Finally, 9/11 Truth Scholar gets airtime on mainstream media network

[Remy]

Bigfoot is over having a beer with me and we're lol'ing at your denial of the truth.

Yeti > Bigfoot

[TimberWolf]

I would take the truthers more seriously if they:

1 Actually sought out truth, not just their biased version

2 Stopped acting like anyone that doesn't agree is a dumb sheep when many people read and listen to both sides and make a conclusion based on the seen evidence.

3 Stopped engaging in McCarthyisms to any legitimate source that refutes their theories

4: (and this is the big one) Actually do something about it

(and before anyone gets upset, I am generalizing and am aware of it. I am sure not every truther acts like this. One day I may even meet one)

[Ghostsof1915]

Bigfoot is over having a beer with me and we're lol'ing at your denial of the truth.

Whatever you do, don't mention the Ranger. He's still touchy about it.

[Justdean10]

I would take the truthers more seriously if they:

1 Actually sought out truth, not just their biased version

2 Stopped acting like anyone that doesn't agree is a dumb sheep when many people read and listen to both sides and make a conclusion based on the seen evidence.

3 Stopped engaging in McCarthyisms to any legitimate source that refutes their theories

4: (and this is the big one) Actually do something about it

(and before anyone gets upset, I am generalizing and am aware of it. I am sure not every truther acts like this. One day I may even meet one)

But it works the other way too, anyone that doesn't go along with the stories that we are told are said to be "crazy conspiracy nuts"

People have their opinions, but unlike a lot of the people that say I'm a "crazy conspiracy nut" I've read up on this a lot more then probably most people.. both sides.. and in my opinion their seems to be more truth in the conspiracy side of it.

[Justdean10]

Jet fuel burns at 980 degrees and higher. Steel melts at 600 degrees. Airliners hold close to 30,000 gallons of fuel. I am no scientist rocket, but the conditions seems right coupled with mass and gravity.

I think it's funny when people use this as their defense for why the buildings fell. Steel melts at 1500 degrees.. also like Hugor hill said, a plane didn't hit Wtc 7. Also explain to me how..

This women stood where the plane hit, if the fires were so hot it was burning metal

[TimberWolf]

But it works the other way too, anyone that doesn't go along with the stories that we are told are said to be "crazy conspiracy nuts"

People have their opinions, but unlike a lot of the people that say I'm a "crazy conspiracy nut" I've read up on this a lot more then probably most people.. both sides.. and in my opinion their seems to be more truth in the conspiracy side of it.

Actually it doesn't work both ways. You are the one with the abnormal opinion and thus the onus is on you to explain why it should be respected.

Also assuming that those who don't agree haven't read or researched your side is wrong. Most people in this very thread have read the very theories you are producing at length and researched the science as been explained many times. We've seen loose change and that bald guy that claimed snopes was an arm of the government and all that.

You've also ignored everything else I posted. So lets get to the big one.

You believe 911 was an inside job... what are you going to do about it?

[Hugor Hill]

I think it's funny when people use this as their defense for why the buildings fell. Steel melts at 1500 degrees.. also like Hugor hill said, a plane didn't hit Wtc 7. Also explain to me how..

This women stood where the plane hit, if the fires were so hot it was burning metal

That's a horrifying picture. Horrifying.

To add knowledge and be fair to both sides, while steel doesn't melt until like you said around 1500C, it does, from what I have read, begin to be damaged at a lower temperature. If you add the weight of the building over it, god knows what would happen.

And if WTC 1 or 2 was 'cool' enough for a person to stand where she was standing, how hot could WTC 7 have been?

[Brick Tamland]

So, people actually think the US crashed or blew up their own towers so they could invade another country?

The tinfoil hats are thick with these ones.

Or wait, it was to get at oil (which hasn't happened)

I mean, the surveillance tapes of the men getting on board the planes, the call from the PA plane...

So bizarre... Maybe aliens sent unicorns made of rainbows to shoot the building down.

[WZRD]

So if WTC 7 was brought down with a controlled explosion, why didn't anybody notice all of the work being done to prep and wire the building? Goodnight.

[Hugor Hill]

So, people actually think the US crashed or blew up their own towers so they could invade another country?

The tinfoil hats are thick with these ones.

Or wait, it was to get at oil (which hasn't happened)

I mean, the surveillance tapes of the men getting on board the planes, the call from the PA plane...

So bizarre... Maybe aliens sent unicorns made of rainbows to shoot the building down.

