Thanks for proving my point. No independent scientific investigation. I believe you're done here. "The planes did it."
Really, dipshit? What about the Purdue study? What about the BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering study done at the University of Edinburgh?
How about a study by the international engineering firm Arup?
Thanks for proving your ignorance on the matter yet again.
You simply can't debate without name calling. It really doesn't prove anything to name call. It also makes your credibility questionable.
As for the purdue study, here is my rebuttal.
A Purdue University computer simulation of the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks shows a 3-D animation of how the hijacked airplanes plowed into the towers, stripping fireproofing material and causing the skyscrapers to collapse. (June 18
http://video.aol.com/video/computer-simulates-world-trade-center-attacks/1928677 Now to counter this which I consider more propaganda.
Let us assume this is possible. Then an explaination needs to be made of the complete collapse of WTC 7 which was not hit by a plane in 6.5 seconds in it's own neat footprint. How could this cause molten pools of metal?
The media never fully investigated issues like the "official" cause of the twin towers collapse , their speed of collapse , the demolition style, and one of the biggest smoking guns of them all, the incredible "collapse" of Building 7 . Never before in the history of man had steel structures like this collapsed due to fire, especially in the way these did. Building 7, not hit by an airplane and right next to or further than significantly more damaged burning buildings that did not collapse, collapsed perfectly and "symmetrically" in demolition style in about 6.5 seconds into its own neat footprint. News reports at the time remarked how significantly similar this collapse looked to controlled demolitions. This included Dan Rather and other prominent mainstream media personnel. For a short video of this go here . Most people today are unaware of the collapse of this building. Go here to listen and view a live report on ABC with Peter Jennings describe the similarities of demolition from the first tower collapse. The ABC correspondent mentions demolition, and Peter Jennings repeats this, then amazingly, the eyewitness who is a quarter of a mile away, changes his tune to describe the overwhelming fire, which was actually burning cold (thick black smoke) and the top of the building weakened caused the collapse. Nice pancake collapse theory (official theory) on the spot, after first admitting it looked like controlled demolition. Very strange wouldn't you say?
Neither the Media nor any government agency ever fully investigated or explained how the BBC reported Building 7's collapse a full 20 minutes before it happened. This discovery in particular led to a firestorm of controversy on the internet. The media never fully investigated nor held to task the leaseholder of the WTC complex Larry Silverstein, when he said on a PBS documentary that they decided to "pull" WTC 7. To watch a quick video of this go here . Here is another video . For extensive analysis and follow-up go here .
To quote Wikipedia: Silverstein said: "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Silverstein's spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said in September 2005 that by "pull it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building, and confirming that they should evacuate the premises." It is interesting that it took almost a full 2 years to get an official response for this strange statement and no media or 9-11 Commission inquiry compelled the response. Patriotic citizens trying to gather facts helped force this revelation. That being said, the spokesperson's claims are dubious at best. On the very same PBS documentary Silverstein used the term "pull", another expert at the WTC clean-up also used the term pull to obviously mean demolish while describing how WTC 6 was going to be brought down. According to researcher Steve Watson, "The insurmountable problem with this explanation of Silverstein's statement is that there were no firefighters inside WTC 7."
Watson's thesis includes: " The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."
And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."
Watson adds, "Furthermore, even if he did mean "pull the firefighters" then why did he say "pull it", with no reference to anything other than the building? Consider also the timing: "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Could it really be possible that some (nonexistent) fire brigade was removed from the building and just at that moment ("then") the building collapsed? Is there really any doubt here about what Silverstein meant?"
Silverstein ultimately made billions of dollars in insurance claims he had conveniently established before 9-11, having coverage that included terrorist attacks. According to Watson , "We have an owner who let slip that the building was "pulled" and we have firefighters on video telling people to get back as the building was going to ' blow up .'"
It takes weeks, maybe even months to plan demolitions of this nature. How did this happen? No investigation. No media analysis or pursuit from any government agency including the 9-11 Commission.
MOLTEN METAL AND CORE COLUMNS ERASED FROM MEDIA
The media never fully investigated why there were impossible pools of molten metal at all three collapses. Amazing video of streams of molten metal can be seen flowing out of the building right before the collapse. Also check pictures and analysis here .
Jet fuel cannot possibly get hot enough to melt steel let alone cause steel to become molten and stay that way for weeks. The media never fully investigated the false claims that the Twin Towers were built poorly when these were some of the most robust, extensive structures with massive core columns and redundant steel sub frames, steel outer meshing, and steel networks designed to survive multiple plane strikes of similar severity that hit them on Sept. 11th. The 9-11 Commission Report denied the very existence of these massive, over-engineered core columns !! Instead they stated that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft". The media never fully investigated evidence of thermite or thermate which is routinely used to cut heavy steel and which photo evidence shows columns in the debris cut at 45 degree angles common with massive demolitions. A great Google video montage can be viewed here on this.
