The truth about 911

[marvenger]

I've taken Metalman's advice and started a new thread.

New World Order activists reckon 911 was an inside job. Check out this site Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, i don't think they're offically linked with anti new world order activists but they go through physics of how the actual process of the collapses of the towers make no sense from the physics of the standard explanation of a plane impact and fire, compared with controled demolition explanation.

the scary implication being the whole thing was staged to allow afghan iraq war further budget blowouts and centralisation of power in the fed and banking industry.

Hopefully some engineer itulip contributors can shed their opinion on the validity of the science in this site.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: The truth about 911

I've taken Metalman's advice and started a new thread.

New World Order activists reckon 911 was an inside job. Check out this site Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, i don't think they're offically linked with anti new world order activists but they go through physics of how the actual process of the collapses of the towers make no sense from the physics of the standard explanation of a plane impact and fire, compared with controled demolition explanation.

the scary implication being the whole thing was staged to allow afghan iraq war further budget blowouts and centralisation of power in the fed and banking industry.

Hopefully some engineer itulip contributors can shed their opinion on the validity of the science in this site.

Any hints right up front on how anyone can make any money out of whatever evolves or devolves from subsequent posts on your topic.

[marvenger]

Re: The truth about 911

something to do with the political economy i'd say Jim

[tombat1913]

Re: The truth about 911

Any hints right up front on how anyone can make any money out of whatever evolves or devolves from subsequent posts on your topic.

Well, if in fact there is a kabal of ultra rich elites who seek to control governments through fiat money systems, it seems that paying attention to their actions could help in the way of making money.

Take for instance the highly unordinary amount of put options on the airlines involved in the hijackings just prior to 911.

Larry Silverstein certainly made a good amount of money out of the whole incident.

[tombat1913]

Caution

I've taken Metalman's advice and started a new thread.

New World Order activists reckon 911 was an inside job. Check out this site Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, i don't think they're offically linked with anti new world order activists but they go through physics of how the actual process of the collapses of the towers make no sense from the physics of the standard explanation of a plane impact and fire, compared with controled demolition explanation.

the scary implication being the whole thing was staged to allow afghan iraq war further budget blowouts and centralisation of power in the fed and banking industry.

Hopefully some engineer itulip contributors can shed their opinion on the validity of the science in this site.

I'm glad that you started this post because I do believe this has economic implicatons.

I have spent countless hours on researching this topic and I hope that people take intreest in it because if it is in fact true, and I believe whole heartedly that it is, then it affects each of us financially and personally. Two very simple examples are the very costly war, and the massive, costly, and dangerous growth of central power with the Department of Homeland Security.

As far as the question about the validity of the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, I had the privelage of attending one of their presentations in Los Angeles earlier this year. I have some training in material science, but I really think what they're presenting here is simple enough that a person average intelligence can grasp it.

It's basic high school science. Those buildings fell at freefall speed, they didn't slowly fall apart as they melted, they just dropped right into their own footprints causing insignificant damage to the surrounding buildings. ZERO RESISTANCE! This fact makes the "pancake" theory absolutely invalid. Once again this is basic high school science. This was the first time in history that a skyscraper collapsed due to fire, and there have been many fires in skyscrapers which lasted significantly longer and burned significantly hotter.

The presence of iron in the form of small spheres abundantly present in the dust is a tell tale sign of thermite. Nothing else burns hot enough and fast enough to cause steel to turn liquid as it is projected through the air. Scientifically there is very little question about this fact. Thermite was used.

Why did WTC Building 7 collapse? Why has the collapse of this building barely been mentioned in the media? There is no reasonable explanation. Larry Silverstein had acts of terror specifically written into his insurance contract when he purchaed buildings 1, 2 and 7 months before the attacks. The three buildings which happened to be involded. Larry Silverstein has been video recorded saying

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.""

Ladies and gentlemen, the New York Fire Department does not do controlled demolitions! A controlled demolition takes a minimum of two weeks of planning conducted by a company that specializes in them. It's not done in the span of a few hours by the NYFD! It's insane to believe this garbage, even a minimal amount of research will tear holes in this story!

There were also historically unprecidented numbers of put options placed on the airlines involed in the weeks prior to the attacks.

