reply to post by TruthOut25
First off "an inside job" doesn't necessarily mean our government.
So, to debate your OP is very easy! We can crush that point right away.
Now, it is also easy to rule out the local involvement, because the firemen were rushing up the stairs when the first building fell. Obviously the
local authorities were not privy to information.
BUT, the fact that the experts on the scene were firefighters, and firefighters battle blazes in tall buildings quite frequently, and they deemed it
safe to go up, that tells us that the building did not fall simply because of fire. The firefighters were well aware that this was a jet-fuel
(kerosene) fire, and they were well aware of the structure, floor plan, age, and materials in the building. Their expert opinion was that no danger
of collapse was present. These guys are familiar with much, much hotter fires from chemicals and and accelerants, and they know that kerosene is
not sufficient to collapse a building.
Now, as for the "pancake" collapse. There are literally thousands of videos of buildings that do not pancake collapse. Even controlled demolitions
sometimes fail to produce a pancake collapse. If the fire had melted the steel girders on those floors, the girders would have given way, and those
floors would have collapsed unevenly and fallen to the side. It is absolutely impossible that all the supporting girders collapsed simultaneously.
The heat from room to room would have been dramatically different, and the steel structures would have been at varying degrees of structural
integrity. No way they all gave at once, and came down simultaneously, and produced an impossible pancake effect.
Now, as for the steel structures. There is data in another thread, where I researched the steel, the fire retardent, and the concrete encasement. It
would have taken 100x more heat than kerosene is capable of, and dozens of hours of exposure to that heat before the steel could have melted. Also,
lets not forget that all that black smoke was evidence of a severly damped fire. In other words it did not have sufficient air flow to be burning
efficiently. Even at optimal conditions it would not burn hot enough, but in damped conditions it is even more impossible! It is absolutely
physically impossible for that fire to melt those beams in that time frame.
Some may argue one piece of the possibility, but NO ONE can say that
that fire, in a building of that structure, in that time frame could cause that collapse.
So, how much further would you like to debate. Why amateur pilots couldn't have hit that target? Why the insurance was upped, the owners didn't
make their meetings that morning, GS shorted the airlines, Bush ignored the call, Cheney was in charge of Norad, the existing terror drills causing
confusion, or the news reporting the collapse of Bldg 7 prematurely? Or is it acceptable just to say that a 1 in a million chance of any one of those
happening, becomes a 1 in a kazillion chance of them all happening at the same moment.
Some may not realize that chaos theory gives odds of silly things, for instance a 747 materializing out of thin air in my front yard. There is a
statistical probability of that happening. Out of all the atoms in the make up of that plane, and all the atoms in the Universe, it is highly likely
that at some point, that plane will materialize by a random alignment of atoms! In fact, it is more likely than all of those odd random coincidences
occuring simultaneously on 9/11. So, I will believe the official story the day a 747 appears on my front lawn!
[edit on 16-7-2010 by getreadyalready]