911 was the US's Reichstag, history may tell-if the record holds....

You are so right.

*long

This video has been marked Long (called by gold star member pipp3355)

So no takers again eh???

Denial is a motherfucker.

An armchair analysis of the lack of response to this post is in order.
Here is more evidence, which many have called for, the theme??-More evidence contrary to the official spin. Most of those who would, that the agnostics in the controlled demolitions camp provide evidence to satisfy, have either forgotten who they are, have no inclination to argue the point due to the brick wall carefully erected in their comfortably-numb minds, their attention no doubt allocated to some Daily Show quip, some sound-bite faux-paux of Bush stepping in his own shit, or perhaps a witty segment from their favorite cartoon.

Physics, all you science worshipers. Come and embrace.

When the overwhelming preponderance of evidence finally does make it to the edge of the collective interest,(fat chance with the media machine diversion), the official story shall perhaps change. It may propose the idea that the organized, and highly technical terrorists, did indeed, somehow place the charges, over an extended period of time, as well as commandeer the jumbo jets or some other such nonsense.

Should the Pentagon become the focus, perhaps a rouge military element, hijacked the missile, in some failed coop. Any story other than the nasty truth, would satisfy, the well-chilled husks, so deftly groomed, to swallow copius amounts of horse shit.

It's actually a pretty interesting documentary. It's not terribly glib and self-reighteous in its approach, which is a good thing. I've been coming to videosift for a long time, but this is the first thing I've posted. I only did so because just recently I've been doing research on this subject - as much research as I can do without taking samples from Ground Zero myself. I think it's important to allow the hypothesis of thermate explosives used on September 11, 2001.

unbelievable the lack of interest.....

Expired in Queue - 4 day limit.

*save

Saving this video from queue deletion, sending it to the top of the queue for one more try. Originally submitted on Monday 30th July 2007 (save called by gold star member bluecliff)

let's all be as antiestablishment as a bus full of emo kids! let's go to find an atheism video to upvote instead, safe in the knowledge that our progressive scientific enlightenment will bring a new dawn of religion-free liberty.

I have no particular desire to sit through yet another hour of fantasist nonsense, but I can make a few comments on Jones' very first claims (the first in the whole "documentary") that should give you some idea of his (and its) credibility.

Firstly, he rather dishonestly presents a false version of the official account of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings; he suggests that it states that they collapsed due to fire. This is not true. The World Trade Center buildings collapsed due to a combination of the damage suffered from the high-speed impact of a commercial airliner and the ensuing, unfought, multiple-floor, jet-fuel-accelerated fires (in the cases of buildings 1 and 2) or due to a combination of the damage suffered from the impact of a collapsing 110-storey skyscraper and eight hours of widespread, unfought fires (in the case of building 7). They were indeed the first buildings in history to collapse as a result of these factors, but, then again, they were the first buildings in history to have been subjected to these factors.

Secondly, he suggests that there are no examples of fires significantly affecting structural steel. Purely from a common-sense approach, if fire cannot significantly affect structural steel, then it seems very odd that structural engineers would waste valuable time and money on fire-proofing it. Further, his claim is simply false.

A Tale of Fire & Steel:

Bill Moore, of Brandenburg Industrial Service Co., and former president of the National Demolition Association from 2003-2005:

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

Thirdly, he states that the fire at the Windsor Tower serves as a compelling example of the fact that fires cannot significantly affect structural steel. However, the construction of the Windsor tower differed significantly from that of the World Trade Center buildings. The Windsor tower had a concrete as well as a steel supporting structure. In fact, (and this is why Jones' example is such a poor one) the unprotected steel sections of the Windsor tower did collapse:

Case Studies: Madrid Windsor Tower Fire:

It was believed that the multiple floor fire, along with the simultaneous buckling of the unprotected steel perimeter columns at several floors, triggered the collapse of the floor slabs above the 17th floor. The reduced damage below the 17th floor might provide a clue...

