Physics Professor Reports WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition

[clarky003]

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

people have probably seen this.

yeh yeh, read it all before your thinking, no.. read this or dont post. But this is the most clean cut explaination, that address's all the point's that where ignored in the 9/11 commission, some pretty damning conclusion's are coming to light.

Inculding the WTC 7 demolition, which wasnt even stated. Thats right another building collapsed somehow after fires broke out inside, hardly anyone knows about this, yet they have footage of it.

The definitive conclusion that jet fuel and the contents of the building's cannot burn at the required 5,000 + Farenheit needed to “evaporate” steel, when official reports say the steel did not melt, it evaporated, leaving molten metal in some cases at the base for 21 days after the event.

the uniform collapse when the second law of thermodynamics in the U1 model, shows it to be highly unlikely.

the dipping of the attena mast first indicating the central support beams uniformly collapsed first.

Squibs and explosive flashes all seen in replay's of the footage all consitant with demolition explosive's.

abstract: explosive flashes seen at the tips of each aircraft a second before they make contact with the building's.

Best anaylsis of what should be done to further investigate to date.

 

[Jintor]

Then why plow planes into it?

Nice av, btw.

 

[Raziaar]

There have been all sorts of information about how the towers actually collapsed... the structural steel was melted... not evaporated.


EDIT: Those squibs? Dude, thats the sorriest piece of information i've seen yet... LOOK AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, THAT IS THE EXACT SAME THING THAT IS HAPPENING AT THE CORNERS. the building is crumbling, crashing down, and it loses its uniform shape. It apparently takes a 'genius' not to figure that out.


Look at hte building... in the front... in how it cracks and splits open as the building come crashing down. Thats the same thing thats happening at the corner edge, but its more pronounced, because its normally a straight angle, but it becomes jagged once it breaks away.


You can't HONESTLY tell me you believe its anything other than that?


As for WTC 7 collapse... probably has to do with some structural instability caused by all the debris and tremors of the collapsing towers. other buildings were feared to have the same fate.

 

[clarky003]

well I look at it this way, alot of proffessional comment's go right against the official comission report's in terms of explaination, the comission report is poor by any standard's it doesnt even include the demolition of WTC 7 building which wasnt even hit by anything.

Let’s start with the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, which was never hit by a jet. I ask you to take a minute to look at the collapse of this building as a basis for discussion.

Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire.

Remember this is the building which gives reason to the rest of the discussion, fire's started inside somehow.. and then it also uniformly collapsed.


The most convincing thing is everyone agree's that conventional fire's or jet fuel cant burn anywhere near hot enough to melt steel, yet some had been found partly evaporated.

‘Fire and the structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said.

So to the contrary when we where told they where melted , there are many engineer's who noted that they had also partly evaporated.

Infact this is the stance most folk take on what they saw, and why alot of people accept the official explaination.

Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt.

Evaporation indicative of using explosives locally positioned to the steel support column's, again stressing jet fuel does not burn anywhere near hot enough to even begin to melt steel.

The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first

and it goes on to ask a very valid question, how can burning jet fuel, simultaniously melt near enough 47 hudge steel column's, to create that kind of behaviour.

That mystery was raised by the FEMA report

Could random fires burning office materials in the building account for a near-simultaneous “pulling” of these core supports?

Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported by numerous observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with explosive demolition.

lots of people reported the sounds of explosion's, near the base of the building aswell

at the start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox News anchor reported:

"There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… something happened at the base of the building! Then another explosion.”

Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:

[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down…It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit.

Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.

It goes on... there is enough evidence to open another more thorough investigation. The initial investigation's were full of half baked suggestion that still have no proven ground, alot of people just dont want to hear it.

 

[Raziaar]

Well... here's a piece of advise... if you want to take this conspiracy theory, and run with it... please, do so. It won't take you anywhere in life.

 

[Solaris]

Well... here's a piece of advise... if you want to take this conspiracy theory, and run with it... please, do so. It won't take you anywhere in life.

This is the sort of pathetic argument you get here when you trie to argue anything that is a bit unusual.

