Bend over, and give my big fat @ss a kiss.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I can sleep well tonight knowing that I did something to help the movement.

Nite all.
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You really help the demise of your "movement" even more, Jon.

You promised us a debunking. We didn't get one. In fact, we got nothing.

The title of this thread is, Popular Mechanics Debunked. What was debunked? I think you're a fraud, Jon.

Show us the errors in PM. We want to see the debunking demonstrated, not asserted. You're good at assertion. You're very bad at evidentiary reasoning.

SQUIRM TROLL SQUIRM!!!
___________________________________

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

I admire your stamina.

Getting his butt whupped every day does require stamina. He doesn't have anything else to offer us. When cornered to provide answers and evidence, he just whines in anticipation of the next truth to come around and whupp his sorry butt.

But really, why waste time on this fool?

It only takes a moment to delight in the smell of trolls at truthrise while the DVD burner churns away.

Are you so blinded by your delusions that you fail to notice that he neglected to debunk anything?

poomeroo,
You really don't get it do you. And I have yet to see anything other than childish insults in anything you have posted to date. How old are you? Time for bed perhaps.

Poor Jon. Cornered again.

PM has already been debunked, look around.

Do you deny there was molten metal under wtc 1/2/7?

Who do you think planned the war games on 9/11? And who do you think controlled them?

How do 3 towers collapse with Pyroclastic flows, without explosives being involved?

Do you understand what circumstances are necessary for a pyroclastic flow?

Do you know what a pyroclastic flow is?

You clearly do not understand the issues that the 9/11 Truth movement is investigating. It is not our job to answer every possible question imaginable. It is the governments job to answer the MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS surrounding 9/11.

Why do Wonder Truthers always desperately avoid providing any answers to your own questions? Or any evidence from any expert that makes your questions even valid?

Why can't you answer them?

What's your problem, strom? You can't even demonstrate they are valid questions much less provide any answers. Claiming they are valid doesn't cut the mustard, dodger.

It's nice to show how Wonder Truthers like you go to all lengths to having to provide evidence.

Try again, strom. Let's see you demonstrate they are valid questions. Still can't come up with any?

Why were they or at least portions of them not still standing after the building collapses?

David Griffin and others incorrectly describe the steel cores as the most important structural entity in the WTC towers. The steel cores certainly were important, as they supported all the elevators, plus nearly half of the floor loads. However, the outer walls were the strongest parts of the building. They supported the remainder of the floor loads, plus they resisted ALL of the wind loads. When the wind blew from the south, the steel on the south sides of the building was stretched, and the steel on the north faces of the towers was compressed. That way, the upper portions of the buildings were allowed to say up to 20 feet from side-to-side. The outer steel walls had to be VERY strong to resist these wind loads. This is especially true considering the towers were designed to resist hurricane-force winds. Because the outer walls were so strong, one would expect at least portions of them to be still standing after the towers collapsed. And that's exactly what happened: When the North tower fell, a very large part of one of its facades was still standing for a few seconds. It soon toppled because of the lateral (side-to-side) support was eliminated when the floors collapsed. When the dust settled, note that there were still fairly large portions of facade remaining, extending to a height of several stories. These remaining pieces had to be pulled down.

It would help greatly if David Griffin knew what he was talking about when he discusses building construction. He, and other "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," make one factual error after another when they speak about how the towers were built, and how they fell.

Best regards,
Paul J. A., AIA, Architect

This is no explanation. It is an opinion. Why don't you start a scholarly journal supporting your conclusions. All you got is a PM article!
Why aren't lines of architects standing behind.

Our comment is pure spin. Explain the complete failure of the 47 steel columns. Explain the presents of thermite. Explain the present of squibs

Just to comment on the strength of the steel columns is no argument.

http://911truthnc.blogspot.com/2006/09/squibs.html
http://911truthnc.blogspot.com/2006/09/thermite-revealed.html

My bet is we will get nothing or lies.
Gary
911truthnc.org
"Not being aware of these facts is in itself an evil because ignorance serves evil." Juri Lina - "Architects of Deception"

Dear Gary,

I did indeed explain the complete failure of the steel columns. Many were severed by the planes, leaving others to support more loads than they were designed to carry. This is a fact, not an opinion. The fires heated the steel. This is a fact, not an opinion. As the temperature of steel increases, its strength decreases. This is a fact, not an opinion. A building that has sustained severe structural damage, AND has acres of floor space buning, is in danger of collapse. This is a fact, not an opinion.

(Question: When you wrote, "Our comment is pure spin," is that a typo? Did you mean to write "Your"?)

