Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Jack White]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet%2B9/11

Watch this and tell me there was not thermite/mate (or some such) used....to those of you who would say a paper and furniture fire caused that steel waterfall a minute before the collapse may you forever rot in the figurative 'hell' of the woman standing in the plane-cut space that was cool enough for her to hold onto the outside wall and walk to it [ie all fuel burned off long ago].....only to be crushed to death in the explosive/thermite-like collapse a few minutes later.....and the pools of molten steel found...and the free-fall speed collapse...and so many other factors point to a 'demolition-like' event - three times.....in a row.... Nothing but the hollow voice of the government goons and their sychophantic viewers of the Emperor 'fully clothed' [while naked] give much evidence or logic to the official version of the collapse - or much else that day when our nation was stolen - again! ...and we moved a giant step toward out-and-out fascism.

...Dallas to New York to where next.....?!

I ask this in good faith so I hope it's taken that way. Say the towers did not fall on their own, and their destruction was aided by pre-set explosives. That would mean someone not only wanted to destroy them in order to destroy evidence of their crime, but also to complete the magic act so as to initiate a global war.

Given some of the horrific acts of our intelligence communities over the decades, I believe there is a small but real chance that this could be the truth or some variation thereof.

But the question: why then would they not simply place explosive devices in the towers and blow them up? They could still blame Islamic extremists. Why go to the trouble of the flight school scenarios and the nationwide travel and sending planes into the buildings as well as the other planes that day? Do you think it was just to create the panic of living with the threat of plane hijackings?

I can easily imagine a bomb plot but why the extra step with planes?

MV

Congratulations, Mark. You have finally posted a message worthy of

serious consideration and comment, without personal attack.

1. The desire was for a NEW PEARL HARBOR to have an excuse to

attack Iraq. Motives...oil and imperialism. Merely exploding the

buildings would not have the same propaganda effect as ARAB

HIJACKERS performing a highly public event! A "spectacular"

worthy of Hollywood to get the attention of the world! Much

like the JFK assassination...A PUBLIC EXECUTION...but this

time killing thousands instead of a single person.

2. The perpetrators were INTERNATIONALISTS in favor of

a NEW WORLD ORDER and EUGENICS (killing Arabs).

Muslims and people of color are sub-human and must be

destroyed.

3. Some perpetrators belong to a secret society which teaches

that DEATH IS NECESSARY FOR PROGRESS. Google the following:

SKULL AND BONES, BUSH CRIME FAMILY, EUGENICS, DEATH CULT,

NEW WORLD ORDER, etc. for starters. Death ceremonies involving the

stolen skull of Geronimo (stolen by grave robber Prescott Bush) dull

the consciences and teach that "collateral deaths" of innocent

people are a price of war which is necessary.

4. Secondary motives were HUGE INSURANCE PAYMENTS,

DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL OFFICES, IMPOSITION OF

FEAR OF THE MASSES AND ACCEPTANCE OF DICTATORIAL

RULE IN EXCHANGE FOR "SECURITY". Like "1984", they consider

themselves the ruling class and the rest of us the SHEEPLE.

Some of them: Bush 41, Bush 43, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and many

"Strangeloves" in the Pentagon.

5. Huge fortunes made by short selling of stocks in United and

American Airlines by some with foreknowlege of the plot.

I could go on and on, but the above is good for starters. Thanks

for your very important question.

Jack

Edited August 15, 2006 by Jack White

[Craig Lamson]

As usual Peter LEMMING resorts to baseless retoric when faced with simple facts that destroy his postings on "thermate cuts" which are actually cutting torchh cuts. Classic stuff from the intellectual dishonest CT crowd. LEMMING is a perfect example. Lost in his warped world view he is incapable of thinking for himself, instead he is willing to be led around like the LEMMING he is by others who promote junk scinece and wild claims. What a sad sack of a person he is.

And the brown shirt comments....classic stuff there LEMMING...

Now deal with the cutting torch stuff...if you are HONEST ENOUGH to do so.

P.S.

You really need to learn to READ LEMMING! Nowhere in the article you posted does it make the claim that any of this happened BEFORE the impact of the aircraft...no wonder you have such a tough time dealing with reality...you can't read understand what you read! LOL!

Lamson is an irrelevant joker.

Ah yes.. Jack White...another loser who can't deal with fact.....