Razziar, thats not an argument, make one or don't post.
-Then why plow planes into it?
You need somesort of cover storie, you can't just blow up the buildning from the inside becuase only US agents could get in, so they flew a plane into it as a cover story.

 

[Raziaar]

This is the sort of pathetic argument you get here when you trie to argue anything that is a bit unusual.

Razziar, thats not an argument, make one or don't post.

Read the rest of my posts, you oblivious babboon.

 

[clarky003]

Its a mess, all I know right now is Raziaar is ignoring the WTC 7 building case. where conventional fire apparently cause a demolition like collapse.

Its got nothing to do with conspiracey theories, this is objective analysis thats been recorded on video tape, and seen and reported by witnesses. You can derive consipracey theories from this, yes. But the subject matter is nothing to do with that, your just trying to divert the thread, this is about the truth not some bullshit half baked comission or FEMA analysis.

 

[Raziaar]

What *I* want to know... and an honest question. With all this talk about conspiracy, about the explosions in the WTC and such, to bring it down... why do people automatically turn to the government as the source of their blame? Do they put it past the capabilities of the terrorists to do those things? They have intelligent masterminds behind their operations, believe it or not.

your just trying to divert the thread.

I'm not trying to divert anything, "dude".

 

[clarky003]

you cant really assume anything, but that doesnt mean a better investigation shouldnt be conducted. Thats my only real beef at the moment, people are suspicious and believe the conspiracey theories are plausable because the goverment has gone to great strides to prevent further investigation, where a further investigation leads to is another question.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

If you're going to fly planes into the towers purely as a "cover story", then it seems a bit redundant to actually destroy the towers as well. The planes themselves killed many, many people. By themselves, the planes would have acted as justification for whatever the conspiracy nuts feel it was needed to justify (i.e. attacking Afghanistan, erosion of civil liberties) because it was a terrorist attack on American soil.

Once again, a conspiracy theory that utterly fails to address why, making their how ridiculous.

 

[Razor]

It has been explained away, because the fires from the aviation fuel went so quickly across the floors and were contained, the fires became far more intensive. Also, due to the fact that the fires was acting on the entire floor and not just a small area, the steel was being deformed all across the floor, so there would of been no backups.

 

[ComradeBadger]

This is the sort of pathetic argument you get here when you trie to argue anything that is a bit unusual.

Razziar, thats not an argument, make one or don't post.
-Then why plow planes into it?
You need somesort of cover storie, you can't just blow up the buildning from the inside becuase only US agents could get in, so they flew a plane into it as a cover story.

Why the hell kill so many people and destroy a key part of the United States?

 

[clarky003]

Thats assuming that it was an internal job, assuming that if you read the building's history's there are alot of finacial upset's, and then the coincidential massive insurance policey taken out on the building's just a few weeks before the disaster, that does seem just a tad suspicious.

Still comission report's dont explain why the WTC 7 building collapsed, it wasnt even mentioned in the official comission report!, and the why in the intial report isnt really addressed its just assumed that the spreading of jet fuel across the floor increased the heat to melting point somehow..

but as is stated, jet fuel cant burn hot enough to melt steel, (alot of which was lost in the fire balls escaping the entry point's) office supplies and carpet as extra fodder wont last long enough as a fuel source to drastically increase that temprature, let alone uniformly melt the central support column in such a way as to cause a symmetrical collapse, heck we just believe in this official shit.. no question's asked but when you look up the temprature's and structural melting point's envolved, documented, reiterated, consistant figure's, its hard to believe the carpeting, box's, computer's and other office content's throughout the rooms or the floor structure added sufficient extra heat long enough to reach 800 C. And even then why do documented multiple amounts of ground witnesses recall explosion's and the intial cascade begininning at ground level.

how did a conventional fire cause the demolition like collapse of the otherwise untouched WTC 7 building, how did that fire even start?, you can quickly put together a vaste amount of valid questioning that where otherwise not addressed in the official report's, remembering the official report's where just assumtion in the first place, not including report's of explosion's, large flashes observed, in the building and before the planes hit, thorough examination's of the evaporated steel portion's, and the entire event's around the WTC 7 building.