On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.

ahhh some debunking at last! i also agree that the claim about "the first three buildings to collapse from fire" is weak, because these were unique buildings and planes crashed into them. (oh, except for WTC7). (oh, and they were designed to have planes crash into them, but yeah that's unpredictable).

if only you explained the core collapse, the dust, and the molten steel, and WTC7's very very gracefully pretty collapse followed by disappearance from the media, then i would have learnt something.

well done for twisting some small things around the periphery anyway though, it's good to at least see someone having a go.

debunking 10% does not a debunk make.

show me how the core exploded as a result of "a combination of the damage suffered from the high-speed impact of a commercial airliner and the ensuing, unfought, multiple-floor, jet-fuel-accelerated fires (in the cases of buildings 1 and 2)"

the most logical explanation still seems to be "explosives" although i really wish one of you debunkers would come up with something better, because the implications of the "explosives" theory are pretty scary.

So, I leave a fairly reasoned and polite post and I get a lot of rude and sarcastic sneering in reply to it. Well, that's conspiracy theorists for you.

No par, you get this-a simple analysis, to your,

A: knee-jerk reaction to any theories besides the official ones, approved by Popular Mechanics and sanctioned "Experts", and

B. comfortable stereotyping of anyone who has a doubt or curiosity into the further investigation of this , open case, as a quote/unquote "conspiracy theorist".

Personally, labels that fit monikers of popular culture that have made it into the lexicon that are used as assists to derision, denial, or declarations, work easy for folks with rusty, made in China, steel trap minds like yerself....

and they are usually, abused and whored, like the cheap outs they are......

Well, that's conspiracy theorists for you.

"fantasist nonsense"-nice label

THE MC CORMICK
NOTHING LIKE A SKYSCRAPER
The gleaming white building burned down in 1967, a shocking event as it was largely steel and concrete and was thought to be fireproof. However, the exhibits at the time were highly flammable and there were inadequate sprinklers and hydrants, thus the fire spread quickly and destructively, taking the life of a security guard in the process.-some wiki-blogger

trade center had a completely different set of elements..fire-proofing, sprinklers, redundant columns for support...

the "evidence" at the site??? The site having been cordoned off and assigned investigators, means most evidence they produced in the form of reports should be held up to scrutiny, and remains suspect, doesn't it follow, that of you stack deck, you will win the pot???

The McCormick example serves to illustrate that fire can significantly affect structural steel and ultimately bring about a global collapse. The World Trade Center buildings had sprinkler systems and fireproofing -- both of which were stripped and destroyed by the impact of the airliner.

The sites of planes crashes, building collapses and suchlike are routinely cordoned-off and assigned to investigators for very obvious reasons. There is nothing suspicious about that.

The towers were indeed designed to withstand the impact of a plane -- a Boeing 707 carrying a minimal fuel load and travelling at approach speed. On 9/11, however, the towers were hit by appreciably larger Boeing 767s carrying abundant fuel and travelling at ~500 and ~600 mph. Further, if you hadn't noticed, the towers did withstand the initial impact of the planes -- which is why, thankfully, so many people were able to evacuate before they collapsed. The cores of the buildings did not "explode." Dust is a perfectly natural phenomenon given the collapse of a skyscraper. There is no compelling evidence of molten steel; the molten metal was mostly likely aluminium.

Indeed, World Trade Center 7 wasn't hit by a plane. However, as I've already said, it suffered severe structural damage from the impact of a collapsing 110-storey skyscraper; it also suffered eight hours of widespread, unfought fires. Further, World Trade Center 7's collapse wasn't particularly "graceful". The collapse caused significant damage to 30 West Broadway and The Verizon Building and minor damage to several others; the debris spanned the width of Barcley Street. The substructure of the east mechanical penthouse began sinking into the main superstructure due to an internal collapse appreciably before the main superstructure -- including the visible facades, etc. -- of the building collapsed. (Incidentally, controlled demolitions simply do not exhibit this kind of behaviour -- yet more evidence against the controlled demolition theory.)

Let me ask you a question par....Do you tend to believe all, most, or some of the cut-and-paste information you are providing here??

WTC7 is the hinge-pin of many, and the fact that two identical superstructures, impacted by two planes with varying amounts of fuel, hitting different floors, the one collapsing before the first impact from a smoking (not flaming) building, and the subsequent collapse into a tidy pile of a building (wtc7) whose tenants included the laundry list that they did.....look, never mind, you insult and will no doubt continue to insult, my personal sensibilities.....Guess that's why I called you out, I'm a goddamn glutton for punishment, who loves to suffer hard-headed folk......

For any given phenomenon, I tend to believe in the truth of the explanation that is generally best supported by the evidence.

