Ventura’s 9/11 Questions Break Through Mainstream Media Dam

[Thorgasm]

WTC7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds (free fall would be 6 seconds). It was not hit by a plane, and no jet fuel or kerosene was burning inside it, yet we are supposed to believe that fire caused its collapse when no steel-framed skyscrapers have collapsed from fire before 9/11?

G&G | Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center

Except for the two 100+story buildings that fell right next to it.

 

[Chanda]

Except for the two 100+story buildings that fell right next to it.

Exactly. Three in one day, yet never before in the 100-year history of steel-frame skyscrapers.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

WTC7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds (free fall would be 6 seconds). It was not hit by a plane, and no jet fuel or kerosene was burning inside it, yet we are supposed to believe that fire caused its collapse when no steel-framed skyscrapers have collapsed from fire before 9/11?

G&G | Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center

Prove that freefall would have taken 6 seconds. Also prove that the building collapsed in 6.5.

 

[Chanda]

Prove that freefall would have taken 6 seconds. Also prove that the building collapsed in 6.5.

I gave you Dave Heller's link. Also, there are videos of WTC7 collapsing, you can time it yourself.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I gave you Dave Heller's link. Also, there are videos of WTC7 collapsing, you can time it yourself.

Prove that the video is in real time. And where in your kook link does it say that the terminal velocity and rate of fall of WTC would have been 6 seconds? Who backs up his assertion?

 

[Chanda]

Prove that the video is in real time. And where in your kook link does it say that the terminal velocity and rate of fall of WTC would have been 6 seconds? Who backs up his assertion?

The "kook," David Heller, has degrees in physics and architecture. Do you? However long it took wtc7 to collapse, there is no scientific explanation for it.

 

[Jray]

Are you a physicist? Physicists say it isn't possible, except by controlled demolition:

Dave Heller, a builder with degrees in physics and architecture: "The floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?"

This guy only seems to exist on 911 truth websites (just like the "MIT engineer" Jeff King) so i doubt his credentials. But if you look at the collapse of the towers you see that they collapse from the top down. If they were falling simultaneously like he says, then the debris should start rising up from the collapse of the lower floors early on but it doesn't. Also if the floors fell simultaneously then you would see the entire building collapse simultaneously rather than it crumble from the top down.

Physicist Steven Jones: "the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references . . . . Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum---one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors---and intact steel support columns---the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . ut this is not the case. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9/11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed"

From F.R Greening's paper "Energy Transfer In the WTC collapse"

The towers collapsed far from free fall speed, giving more than enough time to account for the conservation of momentum. The observed collapse of the towers also is very similar to the theoretical collapse that Greening calculates.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

The "kook," David Heller, has degrees in physics and architecture. Do you? However long it took wtc7 to collapse, there is no scientific explanation for it.

So there are no such things as "kooks" with degrees and if I have a degree in something I must be right eh?


Well one of my degrees is in psychology and you crazy. :mrgreen:

 

[Chanda]

So there are no such things as "kooks" with degrees and if I have a degree in something I must be right eh?

If one has a degree in physics, his 9/11 analysis might be more valuable than say, one with a degree in psychology.

Well one of my degrees is in psychology and you crazy. :mrgreen:

So the vast and growing number of academics who question 9/11 events are crazy? Oh right, one can only be sane if he believes the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory. :roll:

 

[Chanda]

But if you look at the collapse of the towers you see that they collapse from the top down. If they were falling simultaneously like he says, then the debris should start rising up from the collapse of the lower floors early on but it doesn't. Also if the floors fell simultaneously then you would see the entire building collapse simultaneously rather than it crumble from the top down.

In the opinion of Dutch demolition expert, Danny Jowenko:


YouTube - 9/11: Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko on WTC #7

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

If one has a degree in physics, his 9/11 analysis might be more valuable than say, one with a degree in psychology.

So then why did you ignore the evidence in post #32? I think the man who made those graphs has a degree.

So the vast and growing number of academics who question 9/11 events are crazy? Oh right, one can only be sane if he believes the OFFICIAL conspiracy theory. :roll:

No you said:
"The "kook," David Heller, has degrees in physics and architecture"

As in his degrees=he is right.


