9/11 Truth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Your debunking sites have not yet proved that the official report was possible.

---

Are you sure? You read all of them? Those links provide access to a zillion web pages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Anyway, I'm not claiming that 9/11 is an inside job (let's use correct terminology since technically even the official report describes a conspiracy, anything that was planned by two or more people by definition).

---

Okay. Smart thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

All I'm claiming was that the official report is impossible, and I'll use that to theorize that the government knows its impossible, and could use that to speculate that they are keeping something from us, by logical conclusion.

---

My demoltion knowledge is too insufficient for me to say one way or the other on that. My social psychology knowledge says that that idea is extremely far fetched. That does not mean I am ready to claim that the report is automatically true. I am just saying that the people who claim it is false have some explaining to do far beyond their assumed demoliton understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

And there are a ton of facts your sites have failed to debunk. You write the sources of these facts off as not-credible but that's a fallacy. You haven't examined these sites, you don't know. There are plenty of scholarly articles out there about 9/11's possible inside operation. Just because when googling we can only find websites created by obviously biased people doesn't mean the facts are suddenly disproven. They're researched facts, questions, and inaccuracies.

---

I don't trust any news source that has nothing to lose and much to gain by lying. If they aren't fighting tooth and nail for dominance in financial competition, I cannot put too much belief in what they say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

And there are a ton of facts your sites have failed to debunk. You write the sources of these facts off as not-credible but that's a fallacy. You haven't examined these sites, you don't know. There are plenty of scholarly articles out there about 9/11's possible inside operation. Just because when googling we can only find websites created by obviously biased people doesn't mean the facts are suddenly disproven. They're researched facts, questions, and inaccuracies.

---

The government does not have the resources nor the lack of professional standing to respond to every wild claim they hear. When more than .0001% of demolition experts notice what amateurs on the internet think they have noticed, then the government will be closer to having some explaining to do, but only in terms of how they got the demolition report wrong. I don't see why that can't be a matter of incompetence if it is true. The argument that such a failure proves an inside job would have to have some good strength for the government to need to respond to it. I still don't even know what that argument is. Is there one? It is bizarre that Mystic and Memeticverb will not say what that argument is. If they had an argument, it seems like they would be going off about it. They won't even give an argument, despite my repeated and very relevant requests, yet they keep yapping. How strange is that?

The JFK assassination is different. Not only have arguments been made and backed up by solid video and rarely disputed facts about guns. The proponents of the conspiracy theory have explained precisely how those facts can be used to logically conclude that more than one gunman was involved in the JFK assassination. If they are right about that, which they very well may be, then there is proof that the claim that Oswald killed Kennedy alone is false. It is reasonable, though not necessarily factual, to conclude that Oswald's assassination is good circumstantial evidence that a person or people wanted to silence him immediately. The fact that the government's report was questionable has been verified by huge numbers of actual experts, far more than a microscopic percentage of them. And these are matters that would be difficult to screw up unintentionally, and the government had ample reason to correct the report or at least answer major questions about it. My mind is still not made up on that issue, but I at least know what the argument is and see how it follows reasonable patterns. I can't say the same about the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. If I have any hope of getting to such a point, I am going to at least need to know what the argument is. What would be the point of not telling me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Start by responding to even one issue of the 911 material posted here and why any of this is not true. If you don't know how to, then maybe you should find out how you ought to respond to the evidence before claiming it doesn't count for anything.

---

Are you even reading my posts? What would you like for me to say about what you keep posting? I don't know what its significance is. I see the supposed information. What about it? Why in the Hell would you not take two seconds to tell me? You keep posting A. You are not telling me what in the flying fuck it has to do with Q. What are you looking for me to say?

Here Mystic... Pumpkins can fly. Just look at this evidence...

The sun is not really going to turn into a red giant, like the predominant theory says. - Theodore Roberts, Professor of Astronomy at Pearl River College and Bush hater who wrote a book to make money

Address the evidence! Pumpkins can fly. Address the evidence!