I have no idea why you're claiming that that the towers were not flaming but rather only smoking; such an assessment is straightforwardly at odds with the photographic, video and witness testimony evidence.

World Trade Center 7 did not collapse before the impact of World Trade Center 1; it collapsed some eight hours after the event. Further, as I've said a number of times now, World Trade Center 7 didn't collapse into a "tidy pile". The collapse caused significant damage to 30 West Broadway and The Verizon Building and minor damage to several others; the debris spanned the width of Barcley Street. The list of tenants of World Trade Center 7 does not provide any evidence of a conspiracy surrounding 9/11.

Unless your "personal sensibilities" include preferring explanations which lack any compelling evidence and are in the face of overwhelming counterevidence, it's difficult to see quite how I've managed to insult them.

Par - you don't know shit. You talk about basing your beliefs on what is best supported by the evidence, yet you know nothing of the evidence other than what the Bush administration has wanted you to know.

You are not being truthful to us, which is bad enough, but even worse, you are not being true to yourself.

Those buildings were not made of kleenex and toothpics - they were made of strong steel reinforced with concrete columns.

There is absolutly no explanation for their timely and, yes, tidy collapse other than controlled demolition.

But you, and people like you, will never bother to find out the truth.

Cowardice, laziness, or conformist arrogance, take your pick.

unable to upvote, "new members cannot vote for other new members"

rougy:

So, in your complete inability to appropriately argue your point, you've resorted to simply plastering those who don't agree with you with abuse, denying the very existence of prosaic explanations for the collapses and denying straightforward facts. I never thought it'd be appropriate to quote Choggie, but "Denial", indeed, "is a motherfucker."

You seem to be labouring under the misconception that making assessments based on the available evidence is somehow a moral or epistemological failure on my part. However, it's difficult to see why adhering to such an enlightenment principle -- one essential to the very foundations of empiricism and science -- should rightfully be considered so ignominiously.

rougy:

On a related note, you suggest that the National Institute of Standards and Technology -- and those other qualified organisations that acknowledge their evidence and their findings -- cannot be trusted. This is precisely the kind of idea propagated by creationists; they claim that Richard Dawkins et al -- and indeed all evolutionary biologists -- are either credulous, part of some ubiquitous and satanic conspiracy or are at least in its pay. However, there is absolutely no evidence that evolutionary biologists are party to such nefariousness. Congruently, there is absolutely no evidence that the aforementioned structural and civil engineers are being either threatened or bribed into countenance by theoretical shadowy individuals.

Par. Let's take just one question instead of sidestepping around straw.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that a 767 is significantly bigger than a 707, that enough fuel remained in the building to burn enough to weaken the floors, that the visible molten metal was a freak occurrence and/or photoshop conspiracy theory, that somehow fireproofing was blown away all over the place over many floors even half a block away from the impact, and that the floors then distorted and collapsed catastrophically, due to the design of the building and the weak connections between the wall and the floor.

OK? I am agreeing with you so far.

Now, explain to me how the core, an enormous treetrunk of steel and concrete, collapsed also, completely, into dust, at the same time as all the floors, which had just disconnected from the core in order to fall, and were so flimsy that they couldn't drag the core down with them. I will even let you assume that somehow the floors disconnected evenly and simultaneously, permitting a total collapse into pretty much the footprint of the building.

How did the core collapse and turn to dust? Where did the energy come from for that? Just explain this, and I will instantly switch to your side of the argument and call choggie a weirdo conspiracy theorist.

I honestly would like to believe it man, it's just, you haven't addressed any of the issues that concern me, you've just debunked things i already find weak, and added things like "don't you trust NIST?" which make me think you might be gullible, or proud of you rational "non conspiracy theorist" position.

I would have an easier time believing the government on this one if they had done a better job of investigating the scene. If it is so obvious that there is no conspiracy, then I have to ask the question: Why not investigate the fuck out of this thing, out in the open? Families of victims still don't have satisfaction.

Then I remember the hundreds of other lies from Bush et al and I find it difficult to trust them on this one.

Please at least empathise with us skeptics, we have all been lied to a LOT, and it seems only rational to take a skeptical position in the absence of satisfactory explanation.

How did that core collapse like that?

Thank you for a generally more reasoned post. However, there are a few things I need to clarify before I deal with your subsequent points:

Regarding the size difference between a Boeing 707 and a Boeing 767, there is no need to simply take my word for it:

707-320B:

Dimensions: Wing span 44.42m (145ft 9in), length 46.61m (152ft 11in), height 12.93m (42ft 5in). Wing area 283m2 (3050sq ft).