Nor does NIST (or FEMA or the 9-11 Commission) even mention the molten metals found in the basements of all three buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7).

which lasted for a reported 21 days after, suggesting tremendous heat envolved.

We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air!

NIST also has Underwriters Laboratories construct models of the WTC trusses, but the models withstand all fires in tests and do NOT collapse.

In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives. The “explosive demolition” hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not “junk science.” It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated.

it's very indepth i suggest atleast somone reads all of it.

 

[Raziaar]

Why the hell kill so many people and destroy a key part of the United States?

And completely devastating the economy. Seems... counter productive, right?

 

[ComradeBadger]

And completely devastating the economy. Seems... counter productive, right?

BUT THE INSURANCE MONEY!!

 

[Mr Stabby]

the force the plane transferred to the inner core of the tower would be massive, probably send huge cracks through the structure, the outer section of the tower would be able to hold it togethor for while then it would implode. possibly

 

[Raziaar]

Thankfully skyscrapers are designed to fall downward, and not topple over and level a huge chunk of the city like a dominoe effect.

 

[SAJ]

Once again, a conspiracy theory that utterly fails to address why, making their how ridiculous.

The article in question is an intellegent and honest look at the evidence, not a conspiracy theory.
Dont forget that the official story is itself -by definition- a conspiracy theory.

 

[kirovman]

Thankfully skyscrapers are designed to fall downward, and not topple over and level a huge chunk of the city like a dominoe effect.

Are you suggesting that they designed these skyscrapers to fall down? Do you know something you're not telling us?

*Kirovman grills Raziaar*

 

[ComradeBadger]

Next time can we have a report from a credible source as well please?

 

[clarky003]

thats an individual report, but you want credibility of the events?.. all you need to do is look at the images and footage not included in the official report's,

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

WTC 7, fires inside (the building that wasnt hit by an anything)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pp190104building7.jpg

The demolition like collapse on tape

http://www.prisonplanet.com/wtc-7_cbs.mpeg

charges are seen to go off as it goes down ( right hand side of the building as it collapses localised explosive buldges appear in sequence)

http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/WTC7COLLAPSE2.WMV

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm

How Could The Explosives Have Been Placed Beforehand?

Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked in the World Trade Center Complex, told People Magazine that in the weeks before 9/11 there were numerous unnanounced and unusual drills where sections of both the twin towers and building 7 were evacuated for quote ‘security reasons’. This was obviously the perfect opportunity to place those explosives.


How Did Larry Silverstein Benefit from the Collapse of Building 7?

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!

as for the main building's there are indicator's of similar treatment,

skip through to 39:00 and begin listening,

These tapes reveal the fact that the firefighters were not overly concerned with the strength of the fires and believed they could control them. They were not raging infernos that could melt steel. These tapes alone prove that the official story of the collapse of the World Trade Towers is a complete and total lie. Why have the rest of the tapes been classified? Because they reveal the truth, that 's why.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/firefighterstape.wma

The audio presented here is a recording of the firefighter's tapes on September 11th that have been released publically. A lot of the portions of the tapes have been classified. This portion lasts an hour and thirteen minutes, we have highlighted the interesting parts below with full transcripts. According to the Port Authority, this recording covers approximately 8:45 to 9:58 AM Eastern.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/firsttowerfallsabc.wmv

http://www.prisonplanet.com/WTC-bomb-frame048_1.jpg

http://www.prisonplanet.com/WTC-bomb-frame105.jpg

These photographs clearly show shape-chargers going off . The plumes of smoke are consistent with explosives (as seen in the earlier controlled explosives viideos).

http://www.prisonplanet.com/seismographs.JPG

Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded very interesting seismic activity on September 11, 2001 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 9-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spikes" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were both registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.

 

[Loc-Dog]

Why the hell kill so many people and destroy a key part of the United States?

Well, the legend goes that the government wanted to invade iraq and get rich. But they can't just wake up one morning and decide to do it. So they need cover stories and reasons and so forth.

I'm not saying i belive it, but if it turns out that Bin Laden is just an actor making video tapes in a basement, i wouldn't be surprised. Or if he was a CIA agent deep under cover. That would be some funny shit.

