400 - 1500ish degrees and the melting point of steel is around 2400-2500 degrees. I know what you are going to say, "You only need to weaken the steel for it to collapse". That arguement is invalid in this situation because Molten pools of liquified STEEL were found at the WTC site and burned for weeks on end. It took weeks to put the fires from the melted WTC Steel out. Jet Fuel doesnt liquify steel.

Do you have a source that confirms it was Molten steel that was found? There were plenty of other metals around (aluminum from the plane itself anyone?) that could explain the molten flow from the building.

Also, if it was molten STEEL that was shown to be flowing then why was there no damage done to the steel frame it was flowing over? You can see photos/footage several minutes apart, and the lack of damage would lead you to believe the molten flow was actually of another metal with a lesser melting point than the steel frame of the building.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...r-of-wtc2.html

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

[ozcoltsfan]

I saw a documentary that calculated that something like 25,000 people would have to have known something about 9/11 for it to be a cover up. Thats a lot of damn people to be keeping quiet.

I am as skeptical as anyone, especially about the Pentagon but 25,000 people. Is there really that many people out there who would keep quiet about it?

[fenixzona]

he isnt serious.

in b4 Nutsy, Dragger, and Fenixarizona

Why in b4 me?

I have yet to provide one single youtube video as proof to my beliefs. I don't need time to dredge up any more info to substantiate my arguement. As a matter of fact, I don't sit around here and spew info that I don't fully understand. I use simple logic in my arguement and that has yet to be disproved.


Here Bulging, I will get the debate, the one you're afraid of going.


Why? Why would the government need to bring down the towers in order to spark interest in a war on terror?

Why not demo the building in 1993 when they had the opportunity? In 1993, it would have been so much easier to cover your tracks as the technology has far surpassed that of 1993.

Thousands of people can remain guilt free and quite about this? Break it down even further and you're gonna tell me the gov't approached people and was able to elicit 100% agreement with the plan? C'mon at least one person would have said something to someone. The gov't can't keep anything quite and you think this was possible?

Remember, we have been spoon fed the terror campaign since the first Gulf War, which is going on 20 years now. We have been ramped up, as Americans for a long time.

I know it's "strawman" tactics or some shyt like that, but I can imagine that you have nothing logical to respond with. Get over it, guys. What happened is what happened and no amount of worry or debate will ever change that.

[fenixzona]

I saw a documentary that calculated that something like 25,000 people would have to have known something about 9/11 for it to be a cover up. Thats a lot of damn people to be keeping quiet.

I am as skeptical as anyone, especially about the Pentagon but 25,000 people. Is there really that many people out there who would keep quiet about it?

The sheer number of those involved would be staggering. Far too many to keep quite for so long.

[fenixzona]

Do you have a source that confirms it was Molten steel that was found? There were plenty of other metals around (aluminum from the plane itself anyone?) that could explain the molten flow from the building.

Also, if it was molten STEEL that was shown to be flowing then why was there no damage done to the steel frame it was flowing over? You can see photos/footage several minutes apart, and the lack of damage would lead you to believe the molten flow was actually of another metal with a lesser melting point than the steel frame of the building.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/200...r-of-wtc2.html

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

any of the CT's ever take the time to review www.debunking911.com? All your answers are right there.

[nutsy54]

he isnt serious.

in b4 Nutsy, Dragger, and Fenixarizona

Just for the record, since you called me out personally

I have no interest in commenting or getting sucked into another "discussion" on this topic. It's been beaten to death in hundreds of other threads, and all your post does is rehash points that have already been discussed and debated over and over and over again.

If you want to know my opinion and reasoning behind it, look at any other post I've made in any previous 9/11 thread.

Bye Bye now...

[Puresweat]

The sheer number of those involved would be staggering. Far too many to keep quite for so long.

x2 and like I was saying it would take a handful of people with fake passes and stuff to plant bombs and then leave the planes out and you have a much more fool proof plan. Then you just say the people planting the bombs were al quada operatives with fake passes

[b3rtstare]

Planning for one thing is good in theory, but a totally different thing in reality. This is why things have to be tested, obviously it is pretty difficult & costly to build a dummy building of that size & then fly two planes into it- whcih is the only 100% way of knowing. Anyway here is an interesting article.

The attack and following collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 shocked the world. The enormous travesty occurred so fast and so surprisingly. But what may also shock you is that architect Minoru Yamasaki designed the World Trade Center towers to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707 airplane (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). The Boeing 707 is similar to the Boeing 767s that actually crashed into the towers, the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and slower. The impact from the plane that hit Tower One was well within the force limits of the design and the impact from the second plane was only ten percent above the force that Tower Two was designed to absorb (?Nerdcities: The Guardian? 2002). So, from an engineering perspective, the World Trade Center towers, at least Tower One, should have been able to withstand the collisions on September 11th. Why, then, did the towers collapse? A government report entitled ?World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations? by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (2002), may have the answers.


The Twin Towers had many novel safeguards and design elements to strengthen the buildings against a possible collision by an aircraft and prevent their collapse. Examining the structures of the buildings, one sees that the World Trade Center Towers were among the first to use a steel structure instead of masonry or concrete used amongst earlier high rises (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). The Twin Towers also used a new system called the tube structure for the majority of support of the building (Ashley 2001). They are made of a rigid hollow tube of closely packed steel columns with floor trusses (braces along the floor) that extend around the building to its center, further enhancing structural strength and the prevention of collapse (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). This tube structure enabled the Trade Center towers to withstand higher winds and higher lateral (horizontal) force loads, like those of high velocity impacts, and it also eliminated the need for interior columns (?Nerdcities: The Guardian? 2002). Additional lateral support came from exterior columns along the perimeter of the two towers, set only 22? apart (?Nerdcities: The Guardian? 2002). The five-inch-thick concrete floor and floor trusses supported most of the vertical weight of each story.