Just think about standard crime scene investigation.
Rule Number 1: Preserve Evidence. At ground zero, BEFORE any investigators were allowed to go in, all of the metal was cut up and sent to China on cargo ships.

Rule Number 2: Family and friends should be questioned immediately. On the day of September 11th 2001, members of the Bin Laden family who were inside the United States were allowed to board airplanes and were flown out of the country while every other flight was grounded.

Rule Number 3: Look for motive, who stands to gain, follow the money. No bid contracts for Haliburton, truck loads of money shipped over to Iraq and disappearing, massive amounts of gold mysteriously found under the towers, the likely destructions of SEC files for Enron and stock fraud investigations of Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and others in the SEC office in Building 7.

Government involvement in 911 is a conspiracy theory? I'll tell you what sounds like a conspiracy theory. A man in a cave in Afghanistan who was on dialysis in an American hospital just weeks prior managed to plan an attack so complex in nature that he was able to make NORAD stand down for the ONLY TIME IN IT'S HISTORY! Then the hijackers who could barely fly a cessna managed to fly jumbo jet with such precision that they hit two sky scrapers in downtown new york in such a way that their passports would conveniently fly out of the massive fireball and land on the streets below for FBI Agents to find, but the black boxes which are actually designed to survive the crash cant be recovered. THAT IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY, and a piss poor one at that.

[c1ue]

Re: The truth about 911

Well, the first 38 slides are a complete waste of time so far.

So while that monster 583 slide presentation loads, I'll do some back of the envelope calculations:

First, the WTC buildings, like most skyscrapers, were built on a central steel column with the floors hanging from suspended beams off said column. Specifically 47 columns of steel - 14 inches per side - and composed of steel plates. I.e. NOT a solid column of steel. It is notable that the steel in the upper floors was definitely thinner and weaker steel than at the base.

1) 747 fuel load: 500,000 pounds of jet fuel
2) Energy content of jet fuel: 43.5 MJ/kg = 19.77 MJ/lb, or 18,700 BTU/lb

Total energy available from 747 fuel: about 9 billion BTUs or about 9.5 trillion joules (assuming some fuel was used to fly to New York)

Specific heat of iron (assume same for steel): 0.72 (i.e. % of energy applied to a material which raises its temperature)

Melting point of steel: around 1500 degrees C

Energy needed to raise steel from room temperature (20 degrees C) to melting point: ~1500 * .72 * 1000 (g/kg) = ~ 1 million J

So there was something on the order of 1 billion times the energy needed melt 1 kg of steel in each 747, or 1 million times the energy needed to melt 1000 kg of steel.

The 9/11 debunkers I've seen so far argue that the normal burning temperature of jet fuel is under 300 degrees C, therefore the jet fuel could not have melted the structural members of the WTC.

However, I don't know if said numbers apply to 500,000 lbs of jet fuel crashed into a building at hundreds of miles per hour.

There are numerous possible ways the fuel could have increased its destructive potential: the fuel air bomb being one example.

In this scenario - the fuel ignited in some areas but spread out in a mist in other areas. As flame reached these other areas, an FAE explosion resulted. From Wiki:

The overpressure within the detonation can reach 430 lbf/in² (3 MPa, 30 bar) and the temperature can be 4500 to 5400 °F (2500 to 3000 °C).

Thus this is one way the destruction could have occurred. Note that even jet fuel won't burn much without a sufficient supply of air; the 500K lbs would not have ignited all at once.

Another mechanism would be the firestorm: normal fuel burning is limited by air supply. In a firestorm, the initial burn is sufficient to raise a column of heated air (and burn byproducts) which moves so fast that it causes a region of lower pressure at its base. This in turn sucks in air from the sides and also increases air supply and the heat column.

From Wiki:

Quite literally a tornado of fire, this phenomenon created a huge outdoor blast furnace, containing winds of up to 240 km/h (150 mph) and reaching temperatures of 800 °C (1,500 °F).

Note that these temperatures are from burning wood in a city over a large area. It is very possible that jet fuel firestorm temperatures would be higher especially in the confines of a building - although the confines might make a firestorm impossible.

All in all I don't see the 2 largest WTC buildings being destroyed by a crashing 747 as being impossible. The scale of effects there simply has never been seen before.

The 3rd building: WTC 7 - is less clear: no planes crashed into it nor did it sustain extremely heavy fire damage although there was damage from falling WTC 1 debris.

