Awesome, this thread will be a good litmus test to root out the crazies who actually truly believe that 9/11 was fabricated.

Guns aren't a good example. there are a million types of guns, all which do different things and fire differently

as for planes, it's all basically the same thing: they fly, they're big, and they fly fast
think about it this way - if a highway barricade was built to withstand car collisions from cars built 30 years ago, i'd wager that the barricade would still be able to stand most of todays average daily driven cars

how can you explain why building 7 collapsed when it wasn't hit by any plane? we're supposed to believe an office fire brought down a steel building?

For the towers, from my understanding, the initial impact both weakened the structure and removed all the fire prevention material. As a result, the weakened structure collapsed on itself created a domino or cascade all they way down as more weight came crashing down.

Remember, it was not the plane that eventually caused the collapse but the building itself crashing in itself.

The way they explained it in a TV special was that yes, the towers could have taken a plane hitting them with fairly minimal damage. But the sheer amount of fuel bursting into flames all at once right near that big steel support in the middle caused it to melt/deform and then break after. The burning temperature of the jet fuel may not have been high enough, but the total amount of energy transferred to the steel was pretty massive.

I'd like to continue what ericthehalfbee said. If it was a conspiracy, they could have easily slammed those jets into something else that would cause less financial damage. Or even slammed them all into the ground like the one that got kind of reverse-highjacked (I think that one was intended to hit the white house) and simply claim they were aiming for the WTC.

But barricades are specifically designed to withstand crashes. Buildings are not. If anything, it was only a added feature. Besides, the planes it was designed to take were far smaller than the ones that actually hit it.

So it wouldn't be like your scenario where the cars are of the same size. This would be more like a semi hitting a guard rail.

A building that was damaged from one of the two Twin Towers falling? It's not impossible to believe that it happened. The structure of the building was likely already compromised and with the heat from the fire playing with the steel structure, that's a good indication it really was brought down by fire.

There's another possibility that plays along with the controlled demolition theory, but not as part of a conspiracy... Building 7 contained a lot of classified and sensitive material. Wall Street, the CIA, and other various government agencies operated out of there. When it was damaged, there might have been thoughts throughout the government that it was better to let the information stored inside a building that was possibly structurally unsound to be destroyed intentionally instead of risking the chance that it could be looted by people sneaking in through the various police and fire agencies mopping up the remaining fires.

it's not impossible, but it's rather hard
putting aside every other building involved in 9/11, if it was a (rather small) office fire that brought building 7 down, why'd it collapse exactly like in a controlled demo scenario?

also, in the (only) video released of the pentagon on 9/11, you can't clearly see a plane crashing into the pentagon. it's just a streak. you'd think a boeing 757 would be a lot easier to see than a streak, no matter how fast it was going

there's a lot of facts that conspiracy theorists have come up with that i don't agree with, but at the same time, there are a lot of things that have been said that does make a lot of sense

You ever seen the security camera footage from a convenience store? Ever seen a person moving at normal speed who seems blurry? Now imagine you've got a 757 travelling a thousand kilometres per hour.

When I was in korea, I tried to take a picture of the KTX high speed train with my point & shoot, and the only time I got anything that wasn't a blur was when it had almost stopped at the station. That thing only goes 200 km/hr. Is it really so ridiculous?
Posted via RS Mobile

fair enough, but surveillance tapes were seized from nearby buildings. tapes that have clearer shots then the ones that were released. so why is it that they don't release those? why'd they release a 5 image shot where no plane is evident?

building 7 was empty even before the planes crashed into the twin towers...strange? i think so.
for people saying that the airplanes caused the buildings to collapse then heat weakened it and collapsed on itself, i have never seen anything that collapses on its self fall in such perfect form
and the goverment obviously had to perform something huge and drastic to get the rest of the county behind them in support of anti terrorism. people would never think there own government would kill there own people thats why this worked well, a lot of people dont realize how much shit their governments arent telling them. like all that shit at area 51, and how many people spot ufo's but the governement doesnt even care to investigate

Well it is about that time where nutcase conspiracy theorists unit..

9/11 was terrorism caused by the art of krumpin.

Anyone who truely believes that 911 wasnt fabricated by the US government/international bankers is completely naive. Im sure these same people still believe that we are fighting the good fight on the "war on terrorism" :lol.

The entire media is completely orchestrated by these same elites.... Most people are sheep who would rather turn a blind eye and ignore the elephant in the room than face reality.

It really speaks volumes about our society when the general consensus prioritizes what Paris Hilton ate for dinner the previous night over relevant news that seriously affects matters in our lives.

Er.... even the conspiracy websites state that Building 7 was evacuated...
Funny. I've yet to see any definitive evidence proving that it was an "inside job." Many of the theories put forth can be (and have been) easily debunked.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f...qa_082108.html

The Report. Have a read.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTA...ic_comment.pdf

This made me laugh out loud. A conspiracy theorist commenting on the state of society? ROFL

It really speaks volumes about our society when people will still cling to their beliefs when their arguments have been proven wrong time & again by a huge body of evidence. Oh, and let's not forget the laws of physics.

Since JD13 doesn't want to comment, perhaps you other experts will answer my question for me.

Why did they pour Pyrocool fire fighting foam into the wreckage of the WTC? Why did they care about using ultra-violet absorbing foam?

such as?

Do a search of VOT under either "9/11" or "conspiracy" and you'll see half a dozen threads with theories being shot down. I'm not going to retype all of it.

i'm not gonna bother, i'll take your word for it
i'm sure not every theory has been shot down. like i said, i don't believe everything that the conspiracy theorists are saying, but there's a lot of things that do make sense

care to explain why that makes a difference?

Conspiracy theorists are always harping about the use of thermite to demolish the WTC. They also love to use the infrared images of the site to show how hot it was even days after the collapse. Again, trying to say thermite was used because the temperatures were supposedly "too hot" to be caused by a "normal" fire.

But the point they love the best is that thermite gives off a lot of ultra-violet radiation. So the conspiracy theorists say the government used Pyrocool to hide the UV radiation emitted by the thermite to aid in the cover up.

There's a huge flaw in their reasoning: thermite only emits UV while it's reacting (burning). So for the few seconds the thermite was actually being used (when the towers fell) it would emit a lot of UV. But by the time the towers collapsed, the thermite reaction would be over and so would the UV radiation.


So their idea that Pyrocool was used to hide UV radiation from thermite is beyond stupid, since it was days later they used it and the UV would have stopped within minutes of the towers collapse.

Yet the conspiracy sites still argue that the Pyrocool was used to hide UV radiation. Shows just how stupid these people are when they can come up with complex engineering analysis of the WTC towers and then show exactly how thermite could bring them down, yet they overlook something so simple as how and when thermite emits UV radiation.

I'm not a truther or some nut just logical.

Top 3 Non De-Bunked "conspiracy" theories:

1) No plane debris at Pentagon - ?????????
2) Free fall speeds of towers falling - ?????????
3) Pilots barely trained to fly Cessnas perfectly flying into there targets - ???????

I can not make assumptions. 90% of the info on the net is garbage. Inside job, or MORE TO THE terrorist job which for security reasons can not be released. I don't know. 1 piece of info that is kind of weird. The first tower hit had a major broadcasting antena on it for most local news stations. So CNN, NBC, ABC, etc (Major networks) were the only ones able to broadcast. Most likely means nothing, but food for thought.