Lamson did not even read the paper by Dr. Jones.

Lamson is therefore an irrelevant joker.

Now the looney loser White believes he can read minds...amazing stuff for ignorant old man!

Read Jone's paper? Why yes I have..it a morass of jumbled facts, wishfull thinking and plain JUNK science. Poor old Jones has been dismantled over and over and over.....

Try again next time loser.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet%2B9/11

Watch this and tell me there was not thermite/mate (or some such) used....to those of you who would say a paper and furniture fire caused that steel waterfall a minute before the collapse may you forever rot in the figurative 'hell' of the woman standing in the plane-cut space that was cool enough for her to hold onto the outside wall and walk to it [ie all fuel burned off long ago].....only to be crushed to death in the explosive/thermite-like collapse a few minutes later.....and the pools of molten steel found...and the free-fall speed collapse...and so many other factors point to a 'demolition-like' event - three times.....in a row.... Nothing but the hollow voice of the government goons and their sychophantic viewers of the Emperor 'fully clothed' [while naked] give much evidence or logic to the official version of the collapse - or much else that day when our nation was stolen - again! ...and we moved a giant step toward out-and-out fascism.

...Dallas to New York to where next.....?!

Ive watched it and there is NO WAY to know if it was molten steel or if thermate or similar caused it.

MAY YOU BURN IN HELL FOR USING THE DEAD TO PROMOTE YOUR LUNACY!

Free fall? LOL! your video CLEARLY shows the building WAS NOT in freefall...witness the ejecta falling FASTER then the bulk of the building!

Once agion LEMMING has shown he has NO skills as a researcher nor is he a person with a functioning brain.

Thanks LEMMING!

Edited August 16, 2006 by Craig Lamson

[Jack White]

As usual Peter LEMMING resorts to baseless retoric when faced with simple facts that destroy his postings on "thermate cuts" which are actually cutting torchh cuts. Classic stuff from the intellectual dishonest CT crowd. LEMMING is a perfect example. Lost in his warped world view he is incapable of thinking for himself, instead he is willing to be led around like the LEMMING he is by others who promote junk scinece and wild claims. What a sad sack of a person he is.

And the brown shirt comments....classic stuff there LEMMING...

Now deal with the cutting torch stuff...if you are HONEST ENOUGH to do so.

P.S.

You really need to learn to READ LEMMING! Nowhere in the article you posted does it make the claim that any of this happened BEFORE the impact of the aircraft...no wonder you have such a tough time dealing with reality...you can't read understand what you read! LOL!

Lamson is an irrelevant joker.

Ah yes.. Jack White...another loser who can't deal with fact.....

Lamson did not even read the paper by Dr. Jones.

Lamson is therefore an irrelevant joker.

Now the looney loser White believes he can read minds...amazing stuff for ignorant old man!

Read Jone's paper? Why yes I have..it a morass of jumbled facts, wishfull thinking and plain JUNK science. Poor old Jones has been dismantled over and over and over.....

Try again next time loser.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...raplanet%2B9/11

Watch this and tell me there was not thermite/mate (or some such) used....to those of you who would say a paper and furniture fire caused that steel waterfall a minute before the collapse may you forever rot in the figurative 'hell' of the woman standing in the plane-cut space that was cool enough for her to hold onto the outside wall and walk to it [ie all fuel burned off long ago].....only to be crushed to death in the explosive/thermite-like collapse a few minutes later.....and the pools of molten steel found...and the free-fall speed collapse...and so many other factors point to a 'demolition-like' event - three times.....in a row.... Nothing but the hollow voice of the government goons and their sychophantic viewers of the Emperor 'fully clothed' [while naked] give much evidence or logic to the official version of the collapse - or much else that day when our nation was stolen - again! ...and we moved a giant step toward out-and-out fascism.

...Dallas to New York to where next.....?!

Ive watched it and there is NO WAY to know if it was molten steel or if thermate or similar caused it.

MAY YOU BURN IN HELL FOR USING THE DEAD TO PROMOTE YOUR LUNACY!

Free fall? LOL! your video CLEARLY shows the building WAS NOT in freefall...witness the ejecta falling FASTER then the bulk of the building!

Once agion LEMMING has shown he has NO skills as a researcher nor is he a person with a functioning brain.

Thanks LEMMING!

Lamson continues to be an irrelevant JOKER.

Where is Batman when we need him?

