I would like an answer to a few of these questions if anyone has the time.
Firstly, I am not a person who believes in conspiracy theories, I don't believe in aliens, I have no problem with the moon landing, and I don't really know or care if JFK was killed as part of some CIA conspiracy.
When I first observed the footage of the Sept 11 attacks on television, I was shocked and as the story unfolded about terrorist attacks it seemed to be plausible to me that a terrorist group may be motivated enough to fly planes into the twin towers and other targets.
I didn't look too much into it after that and accepted the official story as I had no reason at that time to think otherwise.
As I was doing so research into financial options trading I found this link that described how there were unusual amount of derivatives taken specifically and conveniently to profit from the 9/11 attacks.
It was the following link to footage of the collapse of WT7 that completely changed everything for me and made me question the original story.
My next statement is a fact, not an opinion.
THERE IS NO WAY FOR WT7 TO COLLAPSE IN THAT WAY DUE TO FIRE ALONE.
It is physically impossible for a building of that quality, construction and calibre to fail in such a spectacular way.
Lets think about it logically for a moment.
We have been told that an unprecedented event has occurred, that a fire has caused a skyscraper to collapse, this is the first time in skyscraper history.
How many skyscrapers are there in the world?
Since 9/11 how many existing and older skyscrapers have been rebuilt due to the biggest most shocking discovery in skyscraper building history?
ZERO.
Why?
Because no one expects it to happen again.
But that is strange you say?
In science we are taught about the repeatability of an experiment, and if you cant repeat the results reliable and consistently, then the scientific premise is probably flawed.
I have not seen emergency services globally change their policies about managing burning skyscrapers based on the shocking discoveries at WT7.
There should have been numerous journals in the field of engineering and construction explain why this was possible, but no.
Please keep in mind as I continue that this was one of the biggest man made engineering failures in the history of building.
Surely the rubble post WT7 collapse should have been thoroughly investigated and not carted off immediately. I mean surely all these scientists would want to know why it collapsed.
After all when a plane crashes investigators look at the scene thoroughly, they don't collect it all before hand, they want to know everything they can so this kind of catastrophe does not happen again.
Think about the top 1% of the worlds financial elite.
If they thought a fire, on its own could bring down trump tower for example, do you think they would risk their lives to stay overnight, or their office buildings where they conduct business for 16 hrs a day?
Do you think that fire fighters see a small fire on one floor of a 45 story skyscraper and say, hang on guys, lets wait in about half an hour this thing is going to collapse on itself???????
No they go in because apart from that very unusual day they have never ever seen a skyscraper fall from fire.
Skyscrapers have been known to burn for 24hrs on every floor without weakening the steel to the point of collapse, not to mention close to free fall collapse.
One you study the science, and you look at it objectively and come to objective conclusions I don't know how someone can say the building could have collapsed due to fire.
If we can agree to this, then the next question is what is the only known way for a building to fall this way.
There is only one answer to that, planned demolition.
(this point I will not debate as it is too lengthy, and unless you are an engineer or demolition expert don't bother. I would love to hear from someone QUALIFIED in demolition that can give me a scientific explanation.)
This leads to two other questions.
How did they demolish it and why did they demolish it.
I know they used explosives, I have no idea what timeframe or network was required to execute it.
Why did they demolish it? Again it would be just more guess work, there are lots of theories that make sense, but then this topic would just get derailed, and people would try to invalidate a good point by pointing out "crackpot theories and guesswork"
How can we believe any of the official story if a building was detonated, there is footage of it and they continue to deny it.
Can any 9/11 official story believer explain that?
I could also poke a thousand holes in the official story of the twin towers structural collapse, but I wont at this stage.
Here are some other points I picked up from other posters on the internet for general consideration.
" -1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron -1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel -825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler. Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet. The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC. Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.
Maximum jet fuel burn temperature is 825 Celsius.
Temperature needed to melt structural steel is 1510 Celsius.
Compare this.
On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire, which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced."
Sources: New York Times, Saturday 15th February 1975"
"Im suprised people still think it was jet fuel burning in the towers. Has anyone ever lit jet fuel on fire? I have. It burns up REAL quick. We do training every six months and light fires with jet fuel to put them out.
with that said, jet fuel wasnt burning in that building.. Office debris was. Office debris that is fire coded for a 110 story skyscraper (read: non-flammable).
Jets burn about 1000-5000lbs per hour depending on airframes, powerplant... weight.. etc. And thats in a controlled environment with jet fuel being fed into the engine. Imagine you light it ALL on fire all at once... its gone.
So, the argument of jet fuel burn temps is moot. And i wont buy the fact that pools of jet fuel were burning. Pools of jet fuel were found in cars on the streets below.. not burning.
Try it, Get some Kerosene (even though it burns slower than jet fuel), put it in a coffee can and throw it on a fire... Stand back though....lol. Cause this is what happened when those planes hit. Then you may want to throw some unburned kerosene on a tree.. or steel.. whichever... hey.. try a coke can. And light it. I bet it doesnt even melt the coke can it burns so quick."