Quote:

---

The JFK assassination is different. Not only have arguments been made and backed up by solid video and rarely disputed facts about guns. The proponents of the conspiracy theory have explained precisely how those facts can be used to logically conclude that more than one gunman was involved in the JFK assassination. If they are right about that, which they very well may be, then there is proof that the claim that Oswald killed Kennedy alone is false. It is reasonable, though not necessarily factual, to conclude that Oswald's assassination is good circumstantial evidence that a person or people wanted to silence him immediately. The fact that the government's report was questionable has been verified by huge numbers of actual experts, far more than a microscopic percentage of them. And these are matters that would be difficult to screw up unintentionally, and the government had ample reason to correct the report or at least answer major questions about it. My mind is still not made up on that issue, but I at least know what the argument is and see how it follows reasonable patterns. I can't say the same about the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. If I have any hope of getting to such a point, I am going to at least need to know what the argument is. What would be the point of not telling me?

---

At least try to use this as a grounds for understanding my position, though. I understand political reformists have a lot to gain by making people think 9/11 is an inside job, but I took that into account when I looked at the evidence, and the fact is, even though I'm no demolitions expert, it still seems to me like there are quite a few things about 9/11 that just don't add up. We've discussed just a couple of these, and frankly mystic has already posted all the evidence, whether some of his facts are abviously debunked or what. You don't have to see these loose ends as legitimate, but I do and I have no liberal agenda to this, I just see these loose ends as significant and want them answered, but our government won't.

As far as social psychology goes, I don't think this is THAT far fetched considering how much the cabinet and its monetary supporters have gained from the incident. It's happened before, remember how Hitler burned his house down?

And here's all the evidence I need for my opinion. The owner of WTC7 clearly stating the evacuation of the building and its "Pull" as separate incidents:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

As far as social psychology goes, I don't think this is THAT far fetched considering how much the cabinet and its monetary supporters have gained from the incident. It's happened before, remember how Hitler burned his house down?

---

I am not talking about the cabinet. I am talking the gigantic sea of demolition experts out there, from master architects and engineers all the way down to country Bubba construction workers. I am talking about millions and millions of people. The vast silence speaks volumes. 9/11 is the biggest news story in history, and I am certain even the lowest level experts can notice anything you, Mystic, and Memeticverb can notice. Can they not? Their noticing would lead to talk that leads to more talk that perpetuates into a yell so loud that the entire world is bombarded by it. 9/11 is an issue so gigantic that practically a world war is being fought over the perceived terrorism threat significance that resulted from it. We are talking about the most enormous issue ever. Obvious flaws in a report about how the WTC fell would be monstrously gigantic news in every social circle in the world.

Click one god damned link mystic posted and you'll see this silence you're referring to does not exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Click one god damned link mystic posted and you'll see this silence you're referring to does not exist.

---

Quit getting fucking rude with me. Do you remember promoting "love" a few days ago? Prove that you cherish it on any level so I don't continue to question whether you are being severely hypocritical. Give peace a chance, if you actually give a damn about it. I could swear you have a split personality.

I have clicked all of them. I don't see what they prove. Tell me. A building was supposedly ordered to be "pulled" so the fire could be contained, so the lease owner claims. Okay, yeah, he claims that. Let's assume he got paid nothing for that interview, being the money hungry business man he most likely is having a lease for a building like that in Manhattan. What about it? They had a means of pulling the building in case it ever caught on fire? Yippie dippy wooptie woo!

And once again, I was talking about vast, vast majority silence, not 100% silence. How many times do I need to explain that to you?