[Jack White]

Very interesting. Thanks.

[Michael Hogan]

I don't know if it's been posted before, but this passage appeared in E.B. White's "Here is New York," which was written in 1948, FOUR DECADES before the towers fell:

"The subtlest change in New York is something people don't speak much about but that is in everyone's mind. The city, for the first time in its long history, is destructible. A single flight of planes no bigger than a wedge of geese can quickly end this island fantasy, burn the towers, crumble the bridges, turn the underground passages into lethal chambers, cremate the millions. The intimation of mortality is part of New York now: in the sound of jets overhead, in the black headlines of the latest edition.

All dwellers in cities must live with the stubborn fact of annihilation; in New York the fact is somewhat more concentrated because of the concentration of the city itself, and because, of all targets, New York has a certain clear priority. In the mind of whatever perverted dreamer might loose the lightning, New York must hold a steady, irresistible charm. It used to be that the Statue of Liberty was the signpost that proclaimed New York and translated it for all the world. Today Liberty shares the role with Death."

MV

Nice post, Mark. Three years removed from Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the Cold War was heating up rapidly. Then the terrorists were not from the Middle East, they were from the Soviet Union. We were being taught to fear the Soviets and regard them as our mortal enemy. Constitutional guarantees were being weakened in the name of National Security. McCarthy and bomb shelters were just around the corner.

Propaganda techniques from the War were being perfected for domestic use. The Nation's intelligence apparatus was far removed from, yet well on the path to the monster it would become.

Certainly E.B. White was referring to a nuclear strike on New York. At least that's what came to my mind.

Mike Hogan

[Sid Walker]

There’s a recent update on goings on at Comverse in this recent article by Christopher Bollyn: Israeli 9/11 Crook Flees with $57 Million to Israel.

There's a rather unpleasant recent footnote to this story.

Chris Bollyn was arrested and beaten by police in Chigago, after he himself had called the police to report on suspicious and intimidating activities in his own suburb.

His post-release account is HERE.

Bollyn was working on a follow-up article to his American Free Press article on Comverse and its Israeli founder who has fled US justice. This article was mentioned in my previous post on this thread.

[Len Colby]

Not specifically on Bld. 6....but...

We are told that WTC 1 collapsed because the core of the building failed:

The 767 had smashed through the outer wall and hit the inner core directly destroying the fire protection. The intense fire that followed had then concentrated around the core. Two things would then have happened. Floor trusses, softened by the fire, would have fallen away from the core. Without the trusses to hold it firm, the core would have lost crucial support. At the same time, the core's exposed steel girders, also long softened by the heat, would have begun to buckle under the weight of the tower. The result: another progressive collapse. [bBC Horizon] (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml)

The core of the structurally similar Windsor Building in Madrid withstood an 800°C inferno for more than 18 hours without failing, and since no 800°C inferno existed in WTC 1 it is impossible to believe that heat caused the core of this building to fail.

Peter posted this on the WTC 6 thread. A common tactic of a person loosing an argument is to change the subject. No evidence that 6 WTC was blown up has been forth coming so a distraction, the Windsor Tower and other subjects, are brought up. Unfortunately for the inside jobbers it doesn't help their case. To not take the other thread off topic I'm replying here

The Torre Windsor was of totally different construction than the Twin Towers and 7 or 6 WTC. It was essentially a concrete building and the only part of it that was steel framed were the perimeter columns above the 16th floor. They collapsed. http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095 and http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...res/default.htm and http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~s0456086/Windsor%...he%20events.htm

Mitigating factors the Windsor:

-was primarily a concrete framed building,

-had not been hit by a plane or had its structural integrity violated in any way before the fire.

-Only had 11 floors of load above the fire initiation point as opposed to 17 and 32 in WTCs 1 and 2.

-Was a much smaller building, with much shorter distances between the core and perimeter columns. I couldn't find a definitive source regarding the floor size but Wikipedia reports that it "had a total area of 20,000 square meters" it had 32 floors so this would come out to 625 square meters per floor based on diagrams in the third link above and photos of the tower (see below) it appears that the long side was about 50% longer than the short side. Thus the towers would have had been about 20 x 30 meters. Wikipedia isn't an authoritative source but from photos the 106 meter tall tower appears to be a little over 3x taller than the width of the long side and 5x the short side so the numbers are close at least. Based on the diagram the distance from the core to the perimeter columns appears to be only 8 meters (26 feet) compare this to the Twin Towers were the distance was 35 – 60 feet. This difference is critical because NIST concluded that floors not the core failed first.