You are the only one who believes in conspiracy theories. We believe in physics and common sense.

[Dral]

You are the only one who believes in conspiracy theories. We believe in physics and common sense.

You sound like you're a card carrying member of the Church of Scientology.

[MadMonk]

True true. What I said in those points was really just a very basic template but there are a lot of other factors. That was just my saw. I recommend you take a look at the video I posted a few posts up...and if supporting columns did fail, yea it'd make a ripple effect if the building was made out of a deck of cards, but this is WTC and the TT were talking about. That video, shows a building on fire for twenty hours and if it doesn't collapse. It was still being built and wasn't even properly made yet it withstood it. Idk, there's a case made imo.

The Madrid tower you referred to uses reinforced concrete in the core, not entirely steel framed so it is not a fair comparison. In fact, the outer steel portion of the building did collapse. You are also forgetting that the impact of the jet planes and debris took out a significant number of supporting columns in the WTC.

I am really not sure why you feel that they are fair comparisons.

[Brick Tamland]

You are the only one who believes in conspiracy theories. We believe in physics and common sense.

Oh, so all the previous test done on giant building's, with huge planes crashing into them loaded with fuel, all those tests the engineers performed prior to building to sustain such an activity were wrong?

Hint: NO structure has ever been tested for that.

You people sound so stupid. Tinfoil hats unite.

[Brick Tamland]

You should like you're a card carrying member of the Church of Scientology.

Bingo... There is science, it says so right in the name.

[thepedestrian]

So, people actually think the US crashed or blew up their own towers so they could invade another country?

The tinfoil hats are thick with these ones.

Or wait, it was to get at oil (which hasn't happened)

I mean, the surveillance tapes of the men getting on board the planes, the call from the PA plane...

So bizarre... Maybe aliens sent unicorns made of rainbows to shoot the building down.

Hi. I have no opinion on this thread but if you read the entire thread you'd realize that the United States had thought of doing this almost 50 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

BTW - the only thing I think is really messed up is the fact that there is no good footage of the plane hitting the pentagon. Isn't there cameras everywhere surrounding it?

[grandmaster]

You guys need to chill on this conspiracy of Tower 7. It was debris with intense heat that took that building down;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Rare 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire

By Daily Mail Reporter

14:05 01 Nov 2011, updated 13:59 02 Nov 2011

Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories.

Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims.

But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center - and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO

Burning: This side view of Building 7 as it burns shows the extent of the fire in the building even though it is across the street from the main World Trade Center complex

Buckling: The windows in the upper right corner show how the building's exterior frame could no longer withstand the high temperatures

The video shows up-close shots of the lower floors of World Trade Center Building 7, located just across the street from the Twin Towers, and focuses in on the exterior metal beams of Building 7 as they begin to buckle as they are overheated.

The buckling led to floors falling in on one another, causing the building to collapse.

Though the entirety of the collapse is not shown in the video, it does show how there is legitimacy to the explanation provided by the government's 9/11 Commission investigation.

The video was made by a local news reporter and was released through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Shot from the north side of the building on Barclay Street, and between the buildings in the background, the video shows the mass of raging fires taking place on the grounds of the World Trade Center.

The complex: Building 7, highlighted in blue, is shown burning in the video

Evacuated: There were no casualties in the building as everyone had left

THERE ARE STILL MORE OUT THERE... A HOST OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES STILL SURVIVE

The main split in conspiracy theories comes from the divide over the role of the U.S. government in the attacks, with some feeling that authorities 'let it happen on purpose', while others think that they played a more diabolical role and 'made it happen on purpose'.

Some of the theories argue:

-That no planes were used in the attacks, saying that the aluminium of the planes would not be able to penetrate the steel that made up the Twin Towers; instead, the New York buildings were subject of an internal, controlled demolition

-The Pentagon was shot with a missile by U.S. government officials

-That the U.S. purposefully avoided shooting down the planes and causing confusion to prevent military planes from scrambling in time

-.... while others are on the opposite end, some say that United flight 93, the one that crashed in a Pennsylvania field, was shot down by U.S. army jets

-That Israeli agents were involved, as FBI agents found five of them filming the New York attacks from the roof of an apartment building and celebrating afterwards

Though Building 7 was separate from the main World Trade Center complex, there were two pedestrian bridges connecting Building 7 to the main complex across the street, linking the buildings by the third floor.

In the video, viewers can see the glowing flames on what appears to be the sixth floor of the building, and as the camera zooms in, you can even see the metal bars of the exterior buckling.

