9/11 truth movement topic

[JNeko]

Hello,
The only reason I joined this forum is because of this thread. My apologies. I even am not quite sure what overunity is yet...sorry again. First of all, I voted to keep the thread on, but I don't think "we have to expose the inside job", what I mean is, I am still trying to decide where I stand in all of this, I really don't know if there was an inside job. I saw loose change the other day and it got me to ask some questions, but I am not so quick to jump on the Bush Nazi band wagon. I looked to the internet for rebuttals and I have found much information...however, I have not found enough to convince me that this absolutely was a terrorist attack, which is very very disturbing to me...and here I am now, still searching. Like Dingus said, I think we should just focus on the factual or what seems to be more factual than others (i.e. cruise missile hitting the pentagon), which seems to me to be a good place to start and the most obvious.

Ok, I have spent the last two days reading every post, all 35 pages, going through almost every link, in this monster of a thread. @Everyone but especially @Dingus and Ring: Thank you so much guys! This is what I wanted, an actual debate between the two views with lots of supported documentation...instead of just a website extensively supporting it's one-sided view...all of you guys are so smart, seriously, I am just a regular dude with some simple questions, and I think they are worth asking considering a monumental event such as 911...

@Ring: according to http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

"In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). "

Now, we all know that there was melted steel sighted, right? There are eye witness statements and pictures to prove this, yes? So...it was obviously there...so...if this explanation could be dismissed as you have said, the objects and materials in the WTC could provide the necessary heat and energy when burned to melt the steel (as seen) OR as you have said, (not direct quotes sorry) the overall mass and the momentum of the structure falling could provide enough energy to generate the necessary heat, like a furnace, to produce this melted steel that is before us....then why did the NIST say (or that other guy say) there was no melted steel found (there was) when they could just as easily said "yes, there was some melted steel present, but this was due to (insert one of those things you said), end of story" If these claims of yours are so convincing and full proof (perhaps they are, I am very stupid), surely an organization such as NIST, full of intelligent peoples, would have thought to mention this, instead outright lying to us. What do you think?

@Dingo:
First,
Looking again at http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

"6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)?speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) is reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."

This seems to be NIST's explanation on how the twin towers fell as fast as they did. Why could the WTC 7 not do the same?

Also, have you seen this: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm ?
This guy says the WTC 7 received a lot more structural damage than the conspirators make it out to be. What are your comments on his pictures? And on the whole article regarding WTC 7 in general?

@Both of you guys: WTC 7 seems to be the key for me. No jet fuel, even if it fell down due to structural damage caused by a part of a plane, it is certainly not to the massive scale as the twin towers, and to me would not explain it falling at controlled demolition time...I don't know...this is probably why it is taking the NIST so long with WTC 7 report, why do y'all think it is taking so long anyway?
Finally, I think we should demand an official explanation on the melted steel, don't y'all?   

I'm done now, talk soon and thanks very much!

J

[Navi-gator]

I understand the POTUS and congress have the worst rating in history, but this thread and the poll results are absurd.

And since when are the laws of Physics absolute?

[jfarmer408]

I can't believe that you guys actually believe that the US government was responsible for bringing down the twin towers!
  What a load of rubbish! 

[b0rg13]

  its so nice to be blind, nothing hurts untill it hits you, then its to late, your dead.

[d3adp00l]

First, how would the nist know if there was or was not melted steel considering that they did not examine the debris as it was quickly loaded on trucks and shipped to china,india,korea, and was sold to them for less than a new jersey plant was willing to buy it for. It was left out because of lack of actually physical evidence research.

Wtc 1 10.2secs, wtc 9.6 secs, the debris would actually take energy out of the equation by absorbing the energy of the floors above it, think of the debris like a pad, or pillow on the stack of wood a karate guy it trying to break. The energy would disapate as it was used to crumple a floor, and at best the incoming mass would tend to lean away from the energy absorbing building and fall into free air much more easily.

If building 7 was so very damaged it would have fell intothe direction of the damage, like a tree being cut down. The lateral supports would have pulled the undamaged side over on top of the damaged side as it collapsed. However that could not have happened because the debris the fell into 7 was minimal, building 3, 4, 5, and 6, were around 1 and 2, building 7 was on the other side of that perimeter. the circle of building took the brunt of the debris, 7 was not damaged very much. On top of that, lets conjecture if 80% of 7 was damaged at the base and couldn't be seen, so it fell, how could 5 and 6 still stand with massive holes completely through them cutting lateral supports and vertical supports alike, to beat that, how did building 4 loss 3/4 of the building to falling debris, yes 3/4 of building 4 was dropped to the ground and yet 1/4 of it had to be forcefully demo'ed at a later date because it was still standing.

And no official explaination can describe single pass 45 degree and straight cuts through 4 plus inche thick steel. And no official theory can address the FACT that the antena which was attached to the main support collumns fell 30 feet before the rest of the building, which indicates main support collumn failure, which is in direct contradiction of the official story that the floor trusses weakened and the fell causeing the collapse, which by the way, if the trusses did weaken and sag that would have been all they did, the shear value of the welds and rivots would have held the wieght, they were designed to do so. And even if  they gave way they could not have done so in a uniform manner. But if you had an insurance policy on a group of buildings that you really didn't want, and you didn't want to be sued if your buildings damaged other peoples buildings, you could allow your buildings to act like a buffer zone, but that would leave 7 outside that perimeter of damage so it would have to be dealt with separately. Insurance total payout on complex, 8.4 bil, lease value on 1 and 2 3.2 bil, paid a couple hundred thousand, not bad in six weeks.