Yahoo News reports story: "1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


No... You see I don't have to get over it. I have REALITY on my side. You are the ones who will never see your precious theories come to any sort of legitimacy. Cheers.

Originally posted by dR. kNOWITALL
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

 

No... You see I don't have to get over it. I have REALITY on my side. You are the ones who will never see your precious theories come to any sort of legitimacy. Cheers.

Your a bit like Hooper! yea believe B L did it from a cave dont yea? an you'r wonderful Government woulden harm an American fly!

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


When I mean BASIC PHYSICS -- I mean something that you can test with a simple model.

We don't need to consider the STRUCTURE involved -- merely that there is a structure, and it's got floors -- with presumably, vertical supports (it did).

The BASIC EXPERIMENT:

Take ten balls on a pool table and line them up.

Use a piston to control the amount of force/acceleration.

Apply a force sufficient to one Pool Ball such that it hits each other ball in succession.

Repeat this experiment with ONE BALL.

>> Result: 10 balls takes more time than 1 ball to move across the table.
>
>> What does this mean? Even though floors of a building are not billiard balls -- and for purpose of discussion, let's just assume that regardless of the structure or "steel grade" that they would have MORE resistance than a ball on a pool table -- can we at least not FUDGE that concept?

It means that, a free-fall collapse due to a collapse of the TOP PART of a building (a pancake collapse) CANNOT happen! Now, you can mince words and say it was 3 seconds SLOWER -- but really, it isn't being dropped from a tower, there is SOME resistance in the initial collapse but ZERO on the trip down.

We know this easily from the video. As the floors pick up speed, the nearly keep up with falling Debris -- this means that the lower floors MUST HAVE been destroyed just as the floors above were reaching them -- there was no evidence of the above floors breaking the lower floors.

A much more experienced engineer from MIT said it would take at LEAST 60 seconds -- but more likely upwards of 90 to collapse a building that size with a pancake. I think his name was Edgars or something (there are over 1200 that we are talking about today--right?) -- but anyway, people seem to have a psychological block to just BELIEVE what they see.


The building slumped in the center on TOP seconds before the collapse -- that is NOT POSSIBLE with anything but a demolition by implosion AFAIK. If it were the floors and curtain walls -- they would be slumping first and dragging on the core. Again, if the floors are bringing down the structure -- they would be tearing away from the Core -- which was not compromised except at the top (and even with that, jet fuel and an aluminum airplane "cutting it?" Not possible -- it's like taking out a steel girder with aluminum cans).

I think I've explained this to death. I'm a science buff, and I have hundreds of things I like to dabble in -- I don't feel I need to have someone in a lab coat tell me up from down. I've successfully shown my "common sense" and puzzled out a few things on my own in my life.

I have to wonder when you can just simply look at "reaction mass and time" and realize that it TAKES TIME to collapse a building by its own weight -- it isn't really rocket science. I believe that there are a lot of people who are NOT really versed in Science in this country, and there are a lot of intellectually dishonest people on TV.

In every case, when something goes wrong in this country -- it seems that the same shills who are ALMOST ALWAYS WRONG are attacking the argument. So if Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity for instance think that 9/11 was because of airplanes, that Global Warming isn't taking place, that we needed to invade Iraq, that we don't need economic stimulus or public works projects to get our economy going ... etcetera, and believe me, all this stuff that I talked about the Bush administration doing -- was denied by the same deniars as always and as usual, they were 100% wrong.

The Pro-War, Pro-Corporate, and Anti-Investigation group, is against the "Truthers" and along with Physics, that should give anyone not under a rock a lot of good, healthy suspicion that the truth is the OPPOSITE of what the Shills are preaching.

>> But this country is so immersed in Religion, Fear, and Greed -- that the Status Quo and ignorance are passing as Patriotism.

reply to post by dR. kNOWITALL


What reality do you have on your side?

You honestly believe that Norad was offline, the command structure was displaced, the president heard the country was under attack and continued reading a kids book, the secret service heard the country was under attack and they didn't evacuate the president, the FAA and airlines heard there were hijackings and they didn't take precautions, there were fighter jets in the air, and they didn't respond, a jet crashed into a building designed to withstand a jet crash, and caught on fire in a building designed to withstand more than 12 hours of the hottest type of chemical fire, but somehow it miraculously fell down, while a similar jet crashed into the Pentagon and left a minor hole that workers were able to walk through and wonder what happened?