I laughed at you and that notion.

And I still do.

 

[Chanda]

So then why did you ignore the evidence in post #32? I think the man who made those graphs has a degree.

Greening may have a degree, but I'm not qualified to make a judgment on that evidence because I don't have a physics degree.

No you said:
"The "kook," David Heller, has degrees in physics and architecture"

As in his degrees=he is right.

No, it was a reference to a quote I had posted earlier by Paul Craig Roberts:

"The vast majority of the people who call skeptics "kooks" are themselves ignorant of physics and have little comprehension of the improbability that such an attack could succeed without either the complicity or complete failure of government agencies."

I laughed at you and that notion. And I still do.

And I'm supposed to care what you think about me?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Greening may have a degree, but I'm not qualified to make a judgment on that evidence because I don't have a physics degree.

But you buy into your kooks conclusions because it fits your agenda.

No, it was a reference to a quote I had posted earlier by Paul Craig Roberts:




"The vast majority of the people who call skeptics "kooks" are themselves ignorant of physics and have little comprehension of the improbability that such an attack could succeed without either the complicity or complete failure of government agencies."

Right..... :roll:

And I'm supposed to care what you think about me?

Oh I know you do baby. :mrgreen:

 

[Chanda]

Oh I know you do baby. :mrgreen:

whateva, please, don't laugh at me...please...don't...:coffeepap

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

whateva, please, don't laugh at me...please...don't...:coffeepap

We can do it anyway you like sugar. :mrgreen:

 

[Lerxst]

WTC7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds (free fall would be 6 seconds). It was not hit by a plane, and no jet fuel or kerosene was burning inside it, yet we are supposed to believe that fire caused its collapse when no steel-framed skyscrapers have collapsed from fire before 9/11?

G&G | Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center

Please show me one instance in history where a steel framed skyscraper was hit by a jet airliner full of fuel and traveling several hundred miles per hour and iddn't collapse. WTC7 had sufficient structural damage, based upon it's architectural design, to understand why it collapsed the way it did. NIST explained this.

Anyway, regarding 1 & 2, it was not just burning, it burning and structural damage. The intense heat with combined with the severe weakening of the structural integrity brought those buildings down. Once they started to go there was no way the lower floors were going to withstand that kind of weight coming down...not to any discernible level the naked eye could tell. Further much of the structural give taking place on the interior of the building prior to the collapse could not be seen from the exterior.

There were no squib charges detonating, there was no physical evidence of thermite recovered. Even if there had been the level of conspiracy it would take to mastermind such a plot would have been too huge to keep secret. Somebody would have had to gotten into all three buildings and spent dozens of hours secretly rigging them with explosives without raising a single eyebrow.

Now for the theory of the buildings being dropped by cutter charges to be at least remotely feasible, the triggering mechanisms integrity would have had to be able to withstand a massive impact as well as thousands of gallons of burning fuel pouring down through the building. And it would have had to withstand this intense inferno for hours until it was time to drop the buildings. Please explain how this could be done.

Further it makes no sense to go to all that trouble of rigging the buildings. If there was a conspiracy to use these attacks as a catalyst for military action then the attacks alone would have been enough. There is no significance to the towers actually falling as opposed to the just the attacks. The deed would have been done. The whole premise for this conspiracy is too just stupid to take even remotely seriously.

Al Qaeda did this, period. They flew jetliners full of fuel into the buildings at several hundred miles an hour. End of story.

The rest of this stuff is just unsubstantiated lunacy. Skepticism is fine, but don't confuse it with evidence or even credibility.

 

[Jray]

In the opinion of Dutch demolition expert, Danny Jowenko:


YouTube - 9/11: Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko on WTC #7

First, Heller's comments and mine were in reference to buildings 1 and 2. Second, Jowenko also says that 1 and 2 were NOT controlled demolitions. So either Jowenko is wrong about 1 and 2 and they were all controlled demolition, he's wrong about 7 and none of them were or he's right on all of them (unlikely).