 

[Direwolf]

I'm always surprised how the government can never seem to find its ass with both hands, but its somehow able to pull off all these incredibly capers.

But, seriously. Its always been my conclusion that theres so many variables in an event that is so huge as a building collapsing, that theres so much room for error its unbelievable. Convinving evidence will have to be direct and unquestionable, not inferred.

 

[seinfeldrules]

haha someone asks for credible sources and wacky clarky merely posts links from a site that should just be called conspiracytheoriesarealltrue.com. Everytime you start one of these nutso threads you just keep getting owned. Give it up.

/fades away again

 

[Solaris]

We can all agree 9-11 worked very well for the Administration.

We know Bush wanted to invade Iraq from before 911, but needed an incentive to do so. 9-11 gave him the excuse for the patriot act, and to invade both Afganistan and Iraq.

If we can agree that the administration has little respect for Human Life, displayed by the bombings and killing s of Iraqi citizens, then we can assume that they wen't sadend by 911.

So were left with a governmen with no regard for human life, looking for a pretext to remove rights and attack the middle east.

The owner of the WTC buildings had just taken out a large insurance policy for the buildings, so getting his co-operation for the attack wouldn't be hard. So agents could easilly get acess to the building as they have permission.

Now, building seven was further away from other buildings which suffered little damage, but it caught fire anyway. Silverstein(the properteir of the buildings) gave the order to 'pull the building'. Although the firewfighters apperntly had the fires under control.

Whats more there was a intelligence offices on a high floor of building seven, so all the evidence could have easilly been demolished.

The steel supports inside the main buildings, was shipped away almost immediately. Does this not raise questions, the main evidence for the offical explanation being immediately moved away from investigators?

Edit

- Building 7 was not hit by a plane and yet it collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which is .6 seconds quicker than it would take an object dropped from the roof of the building to hit the floor. This violates fundamental laws of physics, unless the building was brought down by explosives.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Oh noes!

Of course, there's the hyper-obvious question of how the government managed to plant so many explosives in the building's key structural supports without anyone knowing.

Also, if they decided to blow up buildings that weren't hit too, why bother with the plane story in the first place.

Oh but 6/10 of a seconned!!

Seriously, this is dumbtastic.

 

[Adabiviak]

When you ask "why" they may have done things one way or another, are you pretending to delve the mind of the terrorists/our government, or is that your excuse for a logical argument? I couldn't get the videos to load, but I think the guy at least makes a decent argument for further investigation.

 

[Solaris]

Oh noes!

Of course, there's the hyper-obvious question of how the government managed to plant so many explosives in the building's key structural supports without anyone knowing.

Also, if they decided to blow up buildings that weren't hit too, why bother with the plane story in the first place.

Oh but 6/10 of a seconned!!

Seriously, this is dumbtastic.

As I said, they had the co-operation of the buildings owner. Building 7 was blown up with the fire pretence.

 

[Pauly]

There have been all sorts of information about how the towers actually collapsed... the structural steel was melted... not evaporated.


EDIT: Those squibs? Dude, thats the sorriest piece of information i've seen yet... LOOK AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, THAT IS THE EXACT SAME THING THAT IS HAPPENING AT THE CORNERS. the building is crumbling, crashing down, and it loses its uniform shape. It apparently takes a 'genius' not to figure that out.


Look at hte building... in the front... in how it cracks and splits open as the building come crashing down. Thats the same thing thats happening at the corner edge, but its more pronounced, because its normally a straight angle, but it becomes jagged once it breaks away.


You can't HONESTLY tell me you believe its anything other than that?


As for WTC 7 collapse... probably has to do with some structural instability caused by all the debris and tremors of the collapsing towers. other buildings were feared to have the same fate.

Steel - Reinforced Concrete WAS MELTED? You cant be serious? Kerosene is a HYDROCARBON FUEL
It only burns at 1000 degrees C!!!! There is no way it caused the building STEEL to melt.

