11th Anniversary September 11th

ya the problem with that video is that it doesnt debunk popular mechanics at all, they use conjecture and flat out lies to build a strawman argument, that doesnt work when you are going up against facts and evidence, and you can moan all you want about passports but its simple scientific fact that not everything is destroyed in a plane crash, from the planes, whole seats, body parts, phones, and even drivers licenses were found, that is normal in all crashes not just 9/11, even the space shuttle columbia which came apart in the earths atmosphere, which burns hotter than anything on earth, personal effects of the astronauts were found intact including ID cards and photos

 

Did that crash into a building too?

You simply make distancing statements so i'll ask you out right questions and see if you can answer.

How did they identify the hijackers dna with no original sample?

 

Sorry but this is wrong in my (and others) opinion.

If the collapse of the North and South Towers was caused because of jet fuel and the intense heat from that (which I don't believe either because jet fuel, although burns extremely hot, burns extremely fast, and most of this burned out as soon as the jets hit the buildings), then why did WTC7 collapse in the exact same way? The building never got showered in flaming debris (and most definitely never got a good portion of the North Tower either as the building collapsed down on itself), as most of the showering debris fell short of WTC7, and it wasn't hit with jet fuel either as this all burned out on the North and South Towers. There wasn't enough debris to cause a fire of this magnitude in WTC7 and cause the building to collapse. Pictures show the WTC7 building on fire but the fires are relatively small yet we are to believe that debris caused this 47-story building to collapse the exact same way as the North and South Towers? No chance.

Also, why was it that the only buildings that collapsed or suffered major damage were the 7 WTC buildings? None of the other buildings surrounding the WTC area collapsed and they were just as close as WTC7. So out of all this falling debris from the North Tower the ONLY building to be hit, starting the subsequent fires and causing the building to collapse, was the WTC7 building? All this debris flying and showering everywhere yet the buildings beside the WTC7 tower didn't suffer fire damage or collapse. Strange.

Another thing - the WTC7 tower collapsed supposedly because of raging fires caused by firey debris being rained down on it, so why did the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid - after being totally consumed by fire for more than 18 hours - never collapse? Official reports say that the WTC7 tower had fires start at 10.29am after being hit by debris then collapses at 17.20 - just under a mere 7 hours after being hit. The Windsor building never collapsed after being consumed by fire for more than 18 hours.

Windsor Building on fire -



Windsor building - still standing - after the fire was put out -



WTC7 tower "raging inferno" -



All the rubble of WTC7 Tower in the foreground and to the left (leaning part) -



I'm sorry, but anyone who believes that the WTC7 Tower collapsed due to debris and fire alone is pretty gullible to "official" reports. Don't just take my opinion on the matter though.

http://wtc7.net/location.html

 

great post. be ready for a codecending and dismissive reply though. Guys a pro debunker.

Column 79 on floor 12,.thermal expansion, extraordinary event....

synchronised.global collapse, 2.5 seconds of freefall at onset of collapse, eyewitness states bottom floor blown out, videos near tower 7 "were walking back as the.building is about to blow up"

Anyone who believes the official story at all has been a victim of the greatest psyop of our times. stories planted from the street, planted evidence and witnesses delivering the hijacker story.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07hJhmiWZSY&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]FOX News - Rick Leventhal interviews 9/11 WTC witness, Mark "Harley Guy" Walsh - YouTube[/ame]

notice the 'men in black' especially at 3:29 and his body language.

 

nice try but I explained to you how the science behind it works, if you cant understand that then you are hopeless, you made a comment about items being found and I explained to you that it is normal

 

your problem is you are just as gullible for the myths that aretrotted out by the deniers, you see no one has ever claimed the WTC collapsed from just fire, do you happen to remember the little problem of a plane crashing into the building, the crashes on their own did a ton of damage and weakened the support beams, then the fire weakened them even more, and unlike the windsor fire the WTC towers had 40-30 floors above them putting a massive amount of wait on these weakened beams. http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/ and http://www.firerescue1.com/firefigh...61-Building-Collapse-Learn-the-Warning-Signs/

 

lol a interview right after the collapse yes really good evidence that, and man in black lol thats probably a police detective, if he was some government agent he wouldnt be standing around like that and he wouldnt even let the reporter approach him

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk"]9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim - YouTube[/ame]

 

So I've noticed :icon_mrgreen:

I'm not usually one to quickly believe a lot of these sorts of conspiracy theories, but how anyone can believe the official government reports of what happened that day when they have more holes in them than a 'keepers net, is either ignorant to it all or just turning a blind eye to it.

