I'm from the UK, a skeptic and rational bloke, and I don't buy any of the conspiracy theories. Except of course the official one: that Al-Qaeda evil extremist nutjobs hijacked 4 airplanes and buried them into the WTC, Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania thanks to the heroic actions of the passengers. The resulting fires from the twin towers are what brought them down.

I don't want to go into too much detail on the matter but... put it this way; In 10 years of personal experience, the people who cry '9/11 was an inside job!' tend to be the same ones who still don't believe we landed on the moon.

[color=#1C2837][size=2]the people who cry '9/11 was an inside job!' tend to be the same ones who still don't believe we landed on the moon. [/quote]
[color=#1C2837][size=2]Yea nobody cares about those people, they usually are more worried about keeping their mohawks gelled up with hot topic products. You have to love the other side though. "Oh yea ahahah ok steel doesn't melt at that temp.......your an idiot." People will completely disregard science at all and there are more than a handful of scientific facts that don't add up.
[color=#1C2837][size=2]

[color=#1C2837][size=2]No matter what side you are on, the fact that there is no explanation for this, makes no sense:
[color=#1C2837][size=2]A building fell that day that was never mentioned and never hit by a plane. I think that is the biggest questions: why would you only report half of the casualties and ships sunk at pearl harbor? Well you don't. Why would you not report 1/3 of the buildings that fell? And why hijack and airplane if you could do it so easily from the ground. I mean the planes took an hour to collapse a building, the other building fell immediately. Thats just my terrorist logic.

[color="#1C2837"]the people who cry '9/11 was an inside job!' tend to be the same ones who still don't believe we landed on the moon.

[color="#1C2837"]Yea nobody cares about those people, they usually are more worried about keeping their mohawks gelled up with hot topic products. You have to love the other side though. "Oh yea ahahah ok steel doesn't melt at that temp.......your an idiot." People will completely disregard science at all and there are more than a handful of scientific facts that don't add up.
[color="#1C2837"]
[color="#1C2837"]No matter what side you are on, the fact that there is no explanation for this, makes no sense:
[color="#1C2837"]A building fell that day that was never mentioned and never hit by a plane. I think that is the biggest questions: why would you only report half of the casualties and ships sunk at pearl harbor? Well you don't. Why would you not report 1/3 of the buildings that fell? And why hijack and airplane if you could do it so easily from the ground. I mean the planes took an hour to collapse a building, the other building fell immediately. Thats just my terrorist logic.
[/quote]


WTC7, right?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

It wasn't the planes that brought down any of the buildings, the structures were designed to withstand those impacts and they duly did so. The problem was the fire, and this was true of WTC7 as well. I recommend this website, it is well structured and generally backs up the points it makes with evidence from several sources.

WTC7, right?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

It wasn't the planes that brought down any of the buildings, the structures were designed to withstand those impacts and they duly did so. The problem was the fire, and this was true of WTC7 as well. I recommend this website, it is well structured and generally backs up the points it makes with evidence from several sources.

Not to mention the fact that 2 buildings the size of the towers falling are pretty significant seismic events right next door.

edit: I think the largest argument against it being an inside job is that there were plenty of isolated targets that would be much better and far less risky to the entire country if it were an inside job. Taking out 2 huge buildings with long duration fires in the core of your nation's financial center is absolutely insane when you could do the same thing to any sports stadium, or any city that doesn't contain the majority of american wealth and get the same pro-war attitude.

I don't want to go into too much detail on the matter but... put it this way; In 10 years of personal experience, the people who cry '9/11 was an inside job!' tend to be the same ones who still don't believe we landed on the moon.

they are also the same that created the millenium bug, that think planes are releasing chemical gas to make us happy and stupid (maybe stupid I am, but WTF why I am not happy??? ), that you can wire in a couple of pots to attract clouds and make it rain, and that next year will try to convince us the world is actually going to end.

I would also like to hear how these ppl explain the attacks in London and Madrid.. what's was that? Bush just told the guys in London: look, I tell you how this is done, listen to me...

It was propably just some random peeps flying to the towers and al queda was the first one to say they did it lol.

Unless theres evidence, no idea xD

That would be a great way to ignore the evidence of the cockpit recordings and the identities of the 10 people known to hijack the plane who took pilot lessons and had connections to Al Qaeda.