Oh and just so you know Larry silverstein The OWNER of all the WTC's (took out a world record insurancy policy on all buldings weeks before 9-11 BTW) He stated on PBS that they were not sure they could contain the fires (in building 7 )and told teh fire department the smartest idea was to pull it. (destroy it.... This would take weeks of preperation to plant bombs on support columns.... Not a few hours AND while the building was on fire)


www.letsroll911.org

http://911physics.co.nr/

www.question911.com Watch the videos.




Oh and clarky! Thanks for bringing up a thread... I have brought up this subject before and it has started a flame fest and such... so I stopped. Now we can have a real discussion.

 

[Pauly]

Oh noes!

Of course, there's the hyper-obvious question of how the government managed to plant so many explosives in the building's key structural supports without anyone knowing.

Also, if they decided to blow up buildings that weren't hit too, why bother with the plane story in the first place.

Oh but 6/10 of a seconned!!

Seriously, this is dumbtastic.

Sorry guys im running through all these "debunking" ideas and posting my responses. Without anyone knowing? Oh... how bout the unusual and Never before done "security Checks and drills" here let me get a link....
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html

"Forbes stated that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC’s first occupants after it was erected, and that a “power-down” had never been initiated prior to this occasion. He also stated that his company put forth a huge investment in time and resources to take down their computer systems due to the deliberate power outage. This process, Forbes recalled, began early Saturday morning (September 8th) and continued until mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) – approximately 30 hours. As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTC’s security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems, and elevators to the upper floors."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html -> theres where Larry silverstein says they will pull the building....

Why bother with the plane story... because noone would believe terrorists managed to plant bombs for days and get it precisely accurate while people worked in the building. But obviously most of you guys fell for the plane hitting the building... and guess what? it worked.

Read the rest of my posts, you oblivious babboon.

I did, and they can't hold up a piece of paper.

Thankfully skyscrapers are designed to fall downward, and not topple over and level a huge chunk of the city like a dominoe effect.

And skyscrapers have never collapsed from fires, except the WTC 1, 2 and 7.



http://www.question911.com/prevue.htm is a good video overview covering the topic. Also the old Ebaumsworld video that was taken down after everyone complained about it...
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

 

[ComradeBadger]

I'm still waiting for something that's actually credible

Prisonplanet
Pentagonstrike
and a physics Professor from a mormon university known for just being there to marry young girls off, with no reputation of being a acredited physics university

Are not valid sources to prove this.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Why bother with the plane story... because noone would believe terrorists managed to plant bombs for days and get it precisely accurate while people worked in the building. But obviously most of you guys fell for the plane hitting the building... and guess what? it worked.

Why bother with the alleged explosive demolition when you just flew two planes into the towers? As I stated earlier, that's more than enough justification for whatever requires justifying. The attack itself was sufficient - bringing the towers to the ground didn't provide extra justification - it's not as if people would have said afterwards "Invade Afghanistan? Are you mad? It's not like the towers collapsed or anything..."

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'm still waiting for something that's actually credible

Prisonplanet
Pentagonstrike
and a physics Professor from a mormon university known for just being there to marry young girls off, with no reputation of being a acredited physics university

Are not valid sources to prove this.

^^^ I am very sad that this needs to be quoted for emphasis, but here it is again for those of you in the back of the class.

TIMECUBE CAUSED 9/11! INQUIRE INSIDE!

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

George Bush doesn't care about controlled explosions.

 

[clarky003]

Why bother with the alleged explosive demolition when you just flew two planes into the towers? As I stated earlier, that's more than enough justification for whatever requires justifying. The attack itself was sufficient - bringing the towers to the ground didn't provide extra justification - it's not as if people would have said afterwards "Invade Afghanistan? Are you mad? It's not like the towers collapsed or anything..."

The origional comission report was a conspiracey theory in its own right, Its obvious you cant contemplate why youd need to use planes aswell, its also clear that as soon as you start to attempt to answer questions like that it becomes a conspiracey theory..

This is about circumstancial evidence that wasnt included in the official reports.. need i reiterate that more?. It seems the opposer's to anything other than the official 'omission's' report get your kind of dead head reaction, hang onto what was said, ignore with a complete lack of thoroughness in light of the evidence not included, and then when all else fails try to spark off conspiracy driven discussion's, insighting conspiracey, to try and catch people who arnt atall happy with the offical record's 'out' so they can be ridiculed and discredited.

