who were behind 9/11?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm a liberal and hate bush, however this is BS.

One of the major flaws of these peoples arguements is that all hydrocarbons burn at the same temperature. This is completely wrong. Whoever thought this was a good point should be forced to go back and reread an elementary chemistry book.

Second, there is talk about how fast the buildings collapsed? The buildings didn't initially fall the second the plane hit. There was some additional time. The fire could have easily weakened the structure. You've already heard the momentum talk.

Arnfinn is right about the conspiracy theory. However I think he left out one little detail. Why would Bush be reading my pet goat in front of children when this was happening. Why would he target the pentagon?

Melch

[/ QUOTE ]

Obv my reaction to most of the presented claims is the same as yours, but I cannot explain parts of the story. Just looking for answers. Do you understand the collapse of WTC7?

In his speech on november 10th to the General Assembly, Bush stressed "We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."

This struck me as odd at the time it was broadcasted. What was his motive to say that? What bad would outrageous conspiracy theories do?

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't stand bush as well and would love to pin 9/11 on him, but I just don't see any evidence. As for his quote, who the hell knows what's going on between his ears.

[MelchyBeau]

Marnix, I think early on there were people blaming the jews. There was a (false) claim that jews got a call not to go to work. Also another (false) claim that no jews were killed.

Here is a link debunking the conspiracy theorists

Popular Mechanics

Melch

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what your problem is with Build. 7 collapsing. Do you not think that damage done by debris and a fire that was burning all day was enough to bring it down? The author of that article refers a lot to eyewitness testimony. Anything that supports his calims is the truth and anything that doesn't, he dismisses with someone else's account. I.E the extent of damge to the strucure and the size of the fire inside. Was it one floor, ten floors etc. A timeline of the eyewitnesse accounts could help shed some light on the discrepencies.
As for the steel beam samples, like in real estate, its location, location, location. Where were the samples taken from? You can have extensive, catastophic damage in one area but not another.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem is not that fire cannot take a building down, but by the strict engineering standards for high-rise buildings it should take much longer for fire (even when huge) to cause critical damage to the core construction. Do you know of other examples where fire brought down a steel-frame constructed, modern highrise building?

But let's accept fire caused it to collapse. How would the damage cause the perfect collapse? That is my concern. I can see parts of the building losing support, collapsing, extending damage to oher parts of the construction and collapsing gradually in a chain of events. But not symmetrically, superfast and on its own footprint. That would be highly unlikely, wouldnt it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you expect it to tip over like a tree? If the main load bearing structures have failed, where is the mass of the building going to go?

Great link Mealchy.

[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]

Did you expect it to tip over like a tree? If the main load bearing structures have failed, where is the mass of the building going to go?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the idea that a building can tip over so strange to you? It's the perfect implosion that is rare and extremely difficult to achieve. Tipping a building over is the preferred method of use of controlled demolition companies. They take away part of the load bearing structure and what happens? The building tips over. Uncontrolled collapses will usually show partial structural failure starting a chain of events that causes the builing to collapse. The most likely process is that the building tips over and breaks - or at the very least, shows an outward movement.

btw the Popular Mechanics article is not scientific in any way and is not conclusive.

[Beer and Pizza]

Why are people still conversing with this troll? There are better topics to discuss, like how the Communists killed Lincoln.

[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are people still conversing with this troll? There are better topics to discuss, like how the Communists killed Lincoln.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe they are still discussing with me because I am only trying to get some questions answered here. Thx for the input.

I always suspected it was those Canadian rockers.

[Marnixvdb]

EDIT: nm

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know of other examples where fire brought down a steel-frame constructed, modern highrise building?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. but I don't know of any other examples where the fire involved several thousand gallons of jet fuel, either. The conspiracy theorists would have us believe that a large crew spent several hours placing exploseves and wiring the detonators, and nobody noticed, and none of the demolition crew ever talked. I find this much harder to believe than that the plane crashes, fire, and falling debris brought the buildings down. As for WTC 7, maybe some corners were cut in constructionk some building ispectors paid off. If there's a conspiracy, that's the place to look.