It is unclear when exactly during the day the video is shot, but considering the fact that the building is still standing it must be well before it's collapse which happened at 5.21pm. That said, the news reporter is the only person we see on the street, so the mass confusion and evacuation that took place earlier in the morning in the midst of the attacks had settled at that point.

At points, the news reporter seems clearly aghast, saying 'It's a surreal environment' and 'It's almost impossible to describe'.

Official investigators say that after the South Tower fell at 9.59am and the North Tower at 10.28am, the pieces of the rubble did irreparable damage to Building 7, causing it to burn by floor by floor, getting progressively weaker along the way.

The investigation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency said that the collapse was caused by a combination of the damage from the debris - and not the impact of the debris itself- and lacking water in the fire sprinklers throughout the building.

The largest tenant of the 47-story building was the bank Salomon Smith Barney, but there were also offices of the CIA, the Department of Defence, utility company ConEd, and the Internal Revenue Service.

In the shadows: Building 7, the reddish building pictured to the left of the North Tower that is about half it's height, was considered part of the WTC site

Office space: Building 7 housed offices of the CIA, Department of Defence, utility company ConEd, and bank Salomon Smith Barney which was the largest tenant

Because of the time span of the events, everyone was able to evacuate the building and there were no casualties within Building 7.

Government analysts part of the 9/11 Commission said that all three of the buildings that fell in New York that day were due to 'total progressive collapse,' which means that when a building has extreme damage in one area, the entire structure of the building is weakened as a result.

MORE...

Rampaging weightlifter killed by Tasers after running amok at gym

Central Park horse dropped dead after suffering severe pain from chronic stomach ulcers

Unless the damage is limited to one area, it will have a domino effect, moving on to lower floors in the building until it entirely collapses.

Conspiracy theorists take issue with that account, believing instead that the government was involved in the placement of explosive devices throughout the New York buildings, and even go so far to say that the incident at the Pentagon was caused by a missile rather than a plane.

[MadMonk]

True true. What I said in those points was really just a very basic template but there are a lot of other factors. That was just my saw. I recommend you take a look at the video I posted a few posts up...and if supporting columns did fail, yea it'd make a ripple effect if the building was made out of a deck of cards, but this is WTC and the TT were talking about. That video, shows a building on fire for twenty hours and if it doesn't collapse. It was still being built and wasn't even properly made yet it withstood it. Idk, there's a case made imo.

Ok, I've watched the first 10 minutes or so as you recommended.

The only main point that was said is that the building is designed to withstand the impact of a jet liner (which it did!), but nothing was said about it designed to withstand the subsequent fire. What what exactly is the point?

Now the next thing is about the Madrid building, which I noted earlier that the steel portion did in fact collapse, why did they not mention that?

I got to the point where they pointed out that people pass through the damaged floors, and the women at the point where the plane entered the building.

First off, the building is quite large, and it is definitely possible that not the entire floor is on fire initially, so why is it puzzling that people got through? Now the lady near the entry point also proves nothing, as it is clear that fire is not at the entry point. This makes sense, because jet fuel has momentum too, which means the fire will be at the opposite end of where the plane entered the building mainly (at least initially!).

So not impressed. What else do you find to be a strong case for demolition?

[Robongo]

Ok, I've watched the first 10 minutes or so as you recommended.

The only main point that was said is that the building is designed to withstand the impact of a jet liner (which it did!), but nothing was said about it designed to withstand the subsequent fire. What what exactly is the point?

Now the next thing is about the Madrid building, which I noted earlier that the steel portion did in fact collapse, why did they not mention that?

I got to the point where they pointed out that people pass through the damaged floors, and the women at the point where the plane entered the building.

First off, the building is quite large, and it is definitely possible that not the entire floor is on fire initially, so why is it puzzling that people got through? Now the lady near the entry point also proves nothing, as it is clear that fire is not at the entry point. This makes sense, because jet fuel has momentum too, which means the fire will be at the opposite end of where the plane entered the building mainly (at least initially!).

So not impressed. What else do you find to be a strong case for demolition?

[MadMonk]

I've watched bits here and there, and most of it recycles the same old argument, and a lot hinges on assuming a priori that it is a controlled demolition and thus facts are interpreted that way.

So why do you personally think that the building did not collapse on its own?

[Bure to Mogilny]

Bush reitired so be ganed nothing why would he attack his own country when leader? This the most insane thing ive ever heard to insult that man after what he did to help america after that day. Whats next leftys?