But on WTC 7:

The final collapse of the building took over 8 seconds. The entire collapse sequence took between 13 and 16 seconds, more than twice the 6 second free fall speed.

Where are the blast points? If this was a controlled demolition then the blast points would be clearly visible.

Finally see Ramon Gilsanz and William Ng's article in Structure Magazine on how the failure of one column could have cause WTC 7 to collapse.

 

[Chanda]

Please show me one instance in history where a steel framed skyscraper was hit by a jet airliner full of fuel and traveling several hundred miles per hour and iddn't collapse.

WTC7 wasn't hit by an airliner. It had minimal debris damage on one side, and relatively small office fires which makes the straight-down collapse into its own footprint suspect. NIST has yet to release its wtc7 investigative report and at last update, was still considering possible causes for the collapse after 6 years of investigation. Maybe you should offer your expertise, since you seem to know exactly how it happened. NIST needs you, Jeff.

The intense heat with combined with the severe weakening of the structural integrity brought those buildings down....blah blah...there was no physical evidence of thermite recovered (yes, there was)... would have been too huge to keep secret...blah blah blah...thousands of gallons of burning fuel ...blah blah...the attacks alone would have been enough....deed...done....

Entirely speculation. We have no frame of reference to determine exactly what would happen under these circumstances.

Al Qaeda did this, period. They flew jetliners full of fuel into the buildings at several hundred miles an hour. End of story. The rest of this stuff is just unsubstantiated lunacy. Skepticism is fine, but don't confuse it with evidence or even credibility.

What substantiated proof has our government offered that members of Al Qaeda conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks? You are the conspiracy theorist, Jeff. I don't have a theory, and I've made no conclusions, but I'm skeptical of the official conspiracy theory, because it is the kookiest one yet.

 

[Chanda]

First, Heller's comments and mine were in reference to buildings 1 and 2. Second, Jowenko also says that 1 and 2 were NOT controlled demolitions. So either Jowenko is wrong about 1 and 2 and they were all controlled demolition, he's wrong about 7 and none of them were or he's right on all of them (unlikely).

Irrelevant. If wtc7 collapsed by controlled demolition, then the entire official conspiracy theory is bogus.

The final collapse of the building took over 8 seconds. The entire collapse sequence took between 13 and 16 seconds, more than twice the 6 second free fall speed.

Experts disagree.

Where are the blast points? If this was a controlled demolition then the blast points would be clearly visible.

There are several videos online that appear to show demolition charges.

Finally see Ramon Gilsanz and William Ng's article in Structure Magazine on how the failure of one column could have cause WTC 7 to collapse.

The explanation for Silverstein's "pull it" order is unconvincing. According to several sources, there were no firefighters in the building to evacuate. There are numerous witnesses who heard explosions, even a countdown.

 

[Lerxst]

WTC7 wasn't hit by an airliner. It had minimal debris damage on one side, and relatively small office fires which makes the straight-down collapse into its own footprint suspect. NIST has yet to release its wtc7 investigative report and at last update, was still considering possible causes for the collapse after 6 years of investigation. Maybe you should offer your expertise, since you seem to know exactly how it happened. NIST needs you, Jeff.

Ummmm...Chanda, I'm not trying to be mean here. But you might want to read this. NIST Part IIC - WTC7. You are deliberately mischaracterizing the nature of the NIST report to seem "unsure or speculative." This report is much more than that. Relatively small office fires? Is that your professional opinion? Maybe you are the one who needs to talk to NIST because they don't seem to agree with your findings.

Then there is this NIST WTC7 news relase. This must be the last update you are referring to. Reading it makes me think you are again being slightly dishonest in your characterization of it. For those who are undecided the certainly aren't shy about stating what they believe the cause is (see bolded).

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, as the large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This is also interesting...and I think a big part of what is fueling your speculation. How you stretch this to read "NIST hasn't made up their mind, they are still considering the causes" I have no idea. They are working all possible hypothesis just to be sure...at least that is what it sounds like to me. Oh and notice the bolded part...interesting huh? No, NIST doesn't need me, they are doing quite well on their own.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

Entirely speculation. We have no frame of reference to determine exactly what would happen under these circumstances.

