Whoever believes that either of the WTC buildings came down because of "fire" is either utterly misinformed, is paid or pressured to propagate this nonsense, or is so completely devout in sticking to a certain, hilariously irrational worldview ("durr Conspiracies are impossible") that it would impress even the most fanatic muslim or christian fundamentalist.
I suppose then you are accusing the vast majority of scientists and engineers of being "paid off". How do you pay off that many people? Let's hear it.
What about the
Protec demolitions company? Are they paid off? What about NIST? Are they paid off? What about Bazant and Zhou? Are they paid off?
Instead of having a couple small fires on a couple floors that burn at low temperatures and not posing a threat to anything other than the color of the wallpapers, we pretend the entire building is in flames.
You are making up lies. Where is your source for this lie? Oh, that's right, you have none. Have fun getting people to buy into your false information that you made up yourself. You have been shown photos of multiple floors engulfed entirely in flames but facts don't matter to you do they? Of course, the people who took those photos were paid off! Shills!
And even more, we let the thing burn indefinitely to make sure the massive steel structure actually heats up to the temperature of the fire.
More made-up facts. It is clear you have not read the NIST report. If you read NIST you would see how wrong you are. But oh wait, that's right, NIST is all "paid or pressured to propagate this nonsense", according to you. Every single one of them. Right?
The Towers truly massive central cores were built for 600% redudancy, that means they could have carried six times their own weights. However, even in hypothetical fairy land, this perfect fire only reduces the structural integrity of the steel to about half of what it is - That means these buildings still have 300% redundancy with regards to their structural integrity.
Where is your source? Doesn't matter, you made it up. You have no facts except for ones you make up. How quaint. But let's for a moment assume that you DIDN'T just pull that number out of your butt. Okay, so the central cores can carry 6 times their own weight. But wait! Isn't the WTC MORE than just central cores? Guess you forgot about the ENTIRE REST OF THE BUILDING. But who needs calculations when you have fantasies and made up facts.
Why were the buildings built with cores set for 600 percent redundancy? Not because of fires, that's for sure, because in the real world, fires in a building virtually never heat a central steel structure to anywhere near where the steel would lose half the structural integrity.
Whoops, read NIST again. Wait...you never even read NIST the first time, how could you read it again?
Say, do me a favor and look up "Kader Toy Factory", would you?
Fire can be a problem in that it destroys individual floors and of course the interior when it bends steel, and when it does that, it is more likely to spread and cause even more damage still, which is why special heat-resistent steel is used in the construction of skyscrapers, and this heat-resistent steel is again fire- and heatproofed with foam.
Is this also made up? It looks made up. Nevertheless, if it is true, you have just contradicted yourself because you are now saying that fire CAN damage steel. Okay, so if fire can damage steel,
why can't it make steel buildings collapse?
Considering all of this, it becomes painfully clear that fire cannot possibly be the explanation for the collapse.
Why not? Where are your sources? Where are your facts?
And empirically we can confirm this - never in the history of structural engineering has a steel structure building come down because of a fire.
This is a blatant lie. See: Kader Toy Factory, and Equitable Life Insurance Building. Nice try making up a lie; did you think this is the first time we had heard this? It isn't. Can you make an argument without lying? I would be impressed if you could.
If we look at the nature of the real fires in the WTC buildings, small, oxygen starved fires that burn off office supplies, there is little need to argue if the fires had anything to do with the collapse at all.
I see, so NIST, the FDNY, Protec, FEMA, hundreds of eyewitnesses, are all liars. Thanks for clearing that up. Nice of you to make another false claim ("oxygen starved") without any evidence to back it up whatsoever.
Now that we have conclusively ruled fire out as an explanation as to why the towers could have come down, we need alternative explanations.
You have ruled out nothing until you provide evidence for your idiotic claims. You have also neglected to mention the airplane impact, something you liars are very prone to forget.
Controlled Demolition appears as the best guess, since no other real life, physical world mechanic seems to be able to take the buildings down the way they did.
Show me another controlled demolition which has taken down a building that "way". You cannot.
That does not conclusively prove that it was CD so far, we just can very certainly rule out fire.
Repeating something over and over again does not make it true, sorry. Your ideas are still based on fantasy.