There was a story of a subcontractor inside the Pentagon, that supposedly was thrown 80 feet by the impact, slammed into a closet, the door closed, the explosion followed but he was protected, and then he got up, and walked down the hall and out of the hole in the wall with unburned jet fuel on his clothes, relatively uninjured and he was one of the main eyewitnesses verifying it was a plane crash at the Pentagon. Really? Hollywood has made more realistic action scenes than that!

What reality have you seen? None of this stacks up in the reality I live in. Of course, my world is bound by physics, math, and chemistry. I suppose if I lived in the pop-culture mtv world, I would believe whatever the TV told me to believe, and then the reality would be whatever they tell me it is.

reply to post by dR. kNOWITALL


So ho do you know this mentality so well? You wrote no adjectives, I think maybe the word "dogmatic" or fanatical" would fit.

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE

Originally posted by dR. kNOWITALL
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

 

No... You see I don't have to get over it. I have REALITY on my side. You are the ones who will never see your precious theories come to any sort of legitimacy. Cheers.

Your a bit like Hooper! yea believe B L did it from a cave dont yea? an you'r wonderful Government woulden harm an American fly!

Kudos to Dave,
Maybe it requires a Genius, to notice that we are talking about the same BUSH government, that put a bunch of friends and crooks in charge of oversight of Oil Companies -- the very same group that was caught enjoying Meth and Orgies with the people they were SUPPOSED to be overseeing. The same group that did NOT enforce regulations on BP. Then we've got an oil gusher deep in the Gulf of Mexico, that may or may not kill off the sea life.


I don't know WHAT they were protecting me from. They seemed to really do a great job letting Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora -- "Oops!" They ignored security threats and about 4 foreign security agencies about the Bin Laden threat. Dick Cheney's ONLY meeting about terrorism happened ONCE after the event. And his ONLY military drill was on 9/11/2001.


>> I'm so tired of this. There was at least one huge malfeasance or sell out each and every week during the Bush administration -- usually 3. And of course, when they failed to react to Katrina -- we were all conspiracy theorists to think it was the Bush government's fault. Funny how many contractors who donated to them got jobs building gentrified homes with illegal foreign labor and huge government funds to CONTRACT to below minimum wage workers.

Don't make me relive the DAILY insults to my intelligence, insanity and love of humanity that I endured each and every day as Bush apologists -- on every damn issue would say; "You're a crazy conspiracy theorist" -- then when some more evidence comes out; "That's not proof" -- then when the proof would come; "it's an exaggeration" -- then we find out it was worse than that; "Look at that Liberal that was involved" or "the Weathermen group did the same thing in the '60s!" -- then of course you would get a few alternative theories to explain how it was all reasonable; "A few rotten Apples used the same techniques as GitMo and Afghanistan" --- then of course; "It was necessary to PROTECT US!" --- or "You don't understand that Freedom isn't Free and being weak helps the Terrorists!" -- and then of course, it would start to die out with a "It was no big deal" and of course, Sean Hannity would volunteer to be Waterboarded. But wait -- then the cycle would begin again with the NEW atrocity, which of course is a wild-ass conspiracy theory with no merit; "LOL!"

I think I had over 1,000 conspiracy theories since 2001 -- and like, 99% of them are now facts but "no big deal." Don't we NEED to secure ourselves with internal spying of our public without a court order now -- you know, a few years after "No way is that going on"?

I haven't see this before, there up to the 79th floor an there's no fire? my God how can we go on saying the OS is right an true? lm just an honest man listening to other honest men from the New York Fire Department in this vid an there's something very wrong!
Firefighter's Radio Communications In South Tower,

Where is the blazing fire that melted the steel columns?

Originally posted by babybunnies
Yup, and 3500 scientists prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that man made global warming is real, and I don't believe them, either.

I prefer to believe the ONE scientist who said "the Earth revolves around the Sun".

edit on 10-9-2010 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)

"Prefer to believe" -- that right there seems to be your main problem.