Weight: Empty 66,406kg (146,400lb)

767-200:

Dimensions: Wing span 47.57m (156ft 1in), length 48.51m (159ft 2in), height 15.85m (52ft 0in). Wing area 283.3m2 (3050sq ft).

Weight: Empty with JT9Ds 74,752kg (164,800lb)

There is no mystery concerning the fireproofing. In the cases of World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2, the fireproofing was a light and brittle composite which had been simply sprayed-on to the structural steel; that steel was thrashed and the fireproofing stripped by the debris and explosions caused by the impacts of the airliners. In the case of World Trade Center 7, the fireproofing was designed to withstand, at most, a three-hour fire; on 9/11, however, World Trade Center 7 burned for approximately eight hours.

You have patently misrepresented my views on the issue of the molten metal and in doing so have committed the straw man logical fallacy. Clearly and straightforwardly, I neither claimed nor implied that the photographs of molten metal had been faked. Here is what I did say: "There is no compelling evidence of molten steel; the molten metal was mostly likely aluminium".

Perhaps some of your incredulity stems from the fact that you evidently haven't properly understood the National Institute of Standards and Technology's conclusions concerning the collapse mechanism; they simply do not state that global failure was brought about by the catastrophic collapse of the floor slabs.

The cores were not the solid entities you seem to believe them to have been; they were largely hollow as they housed the elevator shafts and stairways. They were composed of steel I-beams and box-columns which were in turn enclosed in gypsum wallboard. The cores didn't collapse at the same time as all of the floors; large sections remained standing until appreciably after the main superstructure had fallen (take a look at the following photographs: A; B.) The cores simply did not "turn to dust"; as I understand it, they collapsed due to the fact that they were severely damaged and because they were simply unable to (and also never designed to) stand completely independently of the rest of the building.

Further, perhaps some of the reason you're having difficulty with this issue is that you're not a structural engineer; all of your arguments regarding the cores include the logical fallacy of exclusively appealing to your own personal incredulity.

Nice sift blankfist.
Looks like it will make it to da front.

MINK:

I should probably add this:

I'm sure that a large number of those who push for a new investigation are perfectly well intentioned and genuinely believe that the current investigation suffers from glaring and extremely suspicious shortcomings. That said, however, in my experience, these beliefs are groundless and these people have been deceived and misled by the conspiracy theorist figureheads and their acolytes. It appears that practically without exception, the "Investigate 9/11" agitators foster utterly distorted and wholly inaccurate beliefs about the contents of the 9/11 Commission Report, the National Institute of Standards and Technology Report and so on. Personally, I have seen absolutely no compelling, sober and rational evidence either to suggest that the conclusions reached by the current investigation are drastically inaccurate or that any kind of appreciable cover-up has taken place. If I were exposed to such evidence, however, of course, I would wholeheartedly support your cause.

I think it's great to have so many diverse reactions to this. Two months ago, if you were to ask me about these "conspiracy theories", I'd say they were being manufactured by overly paranoid, anti-establishment nuts. Today, I don't look at the facts of that day to be "theories" at all. They're hypothesis that need attention, whether you believe it to be a false flag operation or not, I think the facts alone support enough credible fact for the hypothesis to be evaluated. There's no harm in that.

I remain to deny this theory until it is CLEARLY proven with undeniable evidence that can be support by both the accusers and the defenders. Until then, I refuse to believe that United States would actually rig a disaster such as this for political means.

I mean taking something out of context is one thing (jingoism during Spanish-American war), and propaganda is also well known. But you're telling me that certain group of people with shared interest in government had enough power and influence within United States government and exists as a splinter cell, its network of influence so wide and so grand that all parts of the government was working hand to hand in this, and yet at the same time nobody in government noticed anything of it?

It's just surreal.

