15 pages and not much opposition coming by to argue. It would be nice at some point to take all the best questions and put them in one long list. Then, offer a challenge to the debunkers to debunk every item on it.

I CAME HERE TO LEARN, AND NOT ARGUE. ALL IVE LEARNED SO FAR IS HOW TO ARGUE. SO FAR IVE SEEN SCIENCE REBUT ITSELF AND LOTS OF NAME CALLING. ALTHOUGH I MAY NOT BE AS SMART AS THAT DUDES MONKEY, WHAT IVE GATHERED IS WE ARE ALL BEING LIED TO. EVERY DAY. BY WHO, AND WHY IS WHAT ID LIKE TD OUT.

follow the money, and who will benefit most.

Science, look to the science to set you free. It is the physics that will lead to the truth. You cannot argue with the numbers, the physics are now opening some doors that may lead to the truth. It has now been admitted, by the governments panel that building 7 was in free fall. that would not admit that for a long time but there were just too many cameras on when it went down. The government experts tried to lie, but you cannot lie about the physics so they got caught by the outside experts on the numbers, math does not lie.

If the building was in free fall, the only want that could be was if the building had been taken down with explosives. And you cannot set up the required explosives in one day, so who set the building up to be dropped, or "pulled" days in advance of 9-11?

No fired department or any government agency is trained to collapse a high rise building in on itself so perfectly.

Damn, there I go posting before proof reading, sorry guys, you know what I was saying. : )

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Now lets see I post a link THAT shows a graph of how the STRENGTH of steel changes due to temperature CAN YOU PROVE THE GRAPH is wrong?

No one is saying that the steel lost so much strength from heating that the columns failed. Not even the federal reports are trying to say that. There was nowhere near enough heat energy to heat enough steel, in that short amount of time, for the towers to have failed because of that. Instead, NIST's hypothesis is that the trusses in the floors expanded and caused deformations, stress, buckling, etc. in that way. That's what their hypothesis was anyway, but they never bothered to test or validate it at all, so it's really still up the air unless you don't mind sticking with theories.

I have one simple question to ask the "truthers"...and it doesn't even require an answer, just think about it HONESTLY.

1. If the "official story" was eventually proven to be 100% TRUE, would you be disappointed, even on the slightest level?

Originally posted by amfirst
Also, the building never fell at a free fall rate, the truthers lied a cut out the begining part of the callaspes, they forgot to included the portion where the building was buckling

What a bunch of nonsense. You're confusing "collapse acceleration" with "collapse time." Simple correction here: instead of just measuring an amount of time, and then averaging the acceleration (which is what you're suggesting), do an actual instantaneous acceleration measurement. It's been done, NIST has even done it (and agree that it free-fell), and the thing's roof accelerated at free-fall. Not that that should mean anything to you, just like all the "debunkers" that realize the building totally free-fell but still won't roll anything over in their brains.

I'm a 9/11 truther but I didn't start out that way. For the first couple of years afterwards, any time someone mentioned an inside job conspiracy my reaction was disbelief. Then I saw Loose Change and I was shocked to say the least. What really clinched it for me was the explanation by experts in physics that a steel reinforced building could NOT possibly collapse AND have all of it's concrete(not to mention just about everything else) pulverized into dust at the same time. These guys know what they are talking about. When a concrete building collapses, you get a pile of rubble that has distinct layers of concrete. If the official hypothesis that that the buildings started a pancake type of collapse was true, then the central core containing the 47 huge steel support beams should still have been standing. In other words, what we should have seen is the steel skeleton of the building still poking up into the sky with the bottom third or quarter of the building consisting of pancaked concrete floors. Falling concrete doesn't pulverize into dust. That requires the kind of shockwave that only explosives can produce. One physicist said that the actual collapse of the twin towers was like a tree turning into sawdust from the top down.

