as i always like to say .... let's just say for a second that all 3 steel buildings DID collapse due to fire (forget the fact that these are, and still remain to be, the only 3 steel structures in history that have collapsed due to fire) ... but for argument's sake, for a moment, let's just say that they did.

still with me? good ... ok, here are the FACTS ... so WTC1 was hit first, therefore having more burn time (18 more minutes to be precise). now WTC2 was hit next, but in contrast to WTC1 a large portion of the jet fuel was propelled out of the building due to the angle of impact. moving along to WTC7, which was NOT hit by any planes, but coincidently was owned by the same man ... this building was not raging with fires, yet collapsed 8½ hrs after WTC1.

what i would like to know based on these undisputable facts:
♦WTC1: hit @ 8:45a ... collapse @ 10:28a - 118 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC2: hit @ 9:03a ... collapse @ 10:05a - 62 min (impact to collapse time)
♦WTC7: never hit .... collapse @ 5:20p - 8 hrs 35 min after first tower impact

questions ...
§ how is it the WTC2 collapsed first due to intense fire given the fact that it was hit second with a majority of the jet fuel being propelled out of the NE & SE corners of the building?
§ how is that the cores of WTC1 & WTC2, along with all their corner support beams, gave way and fell uniformly? ... there was no buckling, shifting, or tilting at all during their collapse
§ how come the collapses of WTC1 & WTC2 look identical even though the levels of impact, duration of fire, and amount of fuel in the building were drastically different?
§ how come WTC7 collapsed when there were no large fire(s) in that building?
§ how do 3 steel buildings collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint in a precisely vertical fashion?

*anxiously awaits answer*

enourmous planes fly into buildings and people actually claim they then collapse because of "controlled demolitions". that is so mindblowingly depressing for so many reasons on so many levels it makes me want to just go jump off a bridge. someone get me off this fucking planet. please.

Building 7 (WTC 7) was not hit by a plane, thats the whole point. And it was pretty far away from the towers 1 and 2, and those collapsed on themselves, which means relatively little debris on WTC7, and what appears to be pretty insignificant fires, and that massive 50-story building collapsed almost frame-by-frame exactly like you'd expect from controlled demolition.

So whatever made it collapse, it sure is interesting from many aspects.

It was a thinly veiled dig at Theo gwaan, since he believed people can't have a theory on a building collapsing if they aren't physics professors or controlled demolition experts

I know all about the Israel/US alliance, and it still baffles me everyday.

nice viral campaign. insider pre-release fake mo-cap video released onto youtube with fancy video edits at end involving soccer balls and buildings collapse. EA sports indeed...

Had to post this one for the amazing view of the debris cloud spreading from the second building collapse.
Actually, a way better quality video of this can be found here.
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?m=20060911

haggis:

I am absolutely for more investigation. It's really unfortunate that there are people who turn the notion of looking into it as though it somehow bad. I think the 9/11 commission themselves have pretty much acknowledged that their scenerio for why the building collapsed is only the best they can come up with, and not necessarily even likely.

I was especially disgusted with the calls, in particular by politicians, to get rid of professors just because of the position they took on 9/11. It shows a total lack of respect for the academic freedom, which protects research no matter how controversial. If we disallow people to investigate things just because they are controversial, we will only regress as a society.

SnakePlissken:

You are taking truthiness to a new level. I can only say fact number 1 is true, but you'd be hardpressed to find many people who could say your other points are facts, with perhaps the exception of point 4.

Now, how to explain how fast the towers collapsed? I can't, but that I can't doesn't mean that the building was demolished. I'm not an architect, nor a physist, and I don't have the means to make such an assessment, and I suspect neither do you. I can only look to experts on this, and as far as I know there is no consensus.

Certainly there are experts who have said what you are implying, but conspiracy theorists are specifically looking for such experts. You already have a conclusion, and are now looking for evidence based on that conclusion. Doing this, you can find 'proof' of nearly anything you want. I'll take this sort of evidence more seriously when an indepenent group of scientists can come to similar conclusions.

In terms of WTC7, I don't know any of the details on that. I do remember on 9/11 while watching the news, there was mention that one of those smaller buildings was purposely demolished. I don't know what the current story people are saying about this now, nor if the news got it wrong it the time. If I remember correctly the other building collapsed after at least one of the main towers went down, perhaps both, and was hit by lot of debris.

Snake, I believe the facts. I like to look up actual verifiable things rather than suscribe to crazy theories.

I also did answer your questions but in the interests of brevity, I didn't feel like engaging in full-on Fisking. And when I say "cokehead" I am of course being a little facetious, but have you dealt with people who have dropped acid in the past? They totally zone out. It's funny, if it doesn't freak you out.

Read the links I provided you - here's a few more, they'll provide sufficient answers/rebuttals.

One for the passport - if it fluttered off while the box was crushed by the building collapsing, that would make perfect sense on so many levels:
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

Here's one on debris fields:
http://www.911myths.com/html/missing_engine.html

Here's a goodie on intercepts:
http://www.911myths.com/html/67_intercepts.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html

You know what I find curious? Reading these websites - geez it takes forever to sift through this... good thing some people decided to sift through videos... <grin> - I've noticed that, in general, the theorists generally say they must be right, while the skeptics are generally more skeptical of everything - saying "to the best of our knowledge" when something's unclear, instead of holding things as gospel truth (exhibit A - the lecture-video you cited above - that man had the conviction of a preacher!).