BTW, what happened to that white powder in envelopes thing? Are they investigating it at all?

this "Investigate 9/11 agitator"

says,.. surreal?? Quite. Doable and likely given the power of the MIC-they have had many practice runs, it is not outside the realm of probability.....Governments don't do this type of thing-and if they do, not in the open-

No evidence; no argument.

downvotalicious

As easy as it may be to some to say this was an "inside job", I really think the focus needs to be on proving the facts first before we start conjuring blame and labelling the Bush Administration or whoever as responsible. To point fingers and make huge assumptions based on possible coincidences and scatterd facts is probably not the best idea, you know? We have to use reason, debate, and dispassionate study. The evidence is really quite staggering to suggest cause to further evaluate the hypothesis of a controlled demolition - or at least other possible reasons for the fall of the towers... especially WTC7. It does not show incontrivertable proof of an inside job; instead it creates questions from sensible fact (and some obvious political biases) that contradicts the current theory of the fall of the towers.

In here, however, it seems the jury is already out on this one, and I think that's really unfortunate.

http://debunking911.com/thermite.htm
http://debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://debunking911.com/massivect.htm

911 conspiracy theory is a practice in deciding the conclusion before the experiment has been performed.

those are really great links, Doc_M. Thanks for those.

On second reconsideration... a lot of that is really hard to take, Doc_M. I guess everyone should read what is there at "debunk911.com" and also watch the video I posted. I just see some staunch rhetoric at that site, and I'm not sure it's altogether unbiased. Thanks thought. It was at the very least interesting.

blankfist:

Given your penultimate post, you might be interested to learn that the National Institute of Standards and Technology indeed are evaluating controlled demolition hypotheses for World Trade Center 7.

While, as you might have guessed, I disagree with your assessment that there are compelling prima facie grounds on which to take these conspiracy theories seriously, I do commend your obvious desire for impartiality and even-handedness. However, be careful not to commit the fallacy (frequently seen in the media) of assuming that for any given issue, the two sides must be balanced and that the truth must lie somewhere in-between. Oftentimes, after all, one side is just plain wrong!

From my experience of that website, you're perfectly correct. There's certainly a case for saying that it's biased and it's doubtless somewhat rhetorical. However, the most important things are that it's honest and it cites proper sources throughout -- unlike conspiracy theorist resources.

first time i heard about aluminium, so thanks for that.

"incredulity" isn't the right word, try "inquisitiveness".

i am certainly not a structural engineer, and i can kinda see how the floors could have collapsed from heat without explosives, but i don't see how both towers fell so neatly into their footprints with no core remaining at all. They weren't hit in the base, dead centre, from all four sides simultaneously.

i look at it, i see something dissolving in mid air, you gotta at least agree it LOOKS a bit weird, WTC7 especially.

also what you have to agree is that governments do this kind of stuff, and it's not irrational to want to look into it more. I don't think "agitator" is the right word here, i'd use "patriot" if it wasn't so emotionally charged.

even if it wasn't explosives, even if you BELIEVE it wasn't explosives, you should still support a more thorough investigation than that which seems to have occurred.

and even if it was osama bin laden and jet fuel.. you still have to admit that the CIA are incompetent and the president is a liar.

i hope that helps you understand my incredulity.

MINK:

When assessing the collapses of World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2, it's important to bear in mind that the National Institute of Standards and Technology Report simply does not claim that global failure was the result of the collapse of the floor slabs. Rather, it was caused by the fires weakening the trusses which allowed the floor slabs to sag. This, in turn, exacted significant force on the perimeter columns causing them to bow appreciably inwardly (take a look at the following photograph: A). Eventually, due to the overwhelming strain, all of these perimeter columns along one side of the building failed practically simultaneously (also take a look at the following video: B).

Regarding the collapse debris fields, the towers can't be rightfully said to have fallen into their own footprints. The towers footprints measured one acre each; their debris fields, on the other hand, spanned approximately sixteen acres. If you're wondering why the top sections of the structures collapsed down onto and through rest of the buildings instead of falling away from them (and if you're in the mood to tackle some rather complex physics) you might want to take a look at this paper by physicist Dr. F. R. Greening.

Again, the cores were simply never designed to stand completely independently of the rest of the building. Roughly analogously, a drain-pipe bolted to the side of a very tall building maybe perfectly secure and could even provide enough stability for someone to climb; however, that same drain-pipe left free-standing in an open area would collapse of its own accord.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you mention something "dissolving in mid-air". Can you clarify that for me?

From an epistemological and a platonic perspective, to be able to rationally reach the conclusion that the collapse of World Trade Center 7 looked considerably suspicious, one would have to be reasonably familiar with what this kind of skyscraper collapsing due to a combination of severe structural damage and widespread fires should look like. Unfortunately however, there exist no comparable examples for us to evaluate. Prior to 9/11, the only time the vast majority of us will have seen a high-rise building collapse is due to a controlled demolition, so it's perfectly natural to draw such a cognitive association.