Universal Mind. Let me know when your ready to respond to the material you can't possibly explain away. The information is here ready for you, waiting. Mocking you with it's presence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The evidence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mystic

1. The failure of the FAA and Military's standard operating procedures to intercept off-course or out of contact aircraft.
2. The multiple wargames happening on 9/11
3. The unexplained collapse of WTC building 7, and the demoltion-like collapse of the towers themselves. Larry Silverstein, the lease-holder of WTC 7, admits it was "pulled."
4. The foreign warnings received by our government/intelligence agencies prior to 9/11
5. The fact that several of the supposed hijackers have turned up alive
6. The failure of the 9/11 Commission to address certain questions, and the suspect members of this commission.
7. Insider trading on put options prior to 9/11. The SEC refused to track the trades. The story was killed in the US media.
8. The historical precedents of government deceptions and "false-flag operations," including Operation Northwoods.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

1. The Mastermind, the Hijackers and the Planes
2. The Twin Towers
3. The Pentagon
4. Flight 93
5. The President's Response
6. Osama and WTC 7
7. How the Case was Cracked
8. The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel
9. The Undead Hijackers

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

911 COMMISSION
HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS
PRIOR WARNINGS OF PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS
WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH
EXPERTS TALK ABOUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
HOW DID THEY KNOW?
WHAT ABOUT THE PENTAGON?
BUT COULD THIS REALLY HAPPEN IN MODERN AMERICA?
911 FACT SHEET

---

The NIST report is debunked

I say damn and suddenly I'm all hateful? Just because I can get frustrated doesn't mean I support hate. You are really good at making people frustrated. I'm not the one supporting a war where we shot depleted uranium at civillians.

You seem to hear what you want to hear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I say damn and suddenly I'm all hateful? Just because I can get frustrated doesn't mean I support hate. You are really good at making people frustrated. I'm not the one supporting a war where we shot depleted uranium at civillians.

You seem to hear what you want to hear.

---

Wow, that really answers my questions.


Mystic, what is your argument?

People aren't buying your double standard approach to argument, dude. And don't ever PM me again, please. I don't want to get into some discussion about why you think I have these opinions or whatever the hell your talking about. I just want civil argument. You sound like a broken record, it gets frustrating to debate you, so the word damn slipped, bfd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

People aren't buying your double standard approach to argument, dude. And don't ever PM me again, please. I don't want to get into some discussion about why you think I have these opinions or whatever the hell your talking about. I just want civil argument. You sound like a broken record, it gets frustrating to debate you, so the word damn slipped, bfd.

---

It was about your thousandth time to do that, and a comparatively minor example. I keep trying to get along with you, and you keep knocking the peace out of the platter I am holding it in. Give peace a chance, and you will see that I will too. Deal?

Now answer my questions, please.

I could say the same thing about you. I feel like I'm the only getting spit in the face here.

How can you even argue that when you send people who disagree with you PMs like this:

(At what I can only assume was Universal Mind's request, I've removed his PM)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I could say the same thing about you. I feel like I'm the only getting spit in the face here.

How can you even argue that when you send people who disagree with you PMs like this:

---

Review the threads. You initiate personal hostility time and time again. It seems to be a big part of who you are. Try to change that. But I do respond to hostility, and when my reaction gets severe enough, I send it in a PM. Try to find where I have ever initiated it with you. You can't. That is because I haven't.

I don't think this forum is an appropriate place for you to be posting what I said, but it is your choice. I sent you a PM because that is much more appropriate for that sort of thing. In fact, any problem you have with me personally, send me a PM about it. The forums should be much more civil than you want them to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Give peace a chance

---

Give evidence a chance and respond to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Give evidence a chance and respond to it.

---

I can't give evidence a chance until I know how it is supposed to be evidence.

You didn't respond to my red giant star evidence of how pumpkins fly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You didn't respond to my red giant star evidence of how pumpkins fly

---

Disrespect people elsewhere and get off this thread then. If you don't want to discuss 911 and what I posted move your entire swirling tunnel of nonsense to senseless banter where you belong. All you do is disrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Disrespect people elsewhere and get off this thread then. If you don't want to discuss 911 and what I posted move your entire swirling tunnel of nonsense to senseless banter where you belong. All you do is disrupt.