The most consequential designs that were not included in the Twin Towers were sufficient fire-suppression systems and fireproofing. Even though the towers were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner, they were not designed to withstand and remain standing during a fire of such great magnitude. The jet-fuel fire caused by the impact was impossible to contain in the Twin Towers. The World Trade Center had not been designed to fight hydrocarbon fires of such magnitude and high temperature ? up to 1500 degrees Celsius. The fire-suppression system consisted of water sprinklers that were useless because water, at this temperature, would vaporize almost instantly. Instead, these fires had to be fought with chemical foam, which the Towers lacked (Ashley 2001).


The fireproofing system in the Towers was also insufficient. First, the Towers were lightweight because of their extensive use of steel and were devoid of masonry or concrete which made them difficult to insulate from the fire. Second, a more sophisticated fireproofing system could have been incorporated during the building process. Most of the supports and trusses could have been coated with extra fire proofing material (Ashley 2001). Third, the World Trade Center incorporated a novel, yet very flammable, elevator system (Wilkinson 2002). The engineers worried that, without masonry, the conventional elevator shafts would buckle and collapse with the intense air pressure exerted by the high speed elevators. To solve this problem the engineers used a drywall/plaster system fixed to a reinforced steel core; this made the shafts more flexible though much more flammable (Wilkinson 2002).


Another design shortcoming that made the ensuing fire even more destructive was the use of weak floor trusses which spanned abnormally long distances (Ashley 2001). In the Twin Towers the steel trusses spanned nearly sixty feet without any support and were only four inches thick (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). The extremely high-temperature fire heated the relatively thin floor rapidly, making the floor almost flexible because it lost most of its rigidity and consequently buckled. Since the floor buckled, the extra support needed to come from the remaining exterior perimeter columns, but many had been destroyed by the planes? initial impact. But those columns also depended on the core steel columns for support, but these columns were being subjected to extremely harsh conditions of the fire and were failing themselves. The exterior columns began to buckle onto the floor which buckled on the floor beneath and started a gigantic domino effect of the plunging stories. So, in effect, the fire caused all structural supports to weaken and fail within the Twin Towers.


Fire was the Achilles heel of the World Trade Center Twin Towers, for they did not have sufficient fireproofing nor fire-suppression systems. Designers of future skyscrapers may install retrofitted aqueous film-forming foam extinguishers, similar to those used for aviation fires, to enhance fire safety in future projects. In addition, new high rises may have plans that have more evacuation sites as well as possible external ways like giant escape tubes or parachutes (Ashley 2001). In the future, architects, engineers, designers, and builders will look to further the safety and security to all those in skyscrapers and learn from the events of September 11.

I read it. The first 2 paragraphs are ok but my Bull**** detector started going off in paragraphs 3 to the end of the article.

Ill repeat my point: Never before in the history of mankind has fire taken down a building at in it's own footprint at freefall speed and nor has it happened since.

When you examine the fires it is easy to get confused but the matter of fact is that the fires are completely overblown. The truth is that most of the jet fuel was burned off when the planes hit the towers. Many firefighters reported explosions and reported that the fires and smoke were not a problem as this video illustrates. Check out 1:25 -1:40 in the video for a transcript of firefighters reporting smoke and fire were not a problem. Keep in mind most of the firefighters who you hear in this video died in the collapse. So please show respect. As they are the real heroes of 9/11.



The key to 9/11 isnt the towers themselves. It is building 7. No plane hit it and yet it collapsed at freefall speed into it's own footprint. The BBC reported it's collapse over 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. The reporter is talking about it's collapse and you can see building 7 in the background.

[NotStandingBy]

Bulging_Biceps

How come you don't read the debunk 911 sources that talks about fire and steel, and planes and buildings? The 911 sources also go in detail about why the planes manage to take down the buildings and why the fire actually manage to beat the steel.

[zodiac666]

Bulging_Biceps

How come you don't read the debunk 911 sources that talks about fire and steel, and planes and buildings? The 911 sources also go in detail about why the planes manage to take down the buildings and why the fire actually manage to beat the steel.

He made up his mind when he saw the first CT video on youtube. People like him would never bother to look at any opposing point of view. He literally wouldn't have the attention span to read anything that opposed his predetermined conclusion but he'll spend hours reading material that supports his CT.

[b3rtstare]

Bulging_Biceps

How come you don't read the debunk 911 sources that talks about fire and steel, and planes and buildings? The 911 sources also go in detail about why the planes manage to take down the buildings and why the fire actually manage to beat the steel.

With regards to steel:

Here demonstrated is the power of thermite:


Molten steel still burning 6 weeks after 9/11


Angle of the steel beams are too perfect for a natural collapse


Molten Metal Hotspots after the collapse:
http://0x1a.com/#[[World Trade Center Hot Spots]] <----- Copypasta that into your browser since link didnt work properly

Evidence of Thermite after a metallurgical analysis was done:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...rgy/index.html

[Arlecchino]

Hey BB.

Why don't you work on your formal debate?

[NotStandingBy]

Hey BB.

Why don't you work on your formal debate?

He's using his argument here.. so he can use them in the formal debate...