There is no way you wrote that after having read the entire thread. I suggest you go back and READ before you make yourself look even more ignorant. At the very least, read just MY posts, which will explain - in a perfectly logical fashion - how everything collapsed.
If you still have your doubts after that, by all means let's hear them. But everything you've pointed out so far has already been explained.
The pentagon is not supported by a steel frame. The supporting columns are concrete. It is an entirely different design.
Please explain to me how the charges that allegedly were set would have survived the initial fire since you refuse to look at the physics. Also you keep saying that the steel melted even though every person who disagrees with you has told you that the steel never melted, it just softened. You just believe what you want to believe because you think the US government would kill 5000+ people for no reason.
They're not there for the purpose of dying. to say that the US governments sends them there because they want to kill our soldiers is ridiculous. They fight for whatever the country tells them to, it is not up to them or you whether it is right or wrong.
Also the tower 7 argument is out. Disproved here and now (by your own source) as being a legitimate fire that was unable to be contained. What other ridiculous theories can we disprove?
He'll believe anything negative or false about the US government because he really does hate it for some reason, even though it doesn't affect him at all...
Kegetys disproved this tower 7 bullshit, can we move past it now?
Thats what half the people here are trying to do.
@Not Sure: Thats the anti-american xenophobic stuff I'm talking about. You're not bashing the US gov. You're being disrespectful of all American people. I can't really say much about Finland except that..its cold and has an amazingly high suicide rate. I guess people are happy there.
So... exactly why did the US government have to bomb the WTC and make it collapse neatly to justify their evil deeds afterwards (which caused them so many benefits! like... a crippled economy and an all-time low on the popularity scale)? I mean, two terrorist planes flying into the towers was not enough?
It is true steel loses most of its strength even before it start to glow, -also as its temperature rises it will expand by many inches over the length of most of those beams, so yes I can see the top of the towers just buckling and once they are in motion - they are never going to stop till they hit the ground.
Nobody believes that the US goverment would kill 5000 people for no reason - Crooks never do anything for no reason, they want to make money because money is power and they don't care who gets in their way to get it, even each other.
The only thing that will stop them is if they think that they might not get away with it, full stop - don't ever believe that some people are not that evil, or you will have learnt nothing from history.
Jertje - The US itself may have suffered issues but it affected companies - and when companies are affected some people lose out and some gain - for example any defence contractors must've rubbed their hands with glee at making more vehicles/guns etc.
I don't want to totally undermine the US Government, but the Government is just a group of individual, and power corrupts...
I was just picking off the laughable ones. Just because someone asks a question, citing particular instances and circumstances, doesn't mean that there's something behind it. I'm afraid I don't believe that "How come the.. " and "Why didn't they.. " constitute any measure of proof of anything.
If someone actually cites irrefutible evidence to prove a conspiracy theory, I'd hear it. So far, nobody has as far as I know. I'm pretty sure I've heard most of the popular conspiracy theories, and one would assume that good and solid conspiracy proof would float to the top pretty damn quick.
As for needing a PhD in order to have the right to question someone's conspiracy theory is utter tosh. There are a couple of reasons why I believe this. Firstly, because I know for a fact that a LOT of people will say a load of shit if it means they'll get attention or become famous, or they'll get money from sales of their books. This INCLUDES people who have PhDs in civil engineering. For every person who publishes his theory about a conspiracy, there are many thousands of civil engineers who sit and think "what a load of crap", but only attention whores and greedy bastards try to profit from inventing and publishing their fictional conspiracy theories out of such an event as this. Decent people don't.
Secondly, if I can't question the opinion of someone who has a qualification on a subject, EVEN if I see a glaring hole in their argument, then we'd all better get our asses back to church because priests and vicars are HIGHLY qualified in their chosen subjects, with degrees and doctorates etc. Or how about a resounding "no!" to that idea too?
Imagine the AC industry earned 10x more than they do now, and the government had the power to make it a permanent heatwave - i'd expect at least one company to "persuade" Senators/Congressmen (or whatever) that they should do it to increase profits.
The US lost out in the war - unless it's over territory or self-defence countries almost always suffer - but i'm willing to bet share-holders of arms companies etc made a lot of cash.
I've been considering whether to draw myself into this debate for the past day or so now, so what the hell
as far as I know in the mass of so called conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 most of the WTC 'theories' are a load of bullplop. Planes fly into buildings. Explosions blast off nearly all the already weakened flame-retardent foam which was severely lacking on the central supporting pillars thus weakening them beyond saving. Fires burn, until damage is too great and the buildings fall. WTC7 is demolished later after it is wrecked by the falling debris from the tower collapses
The Pentagon attack is iffy. All the other videos of the attack have been confiscated by the FBI, and all we got is the 5 frames which don't even show a plane. Of course because we only have one tiny section of still frames not showing a plane this is going to fuel conspiracies. I don't believe a 757 or whatever plane it was hit the Pentagon, it was something much much smaller when you take into account the total lack of anything even remotely the size of the debris a 757 or large passenger plane would produce on impact with a building. And thats before you take into account the tiny hole the apparent '757' made in the building.
That Pentagon conspiracy is all well and good, until you ask yourself one thing. What happened to the plane that supposedly flew into the Pentagon? What happened to the passengers and crew? Did they disappear into thin air? The only viable explanation I can come up with for this is that the planes flight number etc was changed during the flight, but then again what happened to the passengers? Or was this all part of the huge government cover up? Fake passengers, fake families who were actors seen grieveing for the 'passengers' killed in the Pentagon crash? Before you know it you get tangled up further and further into a crazy conspiracy that spirals out of control. Unless of course a small plane hit the Pentagon whilst the 757 that supposedly hit convieniently nose-dived into the sea somewhere. But you see, thats just another conspiracy theory!
Let's just clear something up.. everything that the US does affects everybody in the world. Don't take just my word for it, ask anyone from any other nation. We have a right to an opinion on the US administration, on both foreign and domestic matters, and you should not underestimate the importance of the opinion of the rest of the world. Despite Bush's isolationist ideologies, you are a part of the same world as us, and you're no less stuck with us as we are with you.
Then why were there still pools of molten steel SIX WEEKS after the buildings fell if as you say the steel didn't melt ??
You can't have it both ways !
The other point is the initial fires weren't major, if you listen to the firemans recording you'll hear that the fires in WTC1 & 2 were under control. - Wait, sorry I forgot you didn't pay any attention to what trained firefighters said. After all, what do they know ?
Exactly my thoughts... Don't get me wrong, there's something really iffy with all this, especially the Pentagon part, but why would they have to bomb the WTC's, as if planes hitting them wasn't spectactular enough? (who knows, that redneck maybe really thought it wouldn't be convincing enough to have just planes hitting and firefighters putting off flames after an hour )
It's YOU that can't have it both ways. I've described the furnace effect and the friction effect (ref the nail pulled from the wood). Both of these would explain molten steel initially and, with the conductive qualities of concrete, the temperature of the debris some time after the collapse.
It's time to answer some questions, instead of gleefully posing questions as if they constituted some proof of something. They don't.
There is absolutely no way the fires were under control. The ladders externally couldn't get up even remotely that high, and it was impossible to reach from inside the building. Do you think everybody has a brain fart and forgets what happened that day?