Well since you are being deliberately difficult here I'll just counter what I think you are getting at here. :roll:

Regarding the WTC 1 & 2 collapse...what I posted was not speculative at all. NIST agrees with me. NIST latest findings PR from 2005 on WTC 1 & 2.

“Like most building collapses, these events were the result of a combination of factors,” said Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the agency’s building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster. “While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled.”

The probable collapse sequences, which update and finalize hypotheses released by NIST last October, were presented by Sunder at a press briefing in New York City.

The specific factors in the collapse sequences relevant to both towers (the sequences vary in detail for WTC 1 and WTC 2) are:

* Each aircraft severed perimeter columns, damaged interior core columns and knocked off fireproofing from steel as the planes penetrated the buildings. The weight carried by the severed columns was distributed to other columns.
* Subsequently, fires began that were initiated by the aircraft’s jet fuel but were fed for the most part by the building contents and the air supply resulting from breached walls and fire-induced window breakage.
* These fires, in combination with the dislodged fireproofing, were responsible for a chain of events in which the building core weakened and began losing its ability to carry loads.
* The floors weakened and sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the perimeter columns.
* Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
* Collapse then ensued.

I dunno...but that sure seems to support what I said.

Or are you talking about the scope of the conspiracy theory being to large to keep secret? Well all we have to do is look at the many large government conspiracies from the past to see how they were unable to keep them secret. Northwoods is a good example of this, Bay of Pigs, Watergate, various assassination plots, massive embezzlements, etc. There are plenty of examples of conspiracies that were uncovered or leaked during the effort to keep them quiet before, during, or immediately after their execution. All because someone talked at some point. But this one is different? Historically this would have to be the greatest known conspiracy in history as far as scope and boldness...but every conspirator is silent, told nobody. Speculative? Sure, but no more so than yours and I have history on my side. You have nothing comparative to at least reference back to. I'm just going by common sense.

What substantiated proof has our government offered that members of Al Qaeda conspired to commit the 9/11 attacks? You are the conspiracy theorist, Jeff. I don't have a theory, and I've made no conclusions, but I'm skeptical of the official conspiracy theory, because it is the kookiest one yet.

Lol...yeah, it's kooky alright. With known hijacking complete with distress calls from passengers, video of the hijacked planes hitting the buildings, no evidence of cutter charges anywhere, a very detailed series of reports from NIST that explain why the buildings fell, and the leader of Al Qaeda admitting they were involved. Man that is just as bizarre as it gets, I can see why you woulnd't believe it, especially since none of the alternative theories have been proven or presented a shred of evidence to support them.

You are more than just skeptical Chanda.

 

[Lerxst]

Irrelevant. If wtc7 collapsed by controlled demolition, then the entire official conspiracy theory is bogus.

Present ANYTHING credible that supports it was a controlled demolition or other type of deliberate destruction.

Experts disagree.

Experts disagree on a lot of things about this, they disagree with each other in fact.

There are several videos online that appear to show demolition charges.

Hmmm...appear? And there are explanations to those puffs of smoke that have debunked them as squib charges.

The explanation for Silverstein's "pull it" order is unconvincing. According to several sources, there were no firefighters in the building to evacuate. There are numerous witnesses who heard explosions, even a countdown.

Nor were there demolitions experts in there to "pull the building" either. Nor was there a shred of evidence of cutter charges or any type of explosive. In fact there is a very detailed working hypothesis of exactly why the building collapsed the way it did. But hang on to "pull it" and "witnesses" who "heard things." The evidence stands against them. And their lack of evidence damns them.

 

[Jray]

Irrelevant. If wtc7 collapsed by controlled demolition, then the entire official conspiracy theory is bogus.

Your entire argument is about how this "expert" says something. He only agrees with you halfway. So either an expert can be wrong or for some reason WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and 1 and 2 weren't.

Experts disagree.

See the Structure Magazine article or the NIST report, they both say the final collapse took over 8 seconds for the final collapse.