There was also a 24000 gallon diesel fuel tank there though...

The debunkers noting the curiously neat collapse of the building do have a point, but then again there is the possibility of substandard materials, poor design, or even a deliberate destruction once it was clear the building was damaged and could collapse and damage other buildings.

[marvenger]

Re: Caution

[quote=tombat1913;44397]
It's basic high school science. Those buildings fell at freefall speed, they didn't slowly fall apart as they melted, they just dropped right into their own footprints causing insignificant damage to the surrounding buildings. ZERO RESISTANCE! This fact makes the "pancake" theory absolutely invalid. Once again this is basic high school science.


Great, I'm glad someone has researched this. I've only just started looking into this and on first impression it seemed high school science to me too. But, I need to see people with expertise in this area looking at this objectively and coming up with the same conclusion. I think itulip is a perfect place to see this in action. The main problem is that it's a sure way to career suicide to actively voice these opinions in a 'professional' environment but here on itulip the evidence can be debated and I've got the feeling it will head toward the conclusion that explosives must have been planted in these buildings a long time before the terrorists attacks and I don't think terrorists were good enough to do it themselves.

The perfect free fall of the twin towers convinces me 90%, there's some lingering doubt that my lack of experience in this area means I'm missing something. But the tower 7 collapse is the clincher for me. No plane flew into that building, and we're expected to believe a piss poor fire made the whole building spontaneously collapse. What F$#@$%# BS.

I can see bankers getting so powerful and arrogant that that they believe a new world order of global sefdom is somehow their ordained right, or their right to pursue. it sure has been a character trait shown time and again in the power classes in human history. They feel nothing for you or me. Emergency workers were told it was ok to breathe the air after 911 and now hundreds of them are dead and dead dying from lung conditions, no one was held responsible for this call because it was made to get wall st up and running as soon as possible. These people couldn't give two shits.

"A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated
in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the world--no longer a government of free opinion, no
longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and
duress of small groups of dominant men." --President Woodrow Wilson

If 911 was an inside job, then understanding this I'm sure will have an influence on investment decisions, but hopefully people are interested in this from more than just an investment perspective.

[marvenger]

Re: The truth about 911

in the presentation they show that an ordinary fire in an office, no jet fuel needed, with steel beam supports can sufficiently weaken the steal,but their opinion is that the orgainic and asymetric way afire burns through a building means that the controlled way the building fell is not possible. The building collopsed long after the jet fuel explosion which could be argued to be consistent through a couple of floors perhaps for a few seconds, but I imagine it burbed pretty quickly and then it was just flammable materials of the building burning like any other fire.

Intuitively this makes sense but I imagine you would need some prety sophisticated modelling to prove it.

[metalman]

Re: The truth about 911

in the presentation they show that an ordinary fire in an office, no jet fuel needed, with steel beam supports can sufficiently weaken the steal,but their opinion is that the orgainic and asymetric way afire burns through a building means that the controlled way the building fell is not possible. The building collopsed long after the jet fuel explosion which could be argued to be consistent through a couple of floors perhaps for a few seconds, but I imagine it burbed pretty quickly and then it was just flammable materials of the building burning like any other fire.

Intuitively this makes sense but I imagine you would need some prety sophisticated modelling to prove it.

'an intelligent mind thinks in terms of probabilities first'

the chances of an enemy plowing two fuel-filled airplanes into two towers is low. they won the terrorist act lottery, from their perspective... training, getting past security, execution, etc.

conspiracy theorists claim it's more likely that not only did the terrorists win the lottery AND accomplices placed explosives in the buildings and for some reason waited for hours after the crashes to blow up the buildings from the exact point where the planes happened to hit each building. miraculous! yet millions of people believe this.

[c1ue]

Re: The truth about 911

Couple of things:

1) I have a good friend whose passion is flying. He doesn't believe a 747 can be steered by a relative amateur to hit a building - the plane just isn't very maneuverable - especially at low altitude. He was not able to respond, however, as to whether the autopilot could be set to pass through the space the WTC buildings occupied.

2) 'Free fall' is misleading; a sufficiently dense object also falls pretty much at free fall speeds. Note the conspiracy theorists measured the falling speed as HIGHER than gravity. Maybe an invisible UFO pushed the building down from the top.