Global Warming is a real problem -- and 9/11 was allowed to or made to happen by the Bush administration AND/OR other parties. Do you KNOW the "one scientist" who figured out the earth revolves around the sun? Humans have figured it out more than once, but the ignorance of Europe during the "Religious" Dark Ages seems to have required Galileo to bring it up again -- though it was NOT a secret amongst intellectuals. Much like "War is a Racket" shouldn't be a secret amongst the well-read.

So there was not ONE SCIENTIST, really. And many scientists have CONFIRMED that the earth does revolve around the sun -- that's the beauty of scientist; hypothesis that can be proved and more importantly DISPROVED by others. Just as there is a consensus on Global Climate Change from all the scientists who matter and a smattering of people backed by some Oil cartels on the other.

The group that posited the concept of the "magic bullet" -- excuse me, the "jet fuel collapses entire skyscraper" is the same one that led us to war, enriched their billionaire friends, and generally has been treating the Constitution like toilet paper.

The same groups against those two issues, are the same groups who are always Pro-Business, Pro-bailing out banks, Pro-war. Their solution to every security issue is to restrict rights. To use force instead of reason. To accuse others rather than justify their actions.

Same pundits, same shills, all well paid.

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
I haven't see this before,

Really? Most truthers have, and most have realized it does not support any theory.

there up to the 79th floor an there's no fire?

What tower was it genius? What floor did the plane hit? What combustibles were in that area? How many DEAD people did he report seeing?

my God how can we go on saying the OS is right an true?

My God, how long will you ignore the facts that are right in front of you?

lm just an honest man

Really, then why would you state something like this?

Where is the blazing fire that melted the steel columns?

If the media catches on to this then i will admittedly deny that the media is not a completely manipulative entity.

Seriously, this illusion has gone on for way too long. Its about time people started understanding the truth.

Im not even saying Bush did it. For all we know Rockefeller hired goonies to put a gun to his head and be the puppeteer but at the end of the day the American people know whats up. They know how far it goes.

The media has nothing left now. You cant call 1200+ architects and engineers kooks.


The only fallback the media had is "would the government really kill its own people?"

You just cant sit back and expect that the government is this perfect entity that has your best interests in mind.

Even if it starts out that way eventually it will corrupt to the point where your interests are at best their last priority.

OK, so nearly 1,300 Engineers and Architects signed this.

What of the 100,000's that didn't?

Go back and Watch the videos. When the 1 tower collapses, it is the top 30-40 stories that tilt sideways and then spreads outward as debris falls, as well as impacting the floors below.

AND teh Debris from the top floor lands on WTC7, smashes thru WTC5 leaving a huge hole, and even leaves pieces of steel to the west in what I think is the AMEX Building.

This was Not a "Controlled Demolition".

If there was such a theory, the Most likely senario would be to take both Towers at once, and have them collapse int "the Bath-Tub" as they call it. All the rubble in 1 place with no damage to other structures.

That is NOT what happened, and is Proven in the Videos. 40 top stories DO NOT tilt and then start a Collapse in "Controoled Demo", You do in layers at a time.

If for every 10-20 floors, we saw explosions all at once, then YES. But NO. That is NOT want happened that day.

Again, nearly 1,300 Professionals say it was, List their Names.

I want to see a List of these folks to verify this.

M

Originally posted by mw451
OK, so nearly 1,300 Engineers and Architects signed this.

What of the 100,000's that didn't?

They probably haven't even read the government reports to begin with.

Why, do you have a list of 1300 people who will put their names on the credibility of the government reports?

If after you listen to this you still believe explosive brought the towers down, then you really need to look at the evidence. This is this week's Veritas Show - 9/11 SPECIAL with Dr. Judy Wood:

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by dR. kNOWITALL

 

What reality do you have on your side?

You honestly believe that Norad was offline, the command structure was displaced, the president heard the country was under attack and continued reading a kids book, the secret service heard the country was under attack and they didn't evacuate the president, the FAA and airlines heard there were hijackings and they didn't take precautions, there were fighter jets in the air, and they didn't respond, a jet crashed into a building designed to withstand a jet crash, and caught on fire in a building designed to withstand more than 12 hours of the hottest type of chemical fire, but somehow it miraculously fell down, while a similar jet crashed into the Pentagon and left a minor hole that workers were able to walk through and wonder what happened?