This sequence of events with the roof elements sinking into the building with an intact facade, suggest an interior failure. An interior failure would explain the appearance of a "controlled" collapse

Jowenko says that WTC 7 looked like a controlled demolition. Since an interior failure would give that same appearance he is most likely wrong about WTC 7 being a controlled collapse.

There are several videos online that appear to show demolition charges.

They show the charges on WTC 7? I'd like to see those videos.

The explanation for Silverstein's "pull it" order is unconvincing. According to several sources, there were no firefighters in the building to evacuate. There are numerous witnesses who heard explosions, even a countdown.

See Skeptic magazine about the "pull it" order.

Question: WTC7 was intentionally "pulled down" with explosives. The building owner himself was quoted as saying he decided to "pull it."
Protech: Building owners do not have authority over emergency personnel at a disaster scene. We have never heard "pull it" used to refer to an explosive demolition. Because of the extensive fires, demolition explosive experts anticipated the collapse of WTC 7. They also personally witnessed it from a few hundred feet away and no one heard detonations.

Blanchard is Senior Editor at ImplosionWorld.com

 

[Chanda]

You are deliberately mischaracterizing the nature of the NIST report to seem "unsure or speculative"...Regarding the WTC 1 & 2 collapse...what I posted was not speculative at all. NIST agrees with me.

The wtc7 NIST investigation began in 2002 and has yet to release a final report. Even the NIST lead investigator admits:

“We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors… but truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7.” - Dr S Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead WTC investigator

Why do you think NIST is the ultimate authority? Do you really believe the possibility of controlled demolition would be considered for one moment by a government agency?

Or are you talking about the scope of the conspiracy theory being to large to keep secret?

Has it been kept secret? There are oral histories of 503 firefighters and medical responders, and many of them corroborate controlled demolition. These have been suppressed for some reason.

Man that is just as bizarre as it gets, I can see why you woulnd't believe it,

The bizarre part is this: PNAC, which has members including Cheney and Wolfowitz currently in the Bush administration, published a blueprint in the 90's for a "series of simultaneous wars in the ME" which could be precipated by a "Pearl Harbor event." After Bush was selected, voilà! the Pearl Harbor event, 9/11, occurred and made possible all manner of Bush policies and was used to promote him as the war president. Also, the fact that there were numerous pre-9/11 warnings that were ignored by the administration. Condoleezza Rice lied when she said no one could have imagined that a hijacked plane would used as weapon, and what a phenomenal coincidence that war games and drills for just such an event were being conducted on the very morning of 9/11. Add to that, crime scene evidence that was immediately loaded up and shipped out of the country indicating a coverup. Bush stonewalled an investigation until a year later, then refused to testify under oath.

especially since none of the alternative theories have been proven or presented a shred of evidence to support them.

I ask you again, where is a shred of evidence to support the official conspiracy theory?

You are more than just skeptical Chanda.

True, I'm very skeptical. Is there something sinister about that?

Present ANYTHING credible that supports it was a controlled demolition or other type of deliberate destruction.

Present evidence that a building can fall straight down into its own footprint at nearly free-fall speed for any other reason.

 

[roguenuke]

The wtc7 NIST investigation began in 2002 and has yet to release a final report. Even the NIST lead investigator admits:

“We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors… but truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7.” - Dr S Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead WTC investigator

Why do you think NIST is the ultimate authority? Do you really believe the possibility of controlled demolition would be considered for one moment by a government agency?



Has it been kept secret? There are oral histories of 503 firefighters and medical responders, and many of them corroborate controlled demolition. These have been suppressed for some reason.



The bizarre part is this: PNAC, which has members including Cheney and Wolfowitz currently in the Bush administration, published a blueprint in the 90's for a "series of simultaneous wars in the ME" which could be precipated by a "Pearl Harbor event." After Bush was selected, voilà! the Pearl Harbor event, 9/11, occurred and made possible all manner of Bush policies and was used to promote him as the war president. Also, the fact that there were numerous pre-9/11 warnings that were ignored by the administration. Condoleezza Rice lied when she said no one could have imagined that a hijacked plane would used as weapon, and what a phenomenal coincidence that war games and drills for just such an event were being conducted on the very morning of 9/11. Add to that, crime scene evidence that was immediately loaded up and shipped out of the country indicating a coverup. Bush stonewalled an investigation until a year later, then refused to testify under oath.