We can certainly agree on at least one thing -- the government is indeed significantly underhanded and overwhelmingly untrustworthy. As Winston Churchill somewhat dryly said, "Do not criticise your government when out of the country; never cease to do so when at home." Of course, I'm all in favour of asking questions -- equally vital, however, is recognising answers.

The idea that the President is liar and that the Central Intelligence Agency have their moments of incompetence is one I'd never even dream of contesting. However, as I've said, until I see compelling evidence either that the current reports are drastically inaccurate or that any kind of appreciable cover-up has taken place, I cannot faithfully show any solidarity with those pushing for a new investigation.

Mink, bear in mind that Par has admitted to be working for a FBI Counter-Intelligence Program.

Par's comment:
“Implicitly is all the New World Order pays me for. CoIntelPro isn't all glamour, you know.”

... He never posts any vids and it appears that his primary concern is attempting to quell any disbelief in the official story.

Par: until I see compelling evidence either that the current reports are drastically inaccurate or that any kind of appreciable cover-up has taken place, I cannot faithfully show any solidarity with those pushing for a new investigation....

Even several of the 9/11 investigators claimed that the official investigation had been compromised. That's enough for most people to call for a new investigation. This is one of the most impacting tragedies that has occurred on American soil and it should be re-investigated. Many factors were overlooked, information was kept from the first investigation by the pentagon, multiple stories (some changing over time). These things cannot be simply disregarded as trivial.

your point about the footprint i can maaaybe accept, but i would expect the drain pipe to wobble a bit and fall over in one or two pieces. "dissolving in mid air" refers to the way the radio mast seems to dip down first and then the whole thing just crumbles, and then on the floor you have just dust and gravel.

i agree that saying it looks "weird" is not very scientific, but it DOES look weird. i know that the scales involved and the uniqueness of the event make it hard to judge, but that's why I expect a NIST report to be more thorough.

if you showed the footage of building 7 to 100 people who hadn't seen it and didn't know what it was, i'm guessing 99 would assume it was explosives. maybe that's why they don't show it much.

and i'm in the SAS.

and also I was abducted by aliens on 9/11 and shown a film of the reichstag fire.

And I worked for SOFSA but I think that's beside the point... CoIntelPro has a specific agenda.... ok nm, I see where this is going.. screw you.

Constitutional_Patriot:

As we've already discussed, while they indeed had sincere reservations about how it was formed, funded and so forth, neither Hamilton nor Keane believe that the 9/11 Commission was ultimately unsuccessful. In fact, the opposite is true. The following is a quotation from their book Without Precedent:

Both of us [Hamilton and Keane] were aware of grumbling around Washington that the 9/11 Commission was doomed--if not designed--to fail: the commission would splinter down partisan lines; lose its credibility by leaking classified information; be denied the necessary access to do its job; or alienate the 9/11 families who had fought on behalf of its creation. What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success.

MINK:

I'd like to take a look at the phenomenon of the crumbling radio antenna; are you able to give me a time code for the part of the above video (or a link to another) that shows it?

<suddenly bored>

MINK:

You're probably right that our analogous drain-pipe would break into only a few pieces when it fell. However, the cores (and this is why I described the analogy as a rough one) differed from drain-pipes in that they were extremely complex, interconnected and generally much larger structures. So, while the two types of entity share the characteristic of being unable to stand unsupported, they differ in the ways that they disintegrate once they begin to collapse.

To suggest that the National Institute of Standards and Technology haven't been insufficiently thorough with regards to World Trade Center 7 seems a little unfair. The final draft of their investigation into the collapse (which includes the testing of controlled demolition hypotheses) has not yet been released. It is due later this year.

so one of the facts we can come away from this with, is that we know insects exist, and work hard at what they do-

other relationships exist, whereby more complex systems, benefit from the programs of other, simpler, more, specialized systems-

Thank you, insects-you make it hum along nicely, with all the little things you do, and do so well as you were designed!!!

Praise the Lord!!!...and pass the OM

No evidence; no argument.

Par,

"You seem to be labouring under the misconception that making assessments based on the available evidence is somehow a moral or epistemological failure on my part...."