There was a story of a subcontractor inside the Pentagon, that supposedly was thrown 80 feet by the impact, slammed into a closet, the door closed, the explosion followed but he was protected, and then he got up, and walked down the hall and out of the hole in the wall with unburned jet fuel on his clothes, relatively uninjured and he was one of the main eyewitnesses verifying it was a plane crash at the Pentagon. Really? Hollywood has made more realistic action scenes than that!

What reality have you seen? None of this stacks up in the reality I live in. Of course, my world is bound by physics, math, and chemistry. I suppose if I lived in the pop-culture mtv world, I would believe whatever the TV told me to believe, and then the reality would be whatever they tell me it is.

the best reply ever
seriously

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
........
and who were quickly forgotten when MOST OF THEM, who were in the building, said that they heard explosives going off. The theory that it was "light bulbs" or something might hold water if it was someone's first fire.

.... as i remember correctly they said there were some "explosions"... not that they heard explosives...but nice try to twist the facts... and btw in such large buildings there are maintenance rooms which are full of chemicals which will...guess what?.. explode...

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Then you've got a dozen people who escaped the basement, saying there was a huge blast that went off just before the towers started to fall (with pyroclastic dust in the lobby reported by firemen).

This has been debunked before...

The basement of the towers had generators full of fuel...Part of the burning fuel would have gotten to the basement through elevator shafts and, or air ventillation shafts causing the fuel tanks for the generators to....explode...

As for your claim of "pyroclastic dust"... please... a pyroclastic density current CAN ONLY BE CAUSED BY CERTAIN VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS, or even a larger event like a large meteor hitting Earth, and the currents of hot rock and gas can reach speeds of 450mph...An event like the tragedy that occurred in 911 would not generate ANYWHERE CLOSE enough energy to cause ANY kind of pyroclastic density current... But i see that some people are trying to find more and more "catchy phrases" to try to give more substance to the claims, but in fact it justs shows that this topic is full of exagerations.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

When I mean BASIC PHYSICS -- I mean something that you can test with a simple model.

You cannot test how a skyscrapper would react to a situation like what happened in 911 with a simple model, much less the bad example you used...

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
We don't need to consider the STRUCTURE involved -- merely that there is a structure, and it's got floors -- with presumably, vertical supports (it did).

Oh boy... this is where you fail... YES YOU NEED TO CONSIDER THE STRUCTURE INVOLVED...and that statement right there shows how uninformed you are about topics like this one...

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
It means that, a free-fall collapse due to a collapse of the TOP PART of a building (a pancake collapse) CANNOT happen! Now, you can mince words and say it was 3 seconds SLOWER -- but really, it isn't being dropped from a tower, there is SOME resistance in the initial collapse but ZERO on the trip down.

Oh boy... here we go with the "free fall' claim again... the towers DID NOT collapse in a free fall... and don't try to "mince words" and try to claim "but they fell at almost free-fall"... Either something falls at free-fall, or it doesn't... If it was a "demolition job" like some of you like to claim there wouldn't have been any resistance at all...

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
We know this easily from the video. As the floors pick up speed, the nearly keep up with falling Debris -- this means that the lower floors MUST HAVE been destroyed just as the floors above were reaching them -- there was no evidence of the above floors breaking the lower floors.

.... The debris was picking up speed simply because more, and more weight was falling on top of the other floors below them, hence the floors/walls would be giving less, and less resistance as more and more weight is added... If you actually knew anything about physics you would have known this... BTW, what there was no evidence of is your claim that the "lower floors must have been destroyed just as the floors above were reaching them"...

You sure like to make up claims don't you?... i wonder what will be next?... pyroclastic dust/clouds perhaps?....

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
A much more experienced engineer from MIT said it would take at LEAST 60 seconds -- but more likely upwards of 90 to collapse a building that size with a pancake. I think his name was Edgars or something (there are over 1200 that we are talking about today--right?) -- but anyway, people seem to have a psychological block to just BELIEVE what they see.

Since you tried to use "Global Warming" to your advantage... the IPCC was caught making lies, and they had to admit it, and the main scientist proponents of the AGW claim were caught red handed lying, hiding facts, data, and information, and they were caught even discussing every legal and illegal way to keep people in the dark about what has been happening with Climate Change... So we do know that just because people are scientists doesn't mean they are neither telling the truth, nor does it mean they must be right...