---

It is legitimate satire that illustrates the ineffectiveness of asserting something is evidence without ever explaining how it is evidence or connecting it to the conclusion. Why in the flying Bejesus would you keep dodging my question of how your "evidence" is evidence if you really think it is evidence? Why will you not say what your argument is? Do you even have an argument? If you really believed that the stuff is evidence and can be connected logically to your conclusion, you would have passionately stated such reasoning a while back.

You have no argument. All you have is information that you merely assert is evidence though you never argue that it is.

P.S.- I've had about enough fun with illustrating that you have no argument. This repetetive game has made it more than obvious, and I had fun playing it, but I think this is a good point to call it off. You don't want to admit that you are not saying anything, and you apparently are adamant that you are not going to. I guess that's enough of this stuff. Peace.

Quote:

---

From Mystic7
Give evidence a chance and respond to it.

---

Don't forget about me. I'm still hoping for someone to say something regarding my last post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.D.735

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in...to kind of catapult the propaganda."
-G.W. Bush

I'm not going to repeat what UM said, and I hope you don't repeat the same list of links again(see above quote). That's impolite. But since you asked for some rebuttal, some refutation of your sources, I'm more than willing to have another go at it.

Rebuttal of the NIST rebuttal:

"To weaken something 50 feet away would have melted you to be in the vicinity. Logically, physically, no way could have caused a collapse in any way. It could not have affected the collapse of the WTC. Impossible."
-Jim Nesch, referring to temperatures in the WTC.

No one, the NIST included, claimed that the heat inside the WTC melted steel. They did claim that it weakened the steel. Nesch's response seems to imply that either there was no heat or that heat could not weaken the steel. Logically, physically, heat weakens steel. There was heat. In fact, the NIST found that burning couches could create temperatures as high as 1100 C on the ceiling above them. Impossible? Not really. That sort of experiment is incredibly easy to replicate, by the way, not that I've done so. Steve Jones should have burned a couch to test it, though.

The next guy says that the material coming out of the tower can't be aluminum. Fine. But it can't be molten steel either(the fires are too cool to melt steel). It's got to be thermite, right? Read on:

I could have just posted a link, of course, but this way is more polite, I think. Keep in mind that the flow may not even be mostly aluminum. Also keep in mind that thermite/thermate is totally unnecessary if the plan is to knock out the building with bombs anyway. And if those were used to knock out the 'huge' support columns with thermite/thermate, the firefighters in the building would probably have noticed giant rivers of molten iron flowing into the lower floors. Did anyone see anything like that?

The next guy argues on structural grounds that the WTC towers could not have fallen as a result of the airliners crashing into them because they were designed to not fall when airliners crashed into them. Is this really an argument? I could just as well argue that the government did not bring down the WTC towers because the government is supposed to keep that sort of thing from happening and has many agencies to do just that. Design is not infallible.

It's easy to simply point out that no one had actually crashed airplanes into the towers to find out if they could really survive the impact and subsequent conflagration. Sometimes engineers do make mistakes.

Then they talk about the timing of the fall. He points to some seismographs to indicate the time of the fall was about 10 seconds. The group that measured the seismographs says they show clearly that the readings build up over time, which strongly refutes the bomb hypothesis, which would show sudden spikes. Yet bombs are supposedly the only things that could make the towers fall so quickly. It is then claimed that the actual time the collapse should have taken was somewhere in the range of 40 seconds, which seems unrealistic since the towers could simply fall over on their sides in less time.

Here's the seismographs, so you can see them.

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/BEARHU%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpg[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/BEARHU%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.jpg[/IMG]http://media.popularmechanics.com/im...smograph-2.jpg

Recall that steel structures can suffer progressive collapse(truss bridges) and that the material of the WTC didn't fall straight down. It fell a great deal to the sides, as if falling straight down offered some sort of resistance.