I do read many architectural journals, and I have yet to come across one that argues that explosives were used to bring down the WTC.

If you're accusing me of lying, that's a mighty serious charge. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that I'm deliberately not telling the truth. You can start by refuting anything I've written.

Commenting on the strength of the steel columns is no argument? I disagree. Just like Jon, when I comment on point A, you respond, "What about points B and C?" You and Jon don't bother to respond to my comments on point A, or explain why it's wrong.

Per your questions about the squibs: I believe what we're seeing in the photos is concrete dust being ejected as a result of the failure of the concrete floors at the points they are attached to the outer columns. The floors were supported by the outer columns. This is a fact (which David Griffin is ignorant of). It is not surprising that some floor sections would fail ahead of the pancaking collapse of floors. I surmise the pancaking caused immense vabrations in the columns below, strung enough to dislodge the bolts holding the floor trusses to the columns. I believe this caused localized breakage of concrete, producing the dust "squibs" we see in the photos.

Per your comment about thermite: Many materials burn brightly, giving a white appearance when overexposed in photos. Per the photograph showing the steel members with clean breaks: Steel is iron with carbon added. The more carbon you add, the stronger the steel becomes, and the more weight it is able to bear. This makes steel an excellent material for resisting static (non-moving) loads, or gradually-applied dynamic loads. However, carbon also makes steel brittle. The more carbon you add, the more brittle it becomes. A stong, sudden impact can indeed fracture a steel member. For example, look at photos the outline of the airplane in the facade of the North Tower.

I thank you for the opportunity to share my expertise.

Best regards,
Paul J. A., AIA, Architect

Hi Paul,

You seem sincere. So you ready to have a real debate?
No name calling. Let's stick to arguing our points.

OK, let's look more closely at your 3 so-called facts in your 1st paragraph above.

1. Many steel columns were severed by the planes collisions, leaving a heavier load on those left in place.
2. Fires heated the steel causing it to lose it's strength.
3. A building that has sustained severe structural damage, AND has acres of floor space burning, is in danger of collapse.

Now let me discuss your so-called fact #1.

1a) The Boeings which allegedly hit the Twin Towers had both taken off with enough fuel for a transcontinental flight, but most of the jet fuel in the South Tower impact was consumed in the spectacular fireball, so presumably much more fuel was available for the fire in the North Tower. If the fires were the cause of the collapse then we would expect the North Tower to have collapsed more quickly than the South Tower. But the opposite happened: the North Tower collapsed 104 minutes after impact whereas the South Tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

Now let me discuss your so-called fact #2.

2a) Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel. Are we expected to believe that the fires from two loads of jet fuel provided sufficient heat to raise 200,000 tons of steel to the point where it became critically weak?

2b) Based on data provided by Corus Construction Centre, and assuming that the WTC architects followed the usual safety margins for load-bearing steel structures, we may conclude that even if the fire had heated the steel to 1022°F (550°C) that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.

2c) Kevin Ryan from UL states "We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours."

2d) The jet fuel burned for maybe ten minutes, and thereafter it was not jet fuel that was burning but rather, as Popular Mechanics' "Fact" says, "the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". Since both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were still standing 50 minutes after the impacts, the alleged weakening of the steel had to be due to the previous 40 minutes of burning of "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper".

Now let me discuss your so-called fact #3.

3a) According to the Journal of Australian Fire Investigators (see http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html) paper, wood and leather ignite at 475°F (246°C) or less, far below the temperature required to weaken steel significantly. It is thus ludicrous to attempt to attribute the collapse of the Twin Towers to the weakening of its steel supports due to the combustion of "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper".

3b) No steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001, presumably without the use of explosives.

I wait for your response to the points I raise.

I'll get to the rest at a later time.

Regards,

Gary
911truthnc.org
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

Hello again, Gary, and thank you for your lengthly response. I appreciate the time you spent writing it, and I appreciate your replys to specific points I made. To save time, I copied and pasted your posting below. My responses are in ALL CAPS so you can differentiate at a glance between your words and mine. (I'm not using the capital letters in order to appear to be shouting.)

Hi Paul,

You seem sincere. So you ready to have a real debate? YES, THANK YOU.
No name calling. AMEN, GARY. Let's stick to arguing our points. LET'S.

OK, let's look more closely at your 3 so-called facts in your 1st paragraph above. "SO-CALLED?" FACTS ARE FACTS.