You are basing your conclusion on incomplete evidence, evidence that was provided to you by the Bush administration.

Why did Bush and Cheney block the 9/11 investigation?

Why did WTC7 fall? Wouldn’t it be nice to know? Like, by investigating?

All three buildings fell at near free-fall speeds. When one floor collapses upon the other, it does not gain speed - it loses speed.

It's a little thing called resistance.

Given the damage to all three buildings, we should have witnessed, at most, partial collapses. The structures were, in fact, capable of withstanding the damage that they sustained.

Maybe Bush blocked investigating 9/11 for the same reason he blocked investigating Pat Tillman’s death.

The two deceits are related. Wake up.

"No evidence; no argument."

How fucking arrogant.

The evidence was destroyed, don't you remember?

I'm curious - why is it so important to you that nobody question the official explanation for the WTC collapses?

Why won't you venture to question the sheer convenience of the catastrophe in serving the administration's plans?

What about the ground-level explosions?

“No evidence; no argument.”

The Bush administration, with a lot of help from Giuliani, went out of their way to conceal and destroy the evidence.

Isn’t that what criminals do?

no looking for evidence, no evidence.

rougy:

Firstly, you seem to display a willing ignorance of the events of 9/11 and also an inability or unwillingness to actually read my posts.

You say that the towers "were made of strong steel reinforced with concrete columns" and yet this is simply wrong. It's truly amazing that you can have come to such firm conclusions about these matters without even knowing the very basics about the construction of the buildings.

You ask, "Why did WTC7 fall?" and yet I have already clarified the explanation best supported by the evidence a number of times.

You ask, "Wouldn't it be nice to know? Like, by investigating?" and yet as I have pointed out a number of times, it has been and is being investigated.

You ask, "Why is it so important to you that nobody question the official explanation for the WTC collapses?" and yet I have said that I am "all in favour of asking questions" and added that "equally vital, however, is recognising answers."

Secondly, evidently, you're under the impression that the National Institute of Standards and Technology have it all wrong. We have already seen that fire can appreciably affect structural steel and bring about a global collapse; we have also seen that the fireproofing was either damaged or insufficient to withstand fires of the requisite duration. So, please explain to me, in structural engineering (or even more prosaic) terms, the ways in which the buildings were "capable of withstanding the damage that they sustained." Further, you claim that "When one floor collapses upon the other, it does not gain speed - it loses speed"; please explain to me, in terms of the principles of the conservation of momentum, acceleration due to gravity, and those of elastic and inelastic collisions, how you have arrived at this conclusion.

Thirdly, please provide some evidence of "ground-level explosions".

Lastly, please provide some evidence to substantiate your belief that "The Bush administration, with a lot of help from Giuliani, went out of their way to conceal and destroy the evidence"; if you have no such evidence, then please explain the ways in which it is rational to hold this belief.

lol @ "please provide evidence that the evidence was destroyed!"

Par, if the above points are so important to you, why is the burden of proof all on someone else?

and remember, not everyone agrees on the definition of "proof" and "evidence" so you're just making a neat circular argument for yourself in the hope of stunning us all with your flawless, watertight, debate team logic.

how about you show me proof of where the molten metal came from, why it was the temperature it was, how much there was, why it stayed hot so long, etc. Don't worry, i got a good education, you can talk conduction, convection, radiation, specific heat capacity, exothermic chemical reactions, do your best. i am all ears.

Regarding the supposed destruction of evidence: yes, that's exactly the point; as I said "If you have no such evidence, then please explain the ways in which it is rational to hold this belief."

I notice that in order to try to salvage your argument, you have resorted to the rather desperate measures of attempting to open up fundamental concepts such "proof", "evidence" and "logic" to personal and subjective interpretation. However, no, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists to provide evidence of a conspiracy.

salvage what argument? like i said, this isn't debate team. we didn't start with rules and a motion. you don't know what i think. and i have conceded points only in an attempt to move things along, it doesn't mean i think your proof is either convincing OR doubtful, it just means i don't consider those points to be critical to the universe.

you can put the burden of proof where you like, not everyone will agree. seeing as governments are always lying and are supposed to work for us, imo the burden of proof is on them, actually. trouble is, they have no credibility, hence plenty of room for conspiracy theories.

and while we argue, more people die in a war that only very few people are profiting from, which would have been politically impossible were it not for a "pearl harbour".

the money trail is quite good proof actually. look at who's rich and powerful, see how they got their money, bingo.

or you could thoroughly examine all the remaining bits of structure BEFORE recycling, and publish a report about it. but nahhh, it was a big building, that would take ages, right? so maybe don't bother? just do a little report and then ask the conspiracy theorists to use the remaining weak evidence to challenge your convenient conclusion.

so tell me, where did that molten metal come from? it's a reasonable question i think.

