And most simply, the way the buildings collapsed is not consisent with a bomb scenario.

you idiots. steel may not melt at high temperature but it becomes more plastic causing increased deformations at high temperature (in other words, it gets weaker). the distribution of weight in the building would be thrown complete askew, causes complete failure of certain structural members, that would in turn create a chain reaction in which all structural columns would fail.

any structural engineer will tell you this. there isn't an intelligent structural engineer in the world who would tell you otherwise. i have a degree in civil engineering that says so.

But this was more than your ordinary fire damage.

there are some good photos and a better refute of Loose Change here: http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html

I know we have our differences on occasion, but I love you.

most significantly, because the crash/explosion blew off all of the fireproofing insulation (as mentioned in your previous quote)

if there's anything to learn from this accident, it's that fireproofing also needs to be resilient to explosions.

Well then the collapse would have been adjacent with this theory, the building would have collapsed at its weakest point, even though the hottest the steel could have ever been would have been when the jetfuel initially burned which would have only been for moments. This does not explain the collapse from the bottom nor the propelled pockets of air characterisitc from building demolition.

Hmmm building fires never seemed to have done this before... and so quickly too.

check out another building fire that lasted for days, and guess what, it didn't collapse.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html

The American government has benefited from it. We have waged two on going wars, that bring a great deal of revenue to interested parties (friends) who love to rebuild what their country has destroyed. As well as increased revenue for arms manufacturuers and everyone who profits from war.

Considering how much money is being spent (wasted) on protecting us from terrorism... this is a great article that illustrates how likely you are to suffer from it.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology...tw=wn_index_29

A few thousand American lives obviously aren't very valuable... how many have died in Iraq already?

That there on the left is bad photoshop - nearly as bad as the Reuters photographer fired for implanting fake smoke into his Lebanon shots last month.

http://911research.wtc7.net/

Probably the best website about 911 Research

Length /= effect

I can build a campfire for a week and have it burn, and can light some outrageous chemical and have it burn for 20 seconds, and the campfire damage will be far less severe.

I have seen a building collapse from the inside out after a fire - my father was nearly killed because it. It was extreme heat and structural failure from impact that caused it.

I don't think you believe Southern Plastics in bumfuck East Texas was destroyed because the government, though - however your hypothesis is implying the exact same.

The towers did not collapse from the bottom.

read what has already been posted.

one quick glance at the article you linked to shows that the fires are within the top stories of the building, and secondly, i would speculate that the building is mostly reinforced concrete, unlike the WTC which had steel columns and girders.

as for the rest of your post, i'm not here to argue about what the american government had to benefit from this tragedy (although it seems pretty clear to me that they've done a great job of spinning it to provide a means to whatever end they desire). if you want to talk about government deception, i'd suggest you look at the other front of the american war machine in iraq. my advice: impeach your president.

what makes you say it's photoshopped?

because of the bulge in the left hand picture? that's just deformation in the steel beams caused by the collapsing structure (better seen in the right hand picture).

although i have no real experience with photoshop i fail to see why it shouldn't be believed. there's really no reason for anyone to photoshop it.

if you read the article it will provide some context for the image.

I couldnt seem to find it, but do they address the flash that preceded the 2nd plane hitting the towers? I may be confusing conspiracy flicks.

That's very interesting and the bigger conspiracy would be changing the laws of physics.

The black smoke shows the fire inside the 2nd tower lacked oxygen. This does suggest the fire was no more than 600 degrees farenheit, not celsius, and since the steel in the towers is known not to melt until 2000 degrees Farenheit or so, the scientist purporting the building fell as a result of the fires are suspect.

i didn't read anything about it, nor do i remember it being in Loose Change.

they address a bunch of blow-outs that occur on lower floors as the building collapses, but those are pretty explainable anyway.

I most likely can't articulate this well here, but the layers of smoke on the corner of the building (toward the center of the photo) are identical - it looks exactly like a smudge and blur tool effect in Photoshop to duplicate a background. It works on nearly everything except smoke - smoke does not have patterns that follow a typical smudge movement.

If you aren't completely sure what I mean by smudge, it's a way of copying a part of an image and reproducing it in another area. I could be wrong, of course, but that looks EXACTLY like the faked Reuters photographs I mentioned a bit earlier.

Nevermind, Im thinking about "In Plane Site".

did you read ANYTHING that was previously posted??

"The black smoke shows parts of, or even most of, the fire inside the 2nd tower lacked oxygen."

yeah, okay, i know what you're talking about. i've done taht much in photoshop - it's pretty basic...i'll take another look at it.

-> the holocaust

Ahmadinejad, is that you?

My favorite conspiracy is last year's Super Bowl being lost by Seattle.

Blue Star:

well resourced, however, that's a long winded explanation that could very well be complete and utter bullshit. They had to come up with an explanation that works with their theory of how the buiding came down against simple physics (steel can't melt at 600 degrees F).

Im not saying it's untrue what they say, but it's suspect and the legaleze explanations sounds a bit too bureaucratic for comfort.

mkultra and mknaomi are pretty great.

maybe you're just an idiot.

ever consider that.

The only conspiracy here is the question of who put snakes on those planes, and how did they know the snakes would be intelligent enough to commandeer them to commit acts of terrorism.