More importantly, while I am not an architect, I can pretty safely say that the layer cake known as the modern skyscraper is built upon a series of fairly small vertical rods which are not intended to withstand sharp, high vertical shocks.

If the burning had been in the top 10 floors and proceeded to collapse WTC 1 & 2, then it would have seemed very odd but the crash occurred roughly at the 2/3rds point. If 1/3 of any reasonably sized building is suddenly severed from support (suddenly being relative in the context of a skyscraper) and dropped down on the rest of the structure, I'm pretty sure the whole darn thing is coming down.

A 3 story brick house with its top floor removed then dropped won't collapse because the bricks themselves comprise the structure, but keep in mind there were only 47 14" square columns composed of metal plates holding the whole thing up. Not solid steel, but plates. These are strong, but 30+ floors of skyscrapers is a lot of weight as well.

Not saying I know if the conspiracy theory is right or wrong, just that I don't see a smoking gun.

As for WTC 7 - all the reports DID show that it was struck by something from WTC 1.

What that is, is not known or at least I haven't seen it. It could have been a gigantic weight, it could have been small debris, whatever. But the strike was definitely asymmetric (one corner of building) and so could have been enough to shatter one or more of WTC 7's support columns.

As for why the buildings collapsed in place - again I am no expert but I do know that each floor in these skyscrapers is basically a plate supported on the central support columns.

In the case of one or more columns failing, the plates on each floor would almost certainly tend to counteract the motion induced by the column failure. I think of the example of putting 47 layers of plates separated by several short thin toothpicks between each layer. A disturbance (i.e. removal of several of the toothpicks) which can send the structure down (i.e. the plates are heavy compared to the cups support capability)seems to result in a fall straight down. Because the plates under the collapsing layers are still suspended by the layers below them, layers which are only separated by very small distances; it is the collapse of the supporting cups which is the layer cake's failure mechanism.

For WTC 7, it may well have been that the shock of the object from WTC1 striking it was enough to collapse the columns. These aren't meant to take vertical shocks, only vertical loads with horizontal shocks (i.e. earthquake).

All in all, the point is that no one has experience with disastrous collapse of major structures like skyscrapers.

[Supercilious]

Re: The truth about 911

I don't want to antagonize c1ue and VIT anymore but I would like to make two additional points:
1) Please do a Google search for "Al Zawahiri" and "Dagestan"
2) Do you remember that outrageous case of extraordinary rendition when a poor german used car salesman was kidnapped, "interrogated" for about a year in secret and then abandoned on some hill in Bosnia? His name was Al Masri and he obviously had nothing to do with 911. Now what is the story behind that story?

Here is the wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_al-Masri

Khalid al-Masri (Arabic: خالد المصري, sometimes transliterated Almasri) is a member of al-Qaeda who may be a native of the former Soviet Union who was instrumental in persuading some of the organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks to go to Afghanistan, and to therefore meet with Osama bin Laden for the first time.
In 1999, Mohammed Atta, Ramzi Binalshibh, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Ziad Jarrah were members of what became known as the Hamburg cell, a tightly-knit group of Islamic radicals dedicated to becoming martyrs. The four had decided to go to Chechnya to fight against the Russians there.
However, Binalshibh and al-Shehhi had a chance meeting on a train in Germany with a man who called himself Khalid al-Masri. Nothing is known about who al-Masri is, or if that is his real name. Al-Masri approached the two and began talking to them about fighting in Chechnya. He explained along the way that he has killed well over 9000 members of the Muslim party. He informed them that it was difficult to get into the area, and many fighters had been turned away.

[Rajiv]

Re: The truth about 911

Here is the wiki on El-Masri the kidnapped German national

Khalid El-Masri (born June 29, 1963) is a German citizen who was detained, flown to Afghanistan, interrogated and allegedly tortured by the CIA for several months as a part of the War on Terror. Afterwards he was released. This extrajudicial detention was apparently due to a misunderstanding that arose concerning the similarity of the spelling of El-Masri's name with the spelling of suspected terrorist al-Masri ^[1] (the names are spelled the same way when using Arabic script).
El-Masri was born in Kuwait to Lebanese parents. He grew up in Lebanon. He based his application for asylum on his membership in "al-Tawhid".^[2] He was granted asylum, and in 1994 he obtained German citizenship through previous marriage with a German woman. In 1996, he married a fellow Lebanese and has several children.^[3]