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~s0456086/Windsor%...es/image003.gif

http://www.emporis.com/files/transfer/sixw...4/04/257147.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm..._Arrangment.jpg

Aggravating factor: The Windsor's perimeter columns weren't fire protected

Interestingly there were numerous reports of explosions in the Windsor Tower so the "inside jobbers" will have to push the theory that that building was felled with explosives or accept that things other than explosives can cause explosive like noises.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147449,00.html , http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2005/02/w.../album1/03.html ,

http://security.lifesafety.ca/rip/karencluley01.htm

"since no 800°C inferno existed in WTC 1"

According to NIST models the fires reached 1000 C I have yet to see any evidence to put that conclusion in doubt.

A close look at the video below provides a different reason for the collapse.

This 2.6 MB WMV video of WTC 1 was shot from a tripod and gives a clear perspective the collapse. It can be viewed frame by frame with this software (free demo). Gamma correction has been applied to the two video frames shown below to clarify the images.

Frame 0 shows the building immediately prior to the collapse, frame 42 shows the building ~1½ seconds later:

[…]

The reduction in the height of the mast indicates the core of WTC 1 has failed. The height reduction also indicates the core has fallen further than the perimeter walls.

This contradicts the beginning of Peter's post which asserts that core failed first which was the conclusion of the ASCE/FEMA report and other early studies. This seems to be trying to debunk NIST's contrary conclusion that the trusses failed first. The issue of the mast was addressed in the NIST report.

The single-bolt connections in the framework of the World Trade Center popped and fell apart during the September 11 terrorist attacks, causing the floors to collapse on top of each other, according to a new study. The analysis, conducted by a team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), concludes the bolts did not properly secure the towers' steel floor trusses, The New York Post reported yesterday. [CBS News] ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/28/...ain527157.shtml )

If the 'truss theory' and the above MIT study were true then all of the single bolt connections above the aircraft impact level would have "popped and fell apart" the moment the core dropped - the descending core would have sheared off all bolts connecting trusses to the inner core. This would have resulted in the simultaneous failure of all trusses in and around the highlighted section of the building, and the perimeter walls would have lost all support.

Strawman the theory being debunked is not the NIST report the definitive official report which concluded that the trusses failed first. After seeming to argue that the core failed first he know seems to be arguing it didn't. In any case the author seems is conflating three different theories, the "core failure theory", the "bolt failure theory" and the "truss failure theory" his own writing demonstrates his ignorance and shows his confusion, he provides no evidenced for his assertions e.g. "that all of the single bolt connections above the aircraft impact level would have "popped and fell apart" the moment the core dropped" etc.

The perimeter walls were not designed to be load bearing and would have had no strength without the bracing of trusses, therefore the top section of WTC 1 should have visually disintegrated as the roof came down.

The author shows his ignorance once again according to many accounts the cores bore 60% of the gravity load and the perimeter columns 40% [ https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/31114/1/61145960.pdf pgs. 11 & 19, http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpma...alysisFinal.htm, http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/Ge...ps&gifs=yes ] I have never seen any other load distribution cited by authoritative sources let alone the absurd claim that the core bore the entire load. There are numerous references to the outer walls as being load bearing [ http://illumin.usc.edu/article.php?articleID=36 , http://tinyurl.com/epl43 , http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/31/asb.00.html , http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/wtcbctf.pdf to cite a few]

The video shows no disintegration in the top section of WTC 1 as it comes down - the structure is visually solid. It is obvious that WTC 1's structure was nowhere near as weak as we are led to believe.

One other point:

Q - What happens if you heat the mid-section of an upright piece of steel with an oxyacetylene torch?

A - The top bends sideways when the steel is sufficiently weakened.

Watch the mast of WTC 1 - it instantaneously falls straight downwards.

Heat did not cause the core failure.

The author once shows his ignorance of and confusion regarding the subject. His analogy between a single piece of steel and a 500,000 ton building is obviously a false one as addressed in various papers and reports. The upper parts of the tower didn't disintegrate initially because that hadn't been weakened by fire.

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.

The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures. [Albuquerque Journal 9/14/2001] (http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm)

The above video indicates Romero's 9/14/2001 assessment of the collapses was fundamentally sound.