However, even with just a glance at a few videos on youtube, there's so much evidence pointing towards or even confirming the controlled demolition theory, that even idiotic alternative theories - like ones involving HAART or aliens heating the building up with "heat rays" or something similiarly absurd are not worth at all following up to.
Wrong. There is no evidence at all. The only difference between the CD theory and the "idiotic alternative theories" you mention is that CD has more proponents. Which you yourself would agree proves nothing.
If we wanted to disprove the CD theory the same way we can disprove the fire theory, we'd have to show that it is impossible for CD to have brought down the building. Which no one argues.
You are incorrect. Nobody has to show that it is "impossible" for CD to have brought it down. We just have to show that CD DIDN'T bring it down.
In fact, there is not a single, good counter argument against the CD theory.
--No audio recordings of explosives
--No eyewitness accounts describing anything more than small, isolated pops
--No seismic recording of explosives despite numerous seismographs in the area which recorded the airplane impacts and the collapses but not explosives
--No evidence of explosives in rubble
--No eyewitnesses to anyone planting explosives in the towers
--Explosives could not have survived the airplane impacts and the fires
--No broken glass being flung all over Manhattan
--No explosive blasts seen on the exterior load-bearing columns
--No video footage of controlled demolition
--Exterior columns are seen bending inward immediately before collapse which could not have been caused by demolition
--No explosive shockwave
--Dust clouds don't appear until AFTER the building starts collapsing
--Not a single person has come forward with any information
--Absolutely zero physical evidence of explosives
Fallacious arguments are of course plenty, for example "That would have taken a huge conspiracy to pull off" with the gravely fallacious implication that conspiracies cannot possibly happen in the real world. Of course they can - and do.
Conspiracies can happen. They always get exposed by whistleblowers. It is now 7 years after the largest conspiracy in history. Where are the whistleblowers?
- Who planted explosives there?
Who indeed? Who could have run up the towers in the hour between impacts and collapse to set up a two-month demolition in less than an hour in the middle of a blazing fire? It was Superman; he's the only one who could possibly have done it. Or maybe Santa Claus.
- Did they have the permission or cooperation of, or were they on the payroll of the authorities?
Since Superman acts independently, I would say no.
- Why the planes? Were they muslim hijackers that just happened to fly into the buildings at the same time in a huge coincidence, or are they connected?
A question that conspiracy fantasists like yourself can never answer because incidentally it utterly destroys your theory. If somebody set up explosives, they would have no need to use planes. If somebody used planes, they would have no need to set up explosives. Islamic extremists crashed hijacked planes into the Towers, this is undeniable FACT. If they were working separately from Superman, there is no way Superman could have know about the impact and thus no way to pre-plan the demolition in such a way as to have a viable cover story. Not even Superman could pull that off.
- Could a related group of muslims have planted explosives? Or were there no muslim hijackers at all?
Al-Quaeda has admitted it. Normally a person who confesses to a crime is a prime suspect. I guess you have different standards of evidence? Let's not suspect the person who just confessed to the crime. Instead, let's suspect The Government because they're an easy target to pick on and I hate Bush.
- What happened at the Pentagon?
Islamic whackos hijacked a plane and crashed it into the Pentagon.
What ABOUT Flight 93? Do you have an argument or are you just throwing out everything you can think of in the hopes that some of your fantasy ideas will stick?
- Were the same people that orchestrated this the same people that ordered the entire air force to go to Alaska that day?
Oops! Another made-up lie! Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Maybe you should look up "loaded question". And some sources. You should have sources for your false information.
- Is there *even* a possibility that the government wasn't involved in this?
Involved in what?
- Why are the media so incompetently useless about covering any this?
"The media" are not YOUR personal butler. They do not exist to cover whatever YOU want them to cover. Some people known as white supremacists want the media to cover the bad things done by Jews and blacks. Why should what YOU want get more coverage than what THEY want?
These and more are real and relevant questions.
No. They are loaded question grounded in lies, fantasy, and hearsay.
The question whether the WTC buildings were brought down by CD however, is not a legitimate question at this point anymore. Not even in mysterious magical fairy land could fire have brought down any of these buildings.
Your post is utterly devoid of facts--not one fact in the entire thing--so I don't know what you're talking about.