The clip ends after the structural argument. I'm sure there's much, much more than that elsewhere that I haven't gotten around to refuting. Please accept this humble morsel of evidence in the meantime. :bowdown:

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/BEARHU%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.jpg[/IMG]

---

As you requested, sorry I was distracted.

As far as WTC7 goes, I can see what you mean, they were talking about the firemen evacuated AFTER the people evacuated, and that's a good point.

As far as weakened steel goes, there are firemen claiming the inside of the building looked like an iron works factory, with melted steel, not just weakened steel. Not just a little drippage either, melted steel was apparently streaming down the building.

Your seisomographic tests confirm that the secondary explosion may very well not have happened, though, which is a good point. I never claimed wtc was an inside job, I just wanted my questions to be answered and I'd like to thank you for looking at the evidence and following a logical conclusion in order to help further my understanding. Basically, the logical conclusion is we have the most inept government on the planet. Not every question has been answered, but other things can't really irrefutably prove an inside job so I'll lay it to rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

P.S.- I've had about enough fun with illustrating that you have no argument. This repetetive game has made it more than obvious, and I had fun playing it, but I think this is a good point to call it off. You don't want to admit that you are not saying anything, and you apparently are adamant that you are not going to. I guess that's enough of this stuff. Peace.

---

We will Miss you.

Thanks a lot, Omnius Deus. I'm glad I didn't waste all those words, and your feedback really helps. I found some stuff about the molten metal in the rubble pile, in case anyone's interested in that.

The firemen were right in saying that the rubble pile was like a foundry:

Quote:

---

"Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with
oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the
presence of *sulfur*. The formation of the eutectic *mixture* of iron
oxide and iron sulfide *lowers the temperature at which liquid can
form* in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in
this region of the steel beam approached *~1,000ºC*, forming the
eutectic *liquid* by a process similar to making a "blacksmith's weld"
in a hand forge." (emphases mine)

Where does this sulfur come from? No, not thermate:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-sfg011603.php
"The high levels of calcium, strontium, and *sulfur* concentrations
found in the near-surface sediments of the cores, are *consistent*
with presence of *gypsum* as a parent material. Gypsum is extensively
used as drywall in building construction. Copper and zinc are also
common components of building materials. The scientists observed that
this near-surface sediment layer also contained silica-rich fibers and
rods, which may reflect the input of fiberglass from ceiling tiles and
other materials in the World Trade Center towers." (emphases mine
also)

So what appears to have happened at the WTC is that the burning
drywall (Gypsum), fuel from the planes, and more, released large
amounts of sulfur. This would not only have aided in collapsing the
towers due to easier melt formation, but also in generating the
massive amounts of molten steel that were observed in the piles many
months afterwards -- too much time to be accounted for by thermite as
the amount of thermite required could not be hidden.

---

I'm taking a Materials Science course this semester, in fact, so this information comes from more than one place. My professor mentioned that sulfur condenses at the grain boundaries in steel and lowers the melting point in the grain boundaries to such a degree that the steel will fall apart at machining temperatures of a few hundred degrees. If such a thing happened in the WTC, a large pool of molten sulfidated iron would have formed and would have remained for a long time, heated by the combustion of debris around it.

Good point, now is there an explanation as to why NORAD was distracted and certain politicians were advised not to fly?

Actually it was not a good point at all I found it full of hocus pocus science talk yet ridiculously bias and not relevant. Mainly because the impossibility of such a thing is way obvious. Firstly is the temperature steel melts at likely to be realistically reached in a fire to collapse the building? Ofcourse not and never in history.Even with your calcium, strontium, and other complex chemical reactions you want to try and confuse and impress everyone with. It's basically a bullshit story answer. I don't agree about the lack of presence of the thermate. What appears to have happened is the building got demolished. No-one seems to remember the engineer of the building stating of video that it could withstand multiple plane impacts because it was structures like the steel wire netting. If you puncture a hole in the netting. It really does nothing to the grid steel structure that is left. And the fire certainly could not have burnt it down.