There have been MANY other scientists who have explained why the WTC collapsed the way they did, and they say there is NO EVIDENCE to claim there was any foul play...

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst...
they would be tearing away from the Core -- which was not compromised except at the top (and even with that, jet fuel and an aluminum airplane "cutting it?" Not possible -- it's like taking out a steel girder with aluminum cans).

Jebus...you really love to make claims not based on reality whatsoever don't you?... Passenger planes are made from more than just aluminum...and they are not like "aluminum cans"... Not to mention the sheer force of the impacts which caused earthquake stations near the WTC to register the planes hitting the towers...

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst...
I think I've explained this to death. I'm a science buff,

A science buff who doesn't seem to know much about science, and sorry to tell you but your common sense makes no sense at all... "We don't need to consider the STRUCTURE involved"?.... Sorry but to make an informed decision WE DO NEED TO CONSIDER THE STRUCTURE INVOLVED... Not to metion the fact that it is obvious that you like to make claims which have no base on reality... the WTC collapse DID NOT CAUSE pyroclastic dust/ clouds....

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst...
I have to wonder when you can just simply look at "reaction mass and time" and realize that it TAKES TIME to collapse a building by its own weight -- it isn't really rocket science. I believe that there are a lot of people who are NOT really versed in Science in this country, and there are a lot of intellectually dishonest people on TV.

... First of all... If you think "it is not rocket science" i guess you must be an structural engineer right?... Taking not of the claims you have made I AM SURE you are not a structural engineer... I also have to wonder what sort of science you have studied to have made the claims you made which make no sense at all.

Second of all... the time it takes a building to collapse depends on MANY variables... but you seem to think that they must fall down at the same time nomatter what happens...

The WTC towers were hit at different heights, and the impact of the planes, plus the sockwave of the esplosions, the weight of the planes, which did not dissapear either, plus the weakened steel columns due to fire, plus the fact that there were several floors above the areas of impact, ALL hepled in bringing down the towers... Another fact is that the second tower that was hit was the first to collapse, and it collapsed first because the plane crased several floors below where the other plane had crashed into the first tower hit. Since there were more floors above the area of impact on the second tower that was hit, it means that there was more weight causing more pressure on the weakened steel columns and this would have caused this tower to collapse faster than the first one which was hit several floors above. So you see, the rate of collapse of a skyscrapper DEPENDS ON MANY VARIABLES/FACTORS...and no true MIT graduate would be so stupid as to claim "they must have taken them exactly 90 seconds to collapse"...

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
So if Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity for instance think that 9/11 was because of airplanes, that Global Warming isn't taking place, that we needed to invade Iraq, that we don't need economic stimulus or public works projects to get our economy going ... etcetera, and believe me, all this stuff that I talked about the Bush administration doing -- was denied by the same deniars as always and as usual, they were 100% wrong.

lol...oh boy...the bs that one has to read daily... First of all NONE of those OTHER TOPICS you mentioned HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS ONE...

Second of all, perhaps you have been living on Mars but it has been shown, and proven that the AGW claim IS 100% WRONG, the AGW cream of the crop had to lie, and they were caught red handed yet people like you still want to believe them... Anyway, that is another topic, and don't get me started on the other topics you tried to use to your advantage, and once again FAILED miserably...

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

The Pro-War, Pro-Corporate, and Anti-Investigation group, is against the "Truthers" and along with Physics, that should give anyone not under a rock a lot of good, healthy suspicion that the truth is the OPPOSITE of what the Shills are preaching.

First of all I am not "pro-corporate" in the way you try to claim... i believe that corporations should be held accountable to their actions, but AGAIN NEITHER THE WAR, OR ANY STANCE ON CORPORATIONS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC... You again show that you would try to use any sort of tactic, including trying to derail the topic to TRY to claim those who do not believe the BS you just wrote "must be seen with suspicion"...

The SHILLS are people like you who make up bs claims, exagerate, and even lie to TRY, and fail, to give any sort of weight to your fantasies...

the people that have to be seen with suspicion are those who make up exagerations, and make up ctachy phrases like "there wee pyroclastic clouds/dust" when you don't even know that the only sources of pyroclastic flow, or cloud/dust can only be certain types of volcanos, or an even larger event like a large meteor hitting Earth...