Now what the debunkers and 9/11 truth skeptics fail to realize or refuse to admit, is that the entire official explanation (by Bush himself) is an all or nothing kind of proposal. Bush has said that everthing that happened on 9/11 as all the result of Bin Laden's 19 hijackers PERIOD END OF STORY. That means that if even one part of what happened that day, can be proved to be something other than what the Official explanation says it is, then the whole thing is suspect. You can't have the Pentagon explosion be something other than the crash of a commercial airliner (for example) and still claim that Flight 93, the twin towers and WTC7 were still the work of Bin Laden. Either Bin laden caused it all or he didn't cause any of it. My personal theory is that Bin Laden is a scapegoat, that Atta and his boys(if they were actually on those planes at all) were patsies duped into carrying out simple hijackings, that the planes were flown into the buildings by remote control and that rogue elements within the CIA and Pentagon aided or maybe even controlled by the Mossad(who by their own admission knew about the event in advance) made sure that NORAD jets would not be able to intercept the planes that hit the twin towers. I also think it's highly likely that Henry Silverstein, who has close ties to Israel, was tipped off by the Mossad ahead of time so that he could lease the buildings and rake in a huge windfall from the insurance. I don't believe Bush knew. When he was told in the school, he looks to me like a dear caught in the headlights. I'm sure Cheney knew. Webster Tarpley makes a very convincing case that 9/11 was not only a false flag attack to justify attacking Afganistan but also a failed coup attempt by Cheney and his co-conspirators to assassinate Bush at his hotel early on 9/11 before he even got to the school. If you follow the money trail, it becomes even more absurd that Bin laden organized this attack all on his own. The profits made from the purchase of put options just prior to 9/11 worldwide has been estimated to exceed $15 BILLION and a lot of the puts were purchased thru a couple of financial institutions that have a long history of involvement with the CIA and the German intelligence agency the DVD. The notion that there's a couple of million dollars in profits sitting in an account that no one has claimed yet is absurd. I've bought and sold options in the past and I can tell you that financial insitutions won't set up an account unless they know EXACTLY who they are dealing with, ESPECIALLY if millions of $ of option purchase orders go thru that account.

Computer hard drives recoved from the WTC wreckage were found to contain evidence of financial transactions that profited from the attacks. The pools of molten steel that were found at the bottom of the wreckage SEVEN weeks after the attack could NOT possibly have been caused by burning jet fuel and could only have been caused by thermite. A lot of the gold that was stored under the WTC was never found. Eyewitnesses reported seeing the gold removed by flatbed trucks guarded by soldiers the weekend before. The Pentagon and Flight 93 are less clear to me but there are plenty of questions that have NOT been answered there as well. Isn't it interesting that the civilian financial analysts, who were given the task by Congress to find out where the unaccounted for Trillions in Pentagon spending went to, just happened to be working (and therefore killed) in the section of the pentagon that was destroyed. Isn't it also interesting that the senior Financial person at the Pentagon, used to run a company that specialized in remote control of aircraft technology? There are a lot more questions that have been asked but not answered. Any reasonable person, with common sense, who actually does their homework will come to the conclusion that 9/11 didn't happen the way the government says it did. I don't know of anyone, who has done in depth research and then has concluded that the official explanation is correct.

Originally posted by Chronogoblin

Why doesn't W look suprised when he is in that classroom and he learns of the attacks?

I don't see suprise in his face, I see nervousness.

Chrono

It's all speculation of corse, but I'll agree that it doesn't look like surprise. What it looks like, IMO, is someone who knew something was going on but wasn't "in the loop" if you will.

It's almost like anger, but at what? The "terrorists", or the people who are really in charge that played him like they played all the rest of us.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

I would suggest you do some research on the properties of thermite and underground fires. I would also point out that to date, no one has shown any proof of molten steel. Most accounts I have seen, report molten metal, and that was seen by a friend of a friend...Regardless of who saw it, it was most likely aluminum which has a much lower melting point than structural steel.

So your saying 4 weeks after 911 there might have been molten aluminum under all the debrie?

Can you explain how this could be possible?