John, I don't have an explanation for why the buildings collapsed like that.

Sure you do. Fire. A fire can certainly gut a building, but.....

No one has answered any of these "relevant" questions here, and no one has shown me one example, throughout history, before or after the attacks, that show a reinforced steel and concrete building collapsing due to fire. There's a reason for this. It doesn't happen because it is impossible. The NIST's own conclusions ruled out the pancake theory, too.

And Zum, that's a great list, but it wouldn't have taken that many people, and GWB could even have been left out of the loop.

Check this out. A pea-brain with a doctorate wrote it.

debunking the official story

Here is one short excerpt:

Implosion World.com, a website about the demolition industry, states that an implosion is “by far the trickiest type of explosive project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience . . . to perform these true building implosions."[69] Can anyone really believe that fire would have just happened to produce the kind of collapse that can be reliably produced by only a few demolition companies in the world? The building had 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns. To hold that fire caused this building to collapse straight down would mean believing that the fire caused all 81 columns to fail at exactly the same time. To accept the official story is, in other words, to accept a miracle. Physicist Steven Jones agrees, saying:

The likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of WTC7 due to random fires (the "official" theory)---requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns---is infinitesimal. I conclude that the evidence for the 9/11 use of pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in Towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling.[70]

An excellent question. In all the investigation and scientific ciphering can anyone show me a single instance of a building the size and construction of the WTC towers having been struck by a fuel laden jet aircraft the size of a 767 not collapsing?

Of course there are instances of massive structural failures due to unanticipated events of plain carelessness on the part of the contractor. For example: Massive freeway collapses in and around the SF/Oakland area, Levee failures due to simply too much water, was there not a closure of a tunnel recently due to major chunks falling and crushing cars?

I still think they are good questions. But I think the answers are pretty good also.

I hate to have to agree with Zumbido, but those are my feelings exactly. This has never happened before. Those were two of the tallest buildings in the world.

And what about people seeing planes fly into the Pentagon? That kind of makes you wonder. Plus the list of dead people was the same as the list of people on that flight.

The one story I think is open to question is "let's rock." That always sounded fishy. But the plane surely did crash, and I do believe it was headed for... was it the White House they said? Or the Capitol Building?

the idea appears to have been

1. hit finance
2. hit military
3. hit whitehouse (goverment) ...failed

thus, a militarised government would need to be set up in emergency to run the country.

that plane failed to strike because it was blown out the sky by two f16s who managed to reach it in time, only by directly disobeying a stand-down order.

you don't find plane wreckage over an 8 mile radius of country side if its 'gone into a nose dive and crashed'

a plane striking the ground will not spread material eight miles wide upon impact.

however if you plant a missile into it at high altitude on route to the capital...

well, you don't need to be a genius to smell a rat with movie United-Flight93.

and its interesting Nick has never mentioned the multiple War Games exercises that Norad and the Airforce were running that day, confusing and obstructing any attempt by the military to react in time.

thank your lucky stars someone said 'no' and got a plane up, or you'd be under junta bush by now.

"you don't find plane wreckage over an 8 mile radius of country side if its 'gone into a nose dive and crashed'"

So in between your high-level airplane crash consulting you find time to dribble here?

Wow!

and you're what, calfornian?

There you go again, mixing the damage from the planes crashing with the fire theory. This does nothing to explain, for example, WTC7, which sustained no impact. Why is it so hard to explain to me exactly how the fires severed every steel column in the building at the same time, causing a seemingly controlled collapse onto itself in a pile of rubble? Because it is impossible. As I write that sentence, it still seems absurd that people buy that story.

First- Yes, it has happened where planes flew into buildings, and it has broken into fires, and not collapsed. That is not directly, by itself, proof of anything in this case, perhaps, but you did say that it hasn't happened before. I was asking for any evidence of fire completely collapsing a reinforced steel and conrete building into it's own footprint, as in the case of WTC7. It hasn't happened. And never will. Except for 3 buildings recently insured against terror attacks by Silverstein in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001. Those are the only 3. Ever. For good reason. Did you read my link? Or was the car mag enough for you to stop reading? It is explained with science (you know, stuff that can be proven and recreated).

Second- The list of DNA IDs does not include everybody. The hijackers are not on the morgue list. But an intact passport from a hijacker was found, unburned (he was later discovered alive in another country, claiming his passport had been stolen). Ahh, the proof - we found his passport in the smoldering rubble!

Apparently, though, the fires burned about 1300 degrees hotter than jet fuel has ever been known to burn (reaching the melting point of hardened steel in just under an hour), and I don't recall elements from the Periodic Chart of the Elements changing their thermal properties, if even for a day (or 56 minutes).

Third, wasn't it "Let's Roll"?

It seems odd to me that it is accepted that WTC7 collapsed into it's own footprint due to fires. Even the stuctural engineers were baffled. But not mainstream 'merica. Hook, line, and sinker. And I am, last I checked, an American. I'm paying as much for this self-proclaimed "war president"'s war as you are, I just question the released version of the events of that day. The place wasn't even treated as a crime scene.

I don't want to confuse you with the facts, you've got your mind made up. And again, I never even gave any of this a second thought until the 5th anniversary was upon us and I started to ask questions. Apparently they were the same questions asked by the scholars for thruth. The more I look into the history of all the players in this "game", and the more the science doesn't support the official story, the more I raise an eyebrow.

I feel I am doing my patriotic, American "duty" to these families who lost innocent loved ones in this tragedy by trying to find out if there was any foul play.

zumbido, post dimwitted comment