The conspiracy theorists have a responsibility to provide evidence to support their claims. That is simply not going to change.

Certain corrupt and unpleasant people and organisations might well be rich and powerful as a direct or indirect result of the wars that followed 9/11; indeed, that is a tragic and unjust fact. However, it doesn't give us epistemological carte blanche to simply jettison the principles of properly applied evidence and argument.

You somewhat bizarrely describe the National Institute of Standards and Technology Report as "little"; it's approximately ten thousand pages long. If you believe that it was insufficiently thorough, please explain why.

You're right; your question is a reasonable one. The molten metal was most likely aluminum. It could have come from a number of sources such as the wreckage of the airliner, the aluminum cladding used in the construction of the building or any number of pieces of machinery or office equipment.

There's only one way to settle this. THUNDERDOME!

:-P

Oh, I think it's gone beyond that : )

"Annnnnnnnd, the torch is passed to blankfiiiisst!!!, whose primary post has brought em outta the woodworks again, with a subject that's sure to remain a head-scratcher for the record books, or until enough meatbots are replaced with improved models!...Keep playing those video games kiddies, and get yer dumplomas....get a fiiine education at one of the fiiiiine institutions in the United States, becoming all that you can be, and rising to your individual inefficiency and level of ignorance.....!"

So par, guess yer a lone gunman type like so many have sleepily decided to be, because the truth however seemingly unattainable, has yet to see light.....just this dim speculation and "official" "expert" reports......See, like MINK says, you don't know what motivates him in his responses to your tiring reasoning, and you may or may not know what motivates you-that's up to you to figure out-Thanks for coming.....love those posts!!!!

Thanks for the detailed explanation of the molten metal, Par.
And I liked the way you put carte blanche in italics.

Well, if either of you have any evidence or any argument to offer, please let me know.

yes, i know you want an argument. I just want you to explain more about the molten metal. you go into great detail on other things. i am interested. you kinda brushed it off.

this page doesn't mention any aluminium, and does mention steel.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

go!

I'm not exactly certain what you're getting at. Those who reported flowing or dripping steel had most likely seen molten aluminium. Those who didn't mention that the substance was moving in any way had most likely seen either molten aluminium or simply oxidised steel.

The National Fire and Arson Report (Volume 10. Number 4.)

Recent studies performed in our laboratory indicate that it is not possible to tell by visual examination alone whether a piece of steel has melted or merely oxidized.

"Indicators of Trouble" by John J. Lentini, CFI, F-ABC

A study of the 1991 Oakland fire that burned 3,000 homes revealed the presence of melted copper in over 80% of the burned structures, and what appeared to be melted steel in over 90% of the burned structures. With respect to steel, looks can be deceiving. What appears to be melted may be merely oxidized.

so you are saying there was no molten steel? so i guess you are saying aluminium instead because of the lower melting point? so you are kinda saying the rubble pile wasn't hot enough to have molten steel in it? just checking...

I'm not claiming that there necessarily wasn't any molten steel. However, being as molten aluminium would have been present given both cooler and hotter conditions and also that molten steel would have only been present given extremely hot conditions (extremely hot conditions which, as I understand it, are only hypothetical), it's intrinsically much more likely that the molten metal was aluminium.

fair enuff. but your debunking style still isn't very convincing, and i guess you've put off a lot of people in this thread.
you should try discrediting some laughable conspiracy theorists instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
lol

Well, thanks for the discussion. If you have anything else to add, please let me know.

So... no Thunderdome? That sucks. In any event, the debunking facts don't convince me, no matter how interesting. It's just too compelling.

rock, paper, scissors maybe?

*polka music

Yes! We shall determine whether this is true or fake based on a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors. On Three. Ready? One...

*zither music, and hairless dancing female apes

*waronterror

Adding video to channels (Waronterror) - requested by kronosposeidon.

Net neutrality

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.

Awarding kulpims with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.