It's pretty hard to deny that Al Qaeda did it, if you want to say the government knew about it, ok. But then you'd have to believe that it could be kept a secret.

What I struggle with is that people say things like "The president <any president> is an idiot!" and then in the next breath talk about these vast, overreaching conspiracies that the government plots.

This is the same government that lets one angsty kid download hundreds of GB's of information onto a flash drive and disseminate it to the entire world. The same people that can't keep a lid on any important secret without a whistle blower or leaker. Somehow these same people were able to withhold some mass conspiracy from a single whistleblower? Not to mention that it assumes all the people that would be working together are all on the same team. I mean relations between the FBI, CIA, and White House are not what I would call "chummy."

Another conspiracy theory.

The idea that everything happened all perfect is a theory itself.

I looked at the debunking link and unless I did not read far enough, their claim is that fire weakened the building and apparently every piece of steel collapsed at once bringing it straight down.
How all 3 buildings should have collapsed. ........randomly buckling.

The idea that everything happened all perfect is a theory itself.

I looked at the debunking link and unless I did not read far enough, their claim is that fire weakened the building and apparently every piece of steel collapsed at once bringing it straight down.
How all 3 buildings should have collapsed. ........randomly buckling.

You did not read far enough.

The page I sent you to clearly shows how the weakened side of the building (due to having a massive hole gouged in it through flying debris) caused that side to collapse first. The loss of structural integrity at that moment then caused the rest of the building to go. The building then pancakes onto itself, as the weight of each floor becomes too much for the one underneath it, and the process accelerates until the entire building is down.

As for the video you posted...that is not at all how the buildings should have come down. The steel support structures throughout the building were melting in a similar place. It only takes one to fail, and in a fraction of a second all of the weight that the failed support was holding is transferred onto the other supports. Which, in turn, causes them to fail, and all the floors above the breaking point to come like removing the final middle block from a game of Jenga - vertically. Had the failure been lower down and only on one side then the collapse would have been as you linked, but because the jet fuel caused the fire to rage all around the building and weaken all the steel supports, once one went the others put up no resistance.

1. Supports do not need to 'melt' to fail. Even heated to a point below 'glowing red' will reduce the strength of a steel column by a huge margin. Barely glowing red is already a fraction of its strength. Hint: Go look at a blacksmith working, and how little effort they need to hammer iron and move it around/bend it. No where near 'melting'.

2. The fire raged throughout the structure on multiple floors, burning not only jet fuel, but the contents of the offices. This plays into point 1, and fairly evenly heated columns near the center of the building.

3. The exterior of the building was structural cladding. It was not there simply for looks and to keep the weather out, but actually part of how the building was designed to stand up. These supports would have been among the coolest, and not weakened as much, meaning there was little to no bias as to which direction the tower would fall.

4. Goes back to 3, the exterior of the building was structural cladding, and would hold the building together. The building began to collapse inward, the center supports failing, the floors above them losing support thereby falling down and dragging the outer walls with them.

5. The upper portion of the tower impacted the lower tower. Basically it was dropped several stories onto the rest of the tower when the supports failed and gravity took over. The biggest part of this that people seem to ignore is the fact that this force didn't just impact the floor directly below the fire and the supports there, but also all the other supports in the building. Columns would have begun failing all over the building the moment the 'top' of the tower collapsed into the rest of it. The tower most likely collapsed in multiple locations at a time, not simply one floor after the other failing like it was an elevator going down.



Basically the design of the building boils down to falling straight down as the only real way it is going to go. The exterior would hold for a short time as the interior sections fell, and then get pulled inward and down after the floor sections it was attached too. It wasn't going to fall to either side because the centers failed first, dropped down, and began dragging everything after it. The exterior walls would have guided the falling weight toward the center, and held in place until their own floors pulled them inward, and the weight pressing above them bent/broke each section.

Edit: Plus, if it had been taken down by demolition charges as some people claim, then we would have seen medium to high velocity debris and fragmentation projecting through the dust cloud at the initial stages of the explosion. In demolition this is generally either ignored and allowed to project if the structure is in an isolated area, or attempts are made to contain it by use of mesh/fragmentation wrap. And I'm sure people would have noticed large amounts of high strength mesh and chain-link fence being put up all over the building.