1. Many steel columns were severed by the planes collisions, leaving a heavier load on those left in place.

YES, THIS IS A FACT. YOU CAN ARGUE THAT THE INCREASED LOADS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDING, BUT THE LOADS WERE IN FACT INCREASED. IF YOU AND FOUR BUDDIES ARE CARRYING A LONG, HEAVY LOG, AND YOU SUDDENLY LET GO, THE WEIGHT YOUR FRIENDS ARE CARRYING WILL SUDDENLY INCREASE.

2. Fires heated the steel causing it to lose it's strength.
(I DIDN'T TYPE "IT'S." I TYPED "ITS." THE FORMER IS A CONTRACTION FOR "IT IS," THE LATTER IS POSESSIVE FOR "IT." I'M NOT TRYING TO RIDICULE, BUT INFORM. THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST COMMON PUNCTUATION ERROR IN ENGLISH. I MAKE LINGUISTIC ERRORS, TOO, SO PLEASE ADVISE ME - LIKE JON DID - SHOULD YOU FIND ANY.) YES, THAT IS WHAT HEAT DOES TO STEEL. AGAIN, YOU COULD MAKE A CASE THAT THE HEAT INCREASE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WEAKEN THE STEEL ENOUGH TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDINGS. BUT YOU CAN NOT FACTUALLY STATE THAT THE STEEL DID LOT LOSE STRENGTH.
3. A building that has sustained severe structural damage, AND has acres of floor space burning, is in danger of collapse. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. NOTE THAT I SAID SUCH CONDITIONS CAUSE A BUILDING TO BE IN DANGER OF COLLAPSE. I DID NOT SY THE CONDITIONS GUARANTEED SUCH COLLAPSE.

Now let me discuss your so-called fact #1.

1a) The Boeings which allegedly (ALLEGEDLY? DID THE TITANIC "ALLEGEDLY" SINK?) hit the Twin Towers had both taken off with enough fuel for a transcontinental flight, but most of the jet fuel in the South Tower impact was consumed in the spectacular fireball, so presumably much more fuel was available for the fire in the North Tower. If the fires were the cause of the collapse then we would expect the North Tower to have collapsed more quickly than the South Tower. But the opposite happened: the North Tower collapsed 104 minutes after impact whereas the South Tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

YOUR RESPONSE ABOVE RAISES A GOOD QUESTION, AND I BELIEVE I HAVE THE ANSWER. (PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU DID NOT MAKE ANY MENTION OF MY OBSERVATION THAT MANY STEEL COLUMNS WERE SEVERED, THUS WEAKENING THE OVERALL STRUCTURE.) PER YOUR OBSERVATION THAT THE SOUTH TOWER COLLAPSED IN LESS TIME THAN THE NORTH, EVEN THOUGH A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FUEL WAS EJECTED: THE SOUTH TOWER WAS HIT AT A LOWER LEVEL THAN THE NORTH. YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE THIS ON THE PHOTO YOU ATTACHED. THAT MEANS THAT THE DAMAGED PORTION OF THE TOWER WAS HOLDING MORE DEAD WEIGHT ABOVE IT. I BELIEVE THIS EXPLAINS THE SHORTER TIME-FRAME BEFORE THE COLLAPSE. (NOTE: IF EXPLOSIVES INDEED WERE USED, THE VILLAN WHO DETONATED THEM COULD HAVE DONE SO AT ANY TIME OF HIS CHOOSING. WHY WOULD HE AROUSE SUSPICION BY MAKING ONE TOWER FALL MUCH SOONER THAN THE OTHER, AND THUS INVITE THE QUESTION YOU ASKED?)

Now let me discuss your so-called fact #2. AGAIN, IT'S NOT A "SO-CALLED" FACT, IT'S A FACT: STEEL DOES INDEED LOOSE ITS STRENGTH AS ITS TEMPERATURE INCREASES. YOUR NOTE AT 2b BELOW AKNOWLEDGES THIS FACT. YOU CAN - AND DO - ARGUE THAT THE TEMPERATURE INCREASE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING DOWN THE TOWERS, BUT THE HEATED STEEL CERTAINLY WAS WEAKENED.