And about physics?... what physics?.. what you mention IS NOT PHYSICS, but it is nothing more than red herrings, and exagerations trying to lure those who know no better...

And please don't talk about ignorance and then come up with claims like 'there was pyroclastic dust" and " we do not need to consider the structure involved"...

reply to post by mw451


You havent even looked at this! because if you had your reply would of been redundant! everybody should look at this itll bring a Tear to your Eyes unless your as Hard as Nails, God bless these Fire Men!

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Yea maybe you should of stayed in the good oll USSR were people at the time would believe anything the Government told them!
look at the vid i put up,,,,,there's hardly any Fire by the time the fire men got to the 79th floor!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Scientists for 9/11 Truth

Military Officers for 9/11 Truth

Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth
Im an Artist an theres lots like me over here on this side of the pond who want some answers!

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Oh my god... where to begin...

Do you really believe what you are saying?

The basement of the towers had generators full of fuel...Part of the burning fuel would have gotten to the basement through elevator shafts and, or air ventillation shafts causing the fuel tanks for the generators to....explode...

WTF

Source please... Part of the burning fuel would have gotten to the basement through elevator shafts... really? I mean really?

Please tell me you don't believe that. You think a trickle of fuel from the jet(most of the fuel exploded on impact...) went down some of the maintenance shafts along a few of the 47 central columns - what, like 70 floors - and seeped into the facilities in the bottom that are full of fuel...?

Ok, so how did all of the floors in between the point of impact and this "basement bomb" get compromised? Where did those 70 or so floors go?

Surely your 'trickle of fuel' theory didn't ignite in a fiery inferno and compromise each and every joist and intersection of steel and concrete along every floor the whole way down - and even if it did the fuel would be used up insanely quickly - with nothing left to burn.

Also, have you ever seen kerosene evaporate? It is gone real quick.

On to the next thing... you say:

Oh boy... here we go with the "free fall' claim again... the towers DID NOT collapse in a free fall... and don't try to "mince words" and try to claim "but they fell at almost free-fall"... Either something falls at free-fall, or it doesn't... If it was a "demolition job" like some of you like to claim there wouldn't have been any resistance at all...

Which... IMO, this statement is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read - no offense.

You have created a false dichotomy in which either there was free fall, or there wasn't.

In reality, there is a gradual and dependent spectrum. Almost free-fall is just as suspicious as free-fall... you have to remember there are thousands of tons of concrete and steel that must be eliminated/compromised the whole way down. For those buildings to come down anywhere near free-fall is beyond any capabilities of an aluminum jet liner and your "trickle down" theory.

You say:

The debris was picking up speed simply because more, and more weight was falling on top of the other floors below them, hence the floors/walls would be giving less, and less resistance as more and more weight is added... If you actually knew anything about physics you would have known this... BTW, what there was no evidence of is your claim that the "lower floors must have been destroyed just as the floors above were reaching them"...

More weight does not equal faster gravity...

And how do you know there was more weight? Are you assuming that all of the debris above the point of impact was a single object, exerting a single force on the floors below?

I can't honestly figure out how you think WTC 7 came down... because your trickle down theory will not work, and there was not hardly a scratch on the building - no compromised structural features.

Next -

There have been MANY other scientists who have explained why the WTC collapsed the way they did, and they say there is NO EVIDENCE to claim there was any foul play...

Source? Are you just blowing hot air?

And oh man:

Jebus...you really love to make claims not based on reality whatsoever don't you?... Passenger planes are made from more than just aluminum...and they are not like "aluminum cans"... Not to mention the sheer force of the impacts which caused earthquake stations near the WTC to register the planes hitting the towers...

What are passenger planes made of then? And how did WTC 7 collapse?

I'm done. It's not rocket science.

I am sorry you hold the opinion that you do.

Please watch these videos:

All I have to say is wow, I am simply amazed with how many naive, brainwashed individuals there really still is. Even with all of the irrefutable proof yet there is still denial and utter refusal to examine the facts... Either these are all people part of the CIA PSYOPS or we really are doomed...

Truth Seekers get ready, this is the beginning of the end.