This is a bit dishonest because it fails to mention that Romero changed his mind after speaking to structural engineers and it was made on 9/11/01 not the 14th. He doesn't have any structural engineering experience himself and gave his initial assessment hours after the attacks based on watching videos of the collapses a few times long before any analysis had been done. http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%...Explosives.html

"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, and then all of a sudden three big explosions."

WMV video download (231kB)

"Floor by floor it started popping out."

"It was if they had detonators and they planned to take down a building."

WMV video download (411kB)

[…]

"It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop" That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down." [Daniel Rivera - Paramedic (E.M.S.)]

"It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down." [Ed Cachia -- Firefighter [Engine 53]]

Most of these quotes are taken out of context and is indicative of the intellectual honesty of the people who run the sites they are posted on.

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

"You have two hundred and ten story office buildings. You don't find a desk. You don't find a chair. You don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of the keypad. The building collapsed to dust."

WMV video download (907kB)

Peter Tully, president of [Tully Construction], was, notably, the only person willing to speak openly with AFP about his work at the WTC site. ... "Think of the thousands of file cabinets, computers, and telephones in those towers—I never saw one—every thing was pulverized," Tully said. "Everything that was above grade—above the 6th and 7th floor—disintegrated . . . it was like an explosion." Tully Construction specializes in concrete. AFP asked Tully if he had ever seen concrete pulverized as it was at the WTC. "No—never," he said. [AFP]

Yes the Trade Center's concrete and contents were largely (but not entirely) pulverized by the collapse. Once the "inside jobbers" can find a qualified expert who can show that the kinetic energy of 500,000 ton buildings collapsing is insufficient to cause such pulverization that will have something to talk about. As for Tully's comments where does he say he thinks explosives were used. I'm sure he saw nothing like the collapse of the towers before in his life, no one else on Earth had either.

Len

[Len Colby]

Back to the original topic of this thread still wainting for some evidence

1) When the photo was taken

2)that the columns could not have been cut with a torch or thermal lance

3)such a clean cut coutd have been made with thermite or one of itd derivatives

[Len Colby]

...how about some building engineers...this from their magazine....not pro or anti any theory....whole portions of the basement were gone BEFORE the collapse.....

Lamson, you hate all but money and authority...I don't even read your posts....to get out of the impending fascism I don't try to convert a fascist....you don't work here or on JFK posts toward anything...you'd just like everyone to be a couch potato, drink their beer, eat their junkfood and watch the TV circus - AND NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY OR Halliburton etc.....if this is all such bull then why are you here?!..I think because you don't think it is bull**** - and you or those who you 'salute' are worried about it.....last you'll get a direct reply from me Herr Lamson. I don't like brown as a color for shirts, nor people who don't try to make the world a better place and who worship the powerful and greed, and don't help those in need and without power....and try to turn those seeking the truth away from the scent. Heil and farewell!

[...]

Further research would be necessary in order to determine conclusively that the damaged windows depicted in the 1993 image are directly related to the sub-level explosive device detonated at that time.

Explosions At WTC 6?

This examination will now focus on apparent damage to WTC building number 6, noted prior to the collapses of either WTC tower. In the following very seldom seen image, one can note what appears to be not only the damaged windows of the upper lobby levels of WTC 1, said to be the result of jet a fuel fireball explosion that emerged from lobby elevators via elevator shafts from the AA Flight 11 impact zone (smaller square at right), but also similarly missing windows and a possible presence of smoke at the afore mentioned ... WTC 6 (larger square at left), which is the d

Peter’s latest tactic seems to post extremely long messages by cutting and pasting often without indicating what he feels those sources prove.

As for the engineers he cites I’m very familiar with that article. The people cited are stationary engineers i.e. trained maintence workers, in any case I don’t see anything there that supports his case.

Nor do many of the other quotes Many that see to are taken out of context http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm . The Paul Isaac quoted never was a real fireman and wasn’t at the trade center when the towers collapsed

Edited August 17, 2006 by Len Colby

[Matthew Lewis]

On the matter of the fires in the WTC being so hot that they could explain the melting of the beams that supported the building, I submit this piece of evidence....in the photo in the circle is a woman alive and about to die from the collapse....but it is not too hot for her to stand there and hold on to the building in her last minutes alive......to her and others like her....for all of us, we need the answers - and the can NOT be found in the official explanation!