I think the only one being gullible here is you, for believing that the North, South and WTC7 towers (and not one other single building within the same distance as the WTC block) were brought down because of fire. If the North and South towers were brought down because jets flew into them, then explain the WTC7 building then. Official reports say that the collapse of WTC7 was caused because it caught fire. If it wasn't for these (small) fires, then what was it? Why did ONLY that building collapse? Due to the falling rubble from the North tower? None of the surrounding buildings collapsed yet that one did

If the fires caused by the jets helped bring down the buildings by "weakening their support", then why didn't the top parts of the North and South towers fall to the sides? This would have been the weakest areas after all so the top parts would have fell to the sides, yet the two buildings collapse straight down on their own imprint.

I notice you completely avoided those sort of questions and the link I provided as well, which would have went into far, far more detail. Incase you missed it the first time, here it is again for you.

http://wtc7.net/b7fires.html

And again (for a different page)

http://wtc7.net/verticalcollapse.html

So, the 30 - 40 floors collapsed down onto the rest of the buildings for the North, South and WTC7 towers because of "weakened" beams caused by "raging infernos", yet the bottom 2 floors of the Windsor Building managed to support 30 floors on top of them even after the whole building was on fire for more than 18 hours? Aye ok :smiley-laughing002:

Wow - three buildings that are only 4 stories tall collapse from a raging fire in under two hours. *, you really proved there in that clip on why the 32-story Windsor Building still stood after more than 18 hours of being on fire

 

Was it not going to cost millions to upgrade the WTC complex as well because of asbestos? And did Silverstein not insure the buildings for a ton of money mere weeks before the attacks?

Silverstein himself saying they made the decision to pull WTC7, also 1.12 in the video, if that isn't a controlled demolition then I don't know what is.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9b4D-aO3zY"]Silverstein Spills The Beans About WTC Building 7 - YouTube[/ame]

 

I did go to the link you provided, its a site full of errors and conspiracy theories, and there were other buildings near there that almost did collapse, 1 building had to be demolished afterwards because it was too unstable, oh and the WTC towers did fall to the side, it shows you really havent looked into this if you think they just came down in a nice little square http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-82026.html and http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874 and this is from a biased website but it has dozens of links to papers and documents from neutral sources http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

 

So still no explanation of how the 47 core columns in each tower were destroyed or of a fire driven progressive collapse can cause a buildung to go into freefall from standing.

until these questions are answered then the official conspiracy theory about hijackers and planes will be ridiculed and rightly so

 

Heres some more witnesses and evidence from the scene of exteme heat melting steel and lasting for well over a month.... oh and NIST doing their best to ignore it as their investigation started with a conclusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

"Almost did collapse" means that they didn't collapse though did they. Like I have already said (and you have completely ignored), it's funny how the WTC7 tower is the ONLY building outwith the WTC block that miraculously caught fire and collapsed. One of the buildings had to be demolished afterwards because it was too unstable? Hmmmm so it had to be demolished AFTER the incident yet it didn't catch fire or collapse on it's own during the incident, which is what happened to WTC7. Strange.





The closest buildings to WTC2 outwith the WTC block (at the south) didn't collapse or catch fire yet they are closer to WTC2 than what WTC7 is to WTC1, yet WTC7 was the only one to catch fire and collapse of it's own accord.

Funny how you are quick to dismiss anything like the site I posted earlier as being "full of errors and conspiracy theories" yet you're so quick to believe the "truth" and the "official" reports that have been dished out, but have been proved to have more holes in them than fishnets. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for the truth of what happened, but from what I've read of "official" reports, there's just too much contradiction within different reports, and the links I have posted below, show that it's not only the reports with the WTC7 tower that are inconsistent either.

The former American president and government deliberately lied about who was responsible for the attacks, accusing Saddam Hussein of it and that he had weapons of mass destruction etc, yet after Hussein was killed, the truth came out that it wasn't him after all and that it was Al Qaeda that was behind the attacks. So if he lied about that (meaning that he basically used 9/11 as an excuse to go to war with Iraq) then what makes you think they they aren't lying in their "official" reports?

Some more good sites about it all as well -

http://911research.com/

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646