Badger you should of added 'because I think so' all the video's and information used on Prison planet are derived from historical record and mainstream media source's, they are evidence of event's not included in the official report!, the video's show clearly the controlled demolition of WTC 7 building, after fires where left to burn all day, minor ones to begin with which should of been put out by the sprinkler system's, that didnt even make it into the comission report I SAY AGAIN.

quoting for emphasis: http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html, problem of course being that it takes weeks to safely plan to demolish a building the size of WTC 7.

"no steel building's on record have ever been brought down by fire"

Does this stuff just fly over people's heads? or is their just a complete unwillingness to realise what hasnt been included in the investigation and its pending addition to a more detailed cause to the catastrophic collapses

Burning Jet fuel which was said to of 'melted the steel core supports' also should of burnt out the interior of the pentagon in that similar explosion, yet amazingly in analysis of some images, there are computers book's and even a wooden stool, untouched! teatering right on the edge of the penitrated blast perimeter within the exposed rooms.

 

[Ennui]

Tinfoil hats, cheap! Get 'em while they're still here!

 

[ComradeBadger]

The origional comission report was a conspiracey theory in its own right, Its obvious you cant contemplate why youd need to use planes aswell, its also clear that as soon as you start to attempt to answer questions like that it becomes a conspiracey theory..

This is about circumstancial evidence that wasnt included in the official reports.. need i reiterate that more?. It seems the opposer's to anything other than the official 'omission's' report get your kind of dead head reaction, hang onto what was said, ignore the complete lack of thoroughness, and try to spark off conspiracy driven discussion's, insighting conspiracey to try and catch people who arnt happy with the offical record's 'out'.

Badger you should of added 'because I think so' all the video's and information used on Prison planet are derived from historical record and mainstream media source's, they are evidence of event's not included in the official report!, the video's show clearly the controlled demolition of WTC 7 building, after fires where left to burn all day, minor ones to begin with which should of been put out by the sprinkler system's, that didnt even make it into the comission report I SAY AGAIN. quoting for emphasis: http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

Jet fuel which 'melted the steel support's' also should of burnt out the interior of the pentagon in that similar explosion, yet in analysis of some images, there are computers book's and even a wooden stool, untouched! right on the edge of the blast perimeter within the exposed rooms.

The internet is not a valid source of information - it's too easy for any moron to write up whatever they feel like.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

The origional comission report was a conspiracey theory in its own right, Its obvious you cant contemplate why youd need to use planes aswell, its also clear that as soon as you start to attempt to answer questions like that it becomes a conspiracey theory..

This is about circumstancial evidence that wasnt included in the official reports.. need i reiterate that more?. It seems the opposer's to anything other than the official 'omission's' report get your kind of dead head reaction, hang onto what was said, ignore the complete lack of thoroughness, and try to spark off conspiracy driven discussion's, insighting conspiracey to try and catch people who arnt happy with the offical record's 'out'.

"Dead head reaction"? You're lucky I don't ban you.
Allow me to reiterate it for you:
Speculating that there was more to the towers collapsing than the planes has to invite the questioning of why it would be necessary.

I invoke Occam's Razor.

 

[clarky003]

oops i struck a nerve,

Im stating 'evidence' video, interviews, audio, and pictoral that wasnt included in the comission report.. as a focal point to this thread, I wouldnt mind addressing that question, but again it becomes conspiracey talk as soon as you do, even if you are 'curious' as to why it would be necessary it would probably derail the thread into conspirital blabber, where you get more wonderfully constructive comment's to the thread ... such as 'tin foil hat time'.

I created this thread for commenting on the dismissal of the other event's not included in the report, which is the subject matter's main conclusion in the artical.

The origional report is as much a conspiracey theory as the idea's derived from the other evidence, there are two main theories in question, the origional theory of Al Queda planning and staging the whole event, undetected till the last moment, which is given by an omission's report (otherwise kown as the 9/11 comission report) which discludes multitudes of important and thorough objective analysis, and the other theory with which the events where perpetrated/allowed by US government, for personal, political, and geopolitical gain.