The fires are not visible in the picture with the woman although there is still plenty of smoke showing there was a fire deeper in. Air would have been rushing in through the hole she was standing in to feed the fire and her location would actually have been quite cool.

[Jack White]

On the matter of the fires in the WTC being so hot that they could explain the melting of the beams that supported the building, I submit this piece of evidence....in the photo in the circle is a woman alive and about to die from the collapse....but it is not too hot for her to stand there and hold on to the building in her last minutes alive......to her and others like her....for all of us, we need the answers - and the can NOT be found in the official explanation!

The fires are not visible in the picture with the woman although there is still plenty of smoke showing there was a fire deeper in. Air would have been rushing in through the hole she was standing in to feed the fire and her location would actually have been quite cool.

"The fires are not visible in the picture with the woman although there is still plenty of smoke showing there was a fire deeper in. Air would have been rushing in through the hole she was standing in to feed the fire and her location would actually have been quite cool."

For this, Colby gets the dumb statement of the day

JOKER award.

[Matthew Lewis]

On the matter of the fires in the WTC being so hot that they could explain the melting of the beams that supported the building, I submit this piece of evidence....in the photo in the circle is a woman alive and about to die from the collapse....but it is not too hot for her to stand there and hold on to the building in her last minutes alive......to her and others like her....for all of us, we need the answers - and the can NOT be found in the official explanation!

The fires are not visible in the picture with the woman although there is still plenty of smoke showing there was a fire deeper in. Air would have been rushing in through the hole she was standing in to feed the fire and her location would actually have been quite cool.

"The fires are not visible in the picture with the woman although there is still plenty of smoke showing there was a fire deeper in. Air would have been rushing in through the hole she was standing in to feed the fire and her location would actually have been quite cool."

For this, Colby gets the dumb statement of the day

JOKER award.

Maybe you should give yourself that award Jack. You can't even be bothered to see who's post you're quoting.

So do you have anything of substance to add or will it just be namecalling from you?

[Jack White]

On the matter of the fires in the WTC being so hot that they could explain the melting of the beams that supported the building, I submit this piece of evidence....in the photo in the circle is a woman alive and about to die from the collapse....but it is not too hot for her to stand there and hold on to the building in her last minutes alive......to her and others like her....for all of us, we need the answers - and the can NOT be found in the official explanation!

The fires are not visible in the picture with the woman although there is still plenty of smoke showing there was a fire deeper in. Air would have been rushing in through the hole she was standing in to feed the fire and her location would actually have been quite cool.

"The fires are not visible in the picture with the woman although there is still plenty of smoke showing there was a fire deeper in. Air would have been rushing in through the hole she was standing in to feed the fire and her location would actually have been quite cool."

For this, Colby gets the dumb statement of the day

JOKER award.

Maybe you should give yourself that award Jack. You can't even be bothered to see who's post you're quoting.

Colby and Lewis are two of a kind, so I award them joint custody.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

To me, it essentially boils down to this:

If the 9/11 report is so wrong, where are all the crowds of structural engineers & their professional organisations saying a building could not collapse like that?

Where are all the waves of professional airline pilots and their organisations crying out that a poorly-trained terrorist could not have flown the aircraft used in such a fashion?

Where are all the aeronautical engineers and their professional organisations protesting that an aircraft could not withstand being flown in such a way?

Where are all the crash investigators pointing out that wreckage found is not consistant with the claimed incidents?

Where are all the demolitions experts saying that the incidents look exactly what a controlled demolition would look like?

Now, I know Jack will probably raise his mis-named Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Generally, they are people talking outside their field, and have a strong aversion to having their work peer-reviewed by people that can evaluate the validity of their claims.

Dr Jones is a particle physicist with expertise in cold fusion. His infamous paper was reviewed by sociologists, not engineers. Their pet engineer is an expert in dental materials.

When I see a paper raised by an expert in that field, I pay attention.

When I see a paper raised by an expert in that field and peer-reviewed by other experts in that field, I pay very close attention.

If I see a group of experts, talking about matters in which they are experts, supported by other experts, and they claim 9/11 was an "inside job" or a "hoax" or other such claim.... then I will quite prepared to revise my stance on the matter.

[Evan Burton]

I notice Jack likes showing off his new Joker image - just like a kid with a new toy.