Contents [hide] 1 Capture 2 Afghanistan detention 3 Release 4 Subsequent events related to his capture 5 Arson incident and other legal troubles 6 External links 7 References 8 See also

Capture

El-Masri travelled from his home in Ulm to go on vacation in Skopje at the end of 2003. He was detained by Macedonian border officials on December 31, 2003, because his name was identical (except for variations in Roman transliteration) to that of Khalid al-Masri, an alleged mentor to the al-Qaeda Hamburg cell who has not been apprehended, and because of suspicion that his German passport was a forgery. He was held in a motel in the Republic of Macedonia for over three weeks and questioned about his activities, his associates, and the mosque he attended in Ulm.


The Macedonian authorities also contacted the local CIA station, who in turn contacted the agency's headquarters in Langley, Virginia. A December 4, 2005, article in the Washington Post said that an argument arose within the CIA over whether they should remove him from the Republic of Macedonia in an extraordinary rendition. The decision to do so was made by the head of the al Qaeda division of the CIA's Counter-terrorism Center on the basis of a hunch he was involved in terrorism.^[4] The local authorities released him on January 23, 2004 and American security officials, described in an MSNBC article as members of a "black snatch team", came to Skopje, and detained him. El-Masri alleges that they beat him, stripped him naked, drugged him, and gave him an enema. He was then dressed in a diaper and a jumpsuit, and flown to Baghdad, then immediately to "the salt pit", a covert CIA interrogation center in Afghanistan which contained prisoners from Pakistan, Tanzania, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.^[5]

[GRG55]

Re: The truth about 911

Couple of things:

1) I have a good friend whose passion is flying. He doesn't believe a 747 can be steered by a relative amateur to hit a building - the plane just isn't very maneuverable - especially at low altitude. He was not able to respond, however, as to whether the autopilot could be set to pass through the space the WTC buildings occupied...

I have a brother who flys for an air carrier (and is type rated on the B767, which is the type that took off from Logan (AA Flt 11) and ended up in the North Tower). I am also a licenced pilot (34 yrs). He doesn't think it would be that difficult to teach someone to fly wings level, turns, ascend/decend in a commercial airplane, but figures developing the skill to get the airplane from 29,000 ft (the altitude that Boston Air Traffic say they could no longer get a response from the pilots) back down to skyscraper height, on the right heading and in the right location would probably require some simulator time. So the question is, who supplied the simulator?

FWIW, what he and I are really impressed with is the plane that was crashed into the Pentagon. It's one thing to fly into an object, like the WTC, in more or less level flight (pilots do that all the time, flying into hills and mountains in bad weather, for example). It's quite another to hit a specific point on the ground in flight (as opposed to landing) configuration. Whoever did that was either extraordinarily lucky, or practiced that maneuver in a sim over and over again until they could do it fairly consistently.

2) 'Free fall' is misleading; a sufficiently dense object also falls pretty much at free fall speeds. Note the conspiracy theorists measured the falling speed as HIGHER than gravity. Maybe an invisible UFO pushed the building down from the top.

More importantly, while I am not an architect, I can pretty safely say that the layer cake known as the modern skyscraper is built upon a series of fairly small vertical rods which are not intended to withstand sharp, high vertical shocks.

If the burning had been in the top 10 floors and proceeded to collapse WTC 1 & 2, then it would have seemed very odd but the crash occurred roughly at the 2/3rds point. If 1/3 of any reasonably sized building is suddenly severed from support (suddenly being relative in the context of a skyscraper) and dropped down on the rest of the structure, I'm pretty sure the whole darn thing is coming down.

A 3 story brick house with its top floor removed then dropped won't collapse because the bricks themselves comprise the structure, but keep in mind there were only 47 14" square columns composed of metal plates holding the whole thing up. Not solid steel, but plates. These are strong, but 30+ floors of skyscrapers is a lot of weight as well.

Not saying I know if the conspiracy theory is right or wrong, just that I don't see a smoking gun.

As for WTC 7 - all the reports DID show that it was struck by something from WTC 1.

What that is, is not known or at least I haven't seen it. It could have been a gigantic weight, it could have been small debris, whatever. But the strike was definitely asymmetric (one corner of building) and so could have been enough to shatter one or more of WTC 7's support columns.