2a) Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel. Are we expected to believe that the fires from two loads of jet fuel provided sufficient heat to raise 200,000 tons of steel to the point where it became critically weak? STEEL DOES INDEED CONDUCT HEAT VERY WELL. AND YES, RESIDUAL HEAT WOULD HAVE SPREAD TO PARTS OF THE STRUCTURE FAR FROM THE FIRE. BUT, THE STEEL COMPONENTS CLOSEST TO THE FIRE WOULD HAVE BEEN FAR HOTTER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE HEAT WOULD NOT BE EVENLY SPREAD. IF YOU HOLD THE FLAME OF A BLOW-TORCH AGAINST A CONTINUOUS RAIL OF A RAIL ROAD TRACK FOR AN HOUR, THE STEEL WOULD BE EXTREMELY HOT AT THE POINT OF CONTACT. IT WOULD ALSO BE TOO HOT TO TOUCH WITHIN MANY FEET OF THIS POINT. THE HEAT WOULD TRAVEL FAR DOWN THE RAIL, BUT A QUARTER MILE OR SO FROM THE FLAME, IT PROBABLY WOULD BE COOL ENOUGH TO TOUCH IT. THIS WOULD BE TRUE FOR TWO REASONS: NOT ALL OF THE ENERGY WOULD TRAVEL DOWN THE RAIL, PLUS - AND THIS IS IMPORTANT - MUCH OF THE HEAT THAT DOES TRAVEL DOWN THE RAIL WILL DISIPATE INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. THIS BRINGS UP ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACT ABOUT THE WTC FAILURE: THE FIREPROOFING WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED IN THE VICINITY OF THE CRASHES. THE EXPOSED STEEL HEATED UP MORE QUICKLY, AND THE HEAT TRAVELED TO PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE WHERE THE FIREPROOFING WAS INTACT. THE FIREPROOFING THEN TRAPPED THE HEAT IN THE STEEL, DOING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO, CAUSING THE STEEL TO BE WEAKENED MORE THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE HAD THE FIREPROOFING BEEN INTACT.

2b) Based on data provided by Corus Construction Centre, and assuming that the WTC architects followed the usual safety margins for load-bearing steel structures, we may conclude that even if the fire had heated the steel to 1022°F (550°C) that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse. I'M SURE THE WTC ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOLLOWED SAFETY MARGINS THAT GREATLY EXCEEDED THE USUAL SAFETY MARGINS. THAT'S WHAT WE DO WHEN WE DESIGN ESPECIALLY LARGE STRUCTURES, AND THE TWIN TOWERS WERE THE LARGEST TWO BUILDINGS ON EARTH. I AGREE, THE HEAT - BY ITSELF - WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDINGS. OTHER DAMAGE WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY. YOU INSIST THIS DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY EXPLOSIVES; I MAINTAIN THAT THE MASSIVE DAMAGE DONE BY THE PLANES WAS ALSO TO BLAME.

2c) Kevin Ryan from UL states "We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours." I CANNOT SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THIS QUOTE, AS I AM NOT AN EXPERT ON ASTM'S PROCEDURES. IF YOU ARE, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME. IF YOU ARE NOT, YOU ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO JUDGE THE CREDIBILITY OF MR. RYAN'S STATEMENT. HOWEVER, CONSIDER THIS: UL IS ONE OF MANY PROFESSIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS THAT AGREES THAT NO EXPLOSIVES WERE USED TO BRING DOWN THE TOWERS. IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU FOCUS ON THE QUOTE FROM ONE MEMBER OF THIS ORGANIZATION, AND IGNORE ALL THE ORGANIZATION'S RESEARCH. COULD MR. RYAN BE A WHISTLEBLOWER? IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT UNLIKELY. IN ORDER FOR ALL THE OTHER UL EMPLOYEES TO "GO ALONG" WITH THE "OFFICIAL STORY," THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A MASSIVE MOBILIZATION OF THOUSANDS OF PROFESSIONALS. THEY WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE PAID OFF TO LIE. WOULD NOT ANY OF THESE PROFESSIONALS BLOWN THE WHISTLE ON SUCH A CONSPIRACY? I CERTAINLY THINK SO. UNLESS, OF COURSE, THEY WERE THREATENED WITH DEATH. MR. RYAN SEEMED TO HAVE NO SUCH FEAR. IS HE STILL ALIVE? ALSO, IF ALL THE MEMBERS OF US WERE APPROACHED AND ASKED TO LIE, WOULD NOT MR. RYAN TELL US ABOUT THIS?

2d) The jet fuel burned for maybe ten minutes, and thereafter it was not jet fuel that was burning but rather, as Popular Mechanics' "Fact" says, "the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". Since both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were still standing 50 minutes after the impacts, the alleged weakening of the steel had to be due to the previous 40 minutes of burning of "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". YES. THE STEEL WAS WEAKENED BY SUCH FIRES. AND THE STEEL WAS OVERLOADED BY THE DAMAGE FROM THE AIRPLANES.

Now let me discuss your so-called fact #3.

3a) According to the Journal of Australian Fire Investigators (see http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html) paper, wood and leather ignite at 475°F (246°C) or less, far below the temperature required to weaken steel significantly. It is thus ludicrous to attempt to attribute the collapse of the Twin Towers to the weakening of its steel supports due to the combustion of "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". SEE COMMENT IMMEDIATELY ABOVE.