Burning drywall, fuel from the planes, and sulfur. That isn't going to explain it. Not even close. It's impossible. They are teaching in one university I know of how the buildings could not have collapsed except for by controlled demolition by the way. So it depends what the prejudice of your college is and a number of factors. You can use science to reason about anything you want. But I'm not convinced it magically fell down yet.

And R.D.735 could you perhaps concisely respond to atleast one link or point I have made from all that research I posted. I would really like to see some answers if you don't agree with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Actually it was not a good point at I found it full of hocus pocus science talk yet ridiculously bias and not relevant. Mainly because the impossibility of such a thing is way obvious. Firstly is the temperature steel melts at likely to be realistically reached in a fire to collapse the building? Ofcourse not and never in history.Even with your calcium, strontium, and other complex chemical reactions you want to try and confuse and impress everyone with. It's basically a bullshit story answer. I don't agree about the lack of presence of the thermate. What appears to have happened is the building got demolished. No-one seems to remember the engineer of the building stating of video that it could withstand multiple plane impacts because it was structures like the steel wire netting. If you puncture a hole in the netting. It really does nothing to the grid steel structure that is left. And the fire certainly could not have burnt it down.

Burning drywall, fuel from the planes, and sulfur. That isn't going to explain it. Not even close. It's impossible. They are teaching in one university I know of how the buildings could not have collapsed except for by controlled demolition by the way. So it depends what the prejudice of your college is and a number of factors. You can use science to reason about anything you want. But I'm not convinced it magically fell down yet.

---

Plus if it fell because of melted steel, wouldn't it have fallin' sideways? It wouldn't have fallin' straight down demolition style. I don't see how something that big with a top melting, would collapse one story at a time down to the bottom. The top would have fallen off into the road, and the rest of the building would have been intact... And both the buildings did this??? Then another one out of nowhere... falling the same way. WTF!

I still have no side of the argument though. I really keep an open mind to all information. I can't make my mind up.

The NORAD thing is interesting. They were certainly distracted, but that may have been minor factor compared to the delays in tracking the hijacked planes caused by the disabling of the flight transponders. Since most of NORAD's radars are designed to track planes heading into the U.S., not traveling within the U.S., radar coverage was spotty. Given such a short time frame in which to act, it's not hard to see the difficulty of finding the airplanes in time.

I'm not sure specifically why anyone would have been advised not to fly on 9/11 though. Perhaps the government had advanced knowledge of an airplane hijacking plot, but without any specific information decided to just warn officials, thinking that telling everyone would create a panic. I don't really know, and it's kind of difficult to find anything solid on this question. It's a good one.

Regarding the steel, I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought steel sulfidation and subsequent melting to have caused the collapse. It may have had an effect in the collapse, but it mainly explains the molten metal found in the debris pile. If the science seems confusing, tell me how and I can try to explain it further. You can also look it up for some independent information.

The collapse, as I mentioned earlier in the rebuttal of the NIST rebuttal, can be explained by other means. Sorry for linking, but I found a vivid video that describes the process. You can actually see exactly what the simulation describes happening in the footage of the collapse:

World Trade Center Fires Were Sufficient

Some of the statements in the video are a little misleading, though. Temperatures reached 1800 C, but only for about 10 minutes. The rest of the time, temperatures were much lower, consistent with a 50% loss of steel strength.

Also don't forget to read the rebuttal of the NIST rebuttal link I posted earlier, Mystic7. It's the one with the seismograph diagram. It's fairly specific regarding your linked video and the evidence.

Quote:

---

The NORAD thing is interesting. They were certainly distracted, but that may have been minor factor compared to the delays in tracking the hijacked planes caused by the disabling of the flight transponders. Since most of NORAD's radars are designed to track planes heading into the U.S., not traveling within the U.S., radar coverage was spotty. Given such a short time frame in which to act, it's not hard to see the difficulty of finding the airplanes in time.