As for why the buildings collapsed in place - again I am no expert but I do know that each floor in these skyscrapers is basically a plate supported on the central support columns.

In the case of one or more columns failing, the plates on each floor would almost certainly tend to counteract the motion induced by the column failure. I think of the example of putting 47 layers of plates separated by several short thin toothpicks between each layer. A disturbance (i.e. removal of several of the toothpicks) which can send the structure down (i.e. the plates are heavy compared to the cups support capability)seems to result in a fall straight down. Because the plates under the collapsing layers are still suspended by the layers below them, layers which are only separated by very small distances; it is the collapse of the supporting cups which is the layer cake's failure mechanism.

For WTC 7, it may well have been that the shock of the object from WTC1 striking it was enough to collapse the columns. These aren't meant to take vertical shocks, only vertical loads with horizontal shocks (i.e. earthquake).

All in all, the point is that no one has experience with disastrous collapse of major structures like skyscrapers.

Couldn't agree more. These are column loads. Take a straw and push straight down on it; it will hold quite a force. Kink the straw, reduce it's compressive strength (by burning part of it away) or apply the load at just a very slight angle to vertical, and the straw collapses easily. Columns have to be held exactly vertical to work, once the column is compromised, or the lateral support holding it in place is compromised, it's bye, bye structure.

[marvenger]

Re: The truth about 911

[quote=c1ue;44449]Couple of things:

Thanks for your thoughts c1ue

Just going to add my 2 cents to some of points.

He was not able to respond, however, as to whether the autopilot could be set to pass through the space the WTC buildings occupied.

The finer points of how the attack happened is going to involve a lot of conjecture so I'd prefer just to stick to trying to figure out if it's physically possible for the buildings to fall the way it did without controlled demolition. But if autopilot is the only way to fly the plane into the building then charges could have been placed from where the plan was to hit or the whole building could have been rigged and some system used to only blow away the support from where the plane hit ex post; i don't know.


Note the conspiracy theorists measured the falling speed as HIGHER than gravity. Maybe an invisible UFO pushed the building down from the top.

The measure was slighty higher than gravity and the error was within the standard error of measurement.

More importantly, while I am not an architect, I can pretty safely say that the layer cake known as the modern skyscraper is built upon a series of fairly small vertical rods which are not intended to withstand sharp, high vertical shocks.

Agreed, but the impact did not bring the building down according to the official explanation, it was the fire. The site argues that fires dont burn uniformly through the building and hence in the event of collapse the collapse will not be uniform. the path of least resistance will not be straight down.


But the strike was definitely asymmetric (one corner of building) and so could have been enough to shatter one or more of WTC 7's support columns.

Again if strike was asymetric, then why did the building collapse in on itself perfectly. Demolishers need huge amounts of training and experience to do this, why would random chunks of a falling building do this, long after it was actually hit. The fire was tiny and can't be the explanataton when you see the photo in the presentation of another steel framed building in brazil I think where the whole thing was a raging inferno and still standing up, it was probably a fair bit smallet than WTC7 though.


Because the plates under the collapsing layers are still suspended by the layers below them

This is why they are saying free fall is impossible I think. there is still resistance from below so the building falling at the speed of gravity is impossible.

For WTC 7, it may well have been that the shock of the object from WTC1 striking it was enough to collapse the columns. These aren't meant to take vertical shocks, only vertical loads with horizontal shocks (i.e. earthquake).

Well building them earthquake proof must make them pretty strong because they held up well after the planes hit. I can understand the fire weakening the steel and and causing collapse, but the perfect way the buildings fell and free fall still pose big problems for me. WTC7 makes no sense to me at all other than if it was a controlled demolition.

quote]

[Rajiv]

Re: The truth about 911

FWIW, what he and I are really impressed with is the plane that was crashed into the Pentagon. It's one thing to fly into an object, like the WTC, in more or less level flight (pilots do that all the time, flying into hills and mountains in bad weather, for example). It's quite another to hit a specific point on the ground in flight (as opposed to landing) configuration. Whoever did that was either extraordinarily lucky, or practiced that maneuver in a sim over and over again until they could do it fairly consistently.

You might find this video from Pilots for 911 Truth interesting