3b) No steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001, presumably without the use of explosives. ALL THE IMPLODED BUILDINGS YOU REFER TO WERE IMPLODED FROM THE BOTTOM UP. THE WTC TOWERS FAILED FROM THE TOP DOWN. AS FOR YOUR CORRECT OBSERVATION ABOUT NO OTHER STEEL FRAME BUILDINGS HAVING FAILED FROM FIRES, ALL OF THESE TOWERS HAD ALL THEIR STEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS INTACT. ALSO, WTC 1, 2 & 7 HAD UNUSUAL STRUCTURAL DESIGNS. MOST OTHER STEEL-FRAME TOWERS HAVE THEIR LOADS DISTRIBUTED ON A REGULAR GRID OF COLUMNS, WHEN VIEWED IN PLAN. THE TWIN TOWERS, HOWEVER, HAD THEIR FLOORS SUPPORTED BY THE CORE COLUMNS AND THE EXTERIOR WALLS. THE FAILURE OF THE FLOORS IN THE VICINITY OF THE IMPACTS PULLED THE EXTERIOR WALLS INWARD. THIS BOWING OF THE NON-SEVERED COLUMNS CAN BE OBSERVED IN MANY PHOTOGRAPHS. EVENTUALLY, THE DEFORMATION OF THESE COLUMNS WAS TOO SEVERE TO KEEP HOLDING THE WEIGHT THEY WERE DESIGNED TO CARRY. A REGULAR GRID OF INTERNAL COLUMNS MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED THIS FAILURE. AS FOR WTC 7: THE UPPER LEVELS OF THIS TOWER HAD A CONVENTIONAL DESIGN OF A COLUMN GRID. HOWEVER, THE BUILDING WAS BUILT OVER A CON-ED SUBSTATION. SO AS NOT TO DISTURB THIS EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, WTC7 WAS BUILT WITH THE STRUCTURE IN ITS LOWER LEVELS SPANNING THE SUBSTATION. THIS UNUSUAL DESIGN MEANT THAT THE FAILURE OF ONE STRUCTURAL MEMBER COULD LEAD TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. (NOTE: THE BOMBING OF THE ALFRED P. MURAH BUILDING IN OKLAHOMA CITY ON 4/19/1995 HAD A STRUCTURAL FAILURE NOT UNLIKE THIS: THE TRUCK BOMB WAS PLACED NEAR ONE REINFORCED
CONCRETE COLUMN WHICH CARRIED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE BUILDING'S WEIGHT. THE SUDDEN DISTRUCTION OF THIS COLUMN BROUGHT DOWN A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE BUILDING. IF IT WAS 47 STORIES TALL, THE ENTIRE BUILDING WOULD HAVE LIKELY COLLAPSED.) IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE LOWER PORTION OF THE TOWER WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED. SEE THIS LINK FOR ANALYSIS AND PHOTOS:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrin...

I wait for your response to the points I raise. THE WAIT IS OVER.

I'll get to the rest at a later time. I'LL CHECK BACK LATER, GARY.

Regards,

Gary

THE SAME TO YOU,
PAUL

911truthnc.org
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

Paul,
To allow more room. I conutined the debate here.
Gary
911truthnc.org
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

There are theories all over this site. But as the previous poster suggested, it is the government's job to provide the answers. That's what we pay them for. But I think everyone can agree that some type of explosives were used and that planes cannot create the kind of devastation found at Ground Zero. To me, it is a fact, not a theory. You've got yer "Eyes Wide Shut"

mandrake

The answers have been provided by many different researchers. You either ignore them or fail to comprehend them. Many ignoramuses believe, against all evidence and logic, that explosives were used, but nobody who knows anything about the subject agrees. Why your uninformed fabrications should trump real science is anybody's guess.

NIST explained the collapse of the WTC comprehensively. You can't find any flaws in the report. You choose to reject it because the science is inconvenient to your politics. Period.

"NIST explained the collapse of the WTC comprehensively."

The NIST did no such thing. It explained the collapse INITIATION, NOT the collapse. Apparently you haven't read it.

And it took the fifth on WTC 7.

Check it out here

http://freedomtown.org/Site/Must%20See%20Video%20II.html

it's the right column, third from the top titled Interior Core

Even NIST doesn't claim it explained the collapse of the two towers comprehensively -- on the contrary, they are admirably candid in their admission that their theory only explains events up until the point of "collapse initiation."

Period.

And why might that be, I wonder.