---

It's not hard, to see the difficulty? Tracking airplanes is easy. Why do you think they don't fly into each other? They don't get lost. Do you seriously believe that to defend America. Tracking airplanes is difficult? Do you realize how silly this sounds which such a polite front you are making. You are not being neutral. You are defending the absurd.

Next thing. Norad wasn't just like 'distracted'. They stood down. It's not their purpose of function that they become 'distracted'. Besides what about the terrorism drills. Can you explain why they would have a terrorism training exercisers that depicts precisely the terrorist even right to the second it would happen. And then that very event happens for real? The chances are of that happening are. Let me see, Zero is close enough. As it's obvious they were hiding behind the drill exercise as an excuse for when it gets picked up on radio what is happening. So they can claim it's a drill if they get caught in the process.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure specifically why anyone would have been advised not to fly on 9/11 though. Perhaps the government had advanced knowledge of an airplane hijacking plot, but without any specific information decided to just warn officials, thinking that telling everyone would create a panic. I don't really know, and it's kind of difficult to find anything solid on this question. It's a good one.

---

It's true that you can't explain it. But I still don't understand why you place this as your most important aspect to comment on. It's another piece of the mountain of unacknowledged unanswered questions that point for a need for a new investigation to find who is responsible. This is way weaker evidence than the actual demolition itself. I would go for the core centerpiece of evidence as most important and work your way out from there.

Quote:

---

Regarding the steel, I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought steel sulfidation and subsequent melting to have caused the collapse. It may have had an effect in the collapse, but it mainly explains the molten metal found in the debris pile. If the science seems confusing, tell me how and I can try to explain it further. You can also look it up for some independent information.

---

Can you tell me exactly how I can get steel and melt it with this scientific process of yours? It's true that I don't understand what your talking about. Thermate reaction cuts through steel and does it. Which had to be planted in the building as samples and observation has shown. That's all I am aware of.

Quote:

---

World Trade Center Fires Were Sufficient

---

I am 99.9% sure that statement has to be false. Can you give me any reason to believe how fires can possibly be sufficient to demolish 2 high rise steel buildings in 1 hour and WTC7, make them all collapse perfectly as if it was a controlled demolition in a hour. When it's never happened in history. Fire does not do that unless there is some magical twilight zone of physics from another universe that has changed the rules of reality.

Quote:

---

Some of the statements in the video are a little misleading, though. Temperatures reached 1800 C, but only for about 10 minutes. The rest of the time, temperatures were much lower, consistent with a 50% loss of steel strength.

---

It needs to be misleading otherwise how can they even say anything? The only way is to distort reality for it to make sense. You will see many inaccuracies for sure. We keep debunking them and they keep trying to release new theories and fantasies about it.

Quote:

---

Also don't forget to read the rebuttal of the NIST rebuttal link I posted earlier, Mystic7. It's the one with the seismograph diagram. It's fairly specific regarding your linked video and the evidence.

---

I'll look into it. I've herd this graph argument before. I see it as misleading and not credible. Before I respond to that if you care to respond to any of the core evidence posted previously in my links, behind why we have so many serious questions for you to answer. I don't think they can be explained away so you have no choice but to accept the need for a proper independent investigation on this.

Michael brings up a good point.
You can't seriously think a building can fall down like a pack of cards. The intense metal grid doesn't allow the thing to simple give up when there is a small fire for 1 hour on a couple of floors. That's crazy. And if you look at how it collapsed. It's exploding outwards. Not breaking off into concrete chunks. The concrete is dissolved into fine dust. That wouldn't happen if it fell down there would be concrete smashing on the ground. Not just fine dust for miles like from explosions.

Also there is witnesses to bombs going off at the base of the building before the planes hit them. Unless you believe they are all lieing. This pretty much makes it clear and there can be no doubt it had to have been demolished for it to fall down. Just common sense.