I ask you again, where is a shred of evidence to support the official conspiracy theory?



True, I'm very skeptical. Is there something sinister about that?



Present evidence that a building can fall straight down into its own footprint at nearly free-fall speed for any other reason.

So you don't consider the video's of the airplanes, the people who were on those planes, the eyewitnesses that saw the planes, the fact that AQ confessed to the crime and they have last testament videos from the hi-jackers that they show on the 9-11 anniversary, and the time, cost and overwhelming amount of coverup that would have to occur in order for most, if not all, of the "inside job theories" to be true to be evidence?

Do you yourself have any knowledge of structural engineering, demolitions, or metallurgy to actually hold this many doubts about what brought down any of the WTC, not counting what has been told to you concerning the WTC by claimed experts from either side? I have some knowledge on the properties of metals, weight distributions, and temperature and pressure effects. Sailors in my rate are required to learn this stuff so that we understand why we have to maintain certain pressures and temperatures within the reactor systems. It is very important to not change temperatures of metals too quickly, because this will weaken them, and in the case of nuclear technology, weak pipes are bad juju. I would say the same probably applies to building construction as well. Add to that massive damage to a couple of floors of a building from a plane hitting it, I'd say that it is highly likely that building could collapse. As for 7, well, I'd say a fire that was burning for some 8 hours could easily weaken the steal in that building, and when you add to that the debris from one of the towers on the roof of the building, then I'd say it's a good possibility that tower 7 just could no longer hold up.

As for the witnesses who might have believed it was a controlled demolition, I would love to see some actual proof that they said this. You don't think that conspiracy theory promoters couldn't just be taking words such as "it sounded like an explosion" out of context? Since I personally have never heard an actual explosion, including that from a building being demolished, I don't think I could tell you a difference between the sound of a building coming down due to intentional charges being set rather than being due to internal failures in the structure. But hey, who knows, perhaps these "witnesses" you mentioned have all heard explosions before and can automatically recognize the difference, even amidst all the other chaos that was happening in the area on that day.

 

[Chanda]

So you don't consider the video's of the airplanes, the people who were on those planes, the eyewitnesses that saw the planes, the fact that AQ confessed to the crime and they have last testament videos from the hi-jackers that they show on the 9-11 anniversary, and the time, cost and overwhelming amount of coverup that would have to occur in order for most, if not all, of the "inside job theories" to be true to be evidence?

None of these things are proof of the official conspiracy theory. Just because we saw videos of planes, that doesn't mean they caused the complete destruction of the towers. Bin Laden initially denied involvement in 9/11, but even if AQ was involved, that doesn't mean hijackers were able to suspend the laws of physics. There WAS a coverup. Crime scene evidence was immediately and illegally disposed of. There has never been an independent investigation, and Bush stonewalled the government investigation for a year and refused to testify under oath.

It is very important to not change temperatures of metals too quickly, because this will weaken them,

Weakened columns would bend and fall haphazardly; they would not plunge straight down.

As for 7, well, I'd say a fire that was burning for some 8 hours could easily weaken the steal in that building, and when you add to that the debris from one of the towers on the roof of the building, then I'd say it's a good possibility that tower 7 just could no longer hold up.

For the first time in the history of steel structure buildings? Debris damaged one side of WTC7. For a building to collapse straight down, the damage would have to be equally distributed throughout the building, and supports would have to fail simultaneously.

As for the witnesses who might have believed it was a controlled demolition, I would love to see some actual proof that they said this.

I didn't say witnesses "believed it was a controlled demolition." I said their statements corroborated controlled demolition.

Video of witnesses describing explosions:

MIT Engineer Breaks Down WTC Controlled Demolition

Oral histories of witnesses describing exposions:

9-11 Research: Explosions