Always hear both sides of the story!!!

I've seen the videos that theorists have put out. I have seen the structural damages of the collapsed buildings, the argument of thermite being used. The movie called terrorstorm will depict alot of this information to the public. I took the advice of the videos in which they always urge you to do your own research and I have came upon a site that will try to explain the situation on 9/11. What I want to warn you about before you click the link to the site is that, if you were open minded enough to hear about the theories of 9/11, now be open minded enough to hear the arguments against the theory. The reason why I am making this thread is because I want to hear everyone's opinion, evidence, or research regarding this matter. I see that the Alex Jones has his points, and the author of the following site has his as well. The author of that site does not seem unreasonable nor is he arguing to be completely right. I think he just wants to know the truth like me, so please take the time and read his counter points. With a better picture of the situation, we may begin to better understand the situation.

www.debunking911.com...
www.debunking911.com...
www.debunking911.com...

I am sorry but i think most conspiracy websites go much deeper into the matter than this website does.

This site only taccles the easy speculative subjets.

How did these buildings come down in virtual free fall ??
(this is most important)

How did the fire fighters, in a lot of videos, know that building 7 was comming down.
They where running away warning others that it was comming down any minute.

Where are the pictures on this site that show the "bigger' fires in building 7 ?

How could passengers on these planes made cell phone call when it was technicaly not possible at the time?

Why did the penthagon did not have a automatic missile defence system turned on?
Like most goverment "do" have like on the red square in moscow.

There is much more like this but these are mostly not the subjects beeing taken on by the debunkers are they.

They just go into the details that where speculative from the beginning.

About the molten steel
911research.wtc7.net...

how can a crumbling buildings leave molten steel in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers .
That burned for weeks after.
Could you explain that please.





[edit on 1-11-2006 by jaamaan]

Well first off, regarding the matter of virtual freefall the site does explain that in frames, the building did not fully collapse in virtual freefall. He shows multiple pictures of the building losing integration and collapsing in different points.

Regarding the firefighters, he stated that they received a call which was to pull out of the building and not get near it because the owner of the building instructed them to do so, so that no one else would be hurt due to the collapse of the building. The building 7 has been burning for multiple days. He will also show you the picture of the building in another angle that shows the intense amount of smoke coming from the building.

He does not talk about the cell phones, but that does not mean he has the answer to every question you throw at him. Like I said in my quote, he is merely trying to answer whatever questions he can. I do not expect you to be able to answer every question I throw at you because you are not qualified to do so. (please understand)

If you read the other parts of his sites he will talk about the fact that NATO is #ing slow. He refers back to other incidents that took a very long response time. Not to say that, that is a valid reason for this case, but it does support the fact that a response may take longer than 10 minutes. He will then site how the chain of commands work in which employee has to talk to supervisor, supervisor calls so on, so on calls the military etc.

Regarding the molten steel, he does state that steel will act like a plastic at 1500 degrees and in degrees over 2000, it will melt things around it and melt other steel.

What I am basically saying is that you have good questions. He has good questions. I don't want an answer from just one theory. I want to have answers from multiple theories right or wrong at least it opens up the mind. Please note that the responses to your questions that I have given does not mean that I believe in the debunkers or that I am supporting the conspiracy theory. I just want to know the truth. I am here and open minded to challenge all questions and theories so that I can find out the truth myself and not just believe what jackass a said, or jackass b said. I also want to hear your thoughts as well. I am not qualified to say that thermite did or did not take down the buildings. I can only research what other professionals have researched. I always believe in the power of knowledge, so please argue with me or agree with me, all I need is more ideas to do more in depth research. I hope that in turn what I find out may help you out.

Originally posted by lilskeptical
Well first off, regarding the matter of virtual freefall the site does explain that in frames, the building did not fully collapse in virtual freefall. He shows multiple pictures of the building losing integration and collapsing in different points.

Still the total falling time of the building was virtual free fal from top to bottom.
That is still hard to explain i think.

The building 7 has been burning for multiple days.

I thought that building 7 did not burn for days, it came down on 9/11
I has been stated by many experts that this steel frame building could not have been brought down by these fires.
The building was converted to have re-enforced bunker command centers build into it.
This building came down in free fall to.
How can a collapsing building come down in virtual free fall.
According to the laws of nature a crumbling building would find resistance in comming down and would slow the fall down and making it slower than a marble falling trough clean air.

He does not talk about the cell phones, but that does not mean he has the answer to every question you throw at him. Like I said in my quote, he is merely trying to answer whatever questions he can. I do not expect you to be able to answer every question I throw at you because you are not qualified to do so. (please understand)

of course man, respect.

Regarding the molten steel, he does state that steel will act like a plastic at 1500 degrees and in degrees over 2000, it will melt things around it and melt other steel.

This molten steel was burning for weeks after 9/11 that is very strange, especialy when lots of experts state that the steel in the top of the building could not be melted by the fires that happened that day in these buildings.
Some things melting or bending in the top of these buildings i can image a little, aldo experts say it couldnt.
But these puddles of molten steel where huge, this man did not convince me on this matter

What I am basically saying is that you have good questions. He has good questions. I don't want an answer from just one theory. I want to have answers from multiple theories right or wrong at least it opens up the mind. Please note that the responses to your questions that I have given does not mean that I believe in the debunkers or that I am supporting the conspiracy theory. I just want to know the truth. I am here and open minded to challenge all questions and theories so that I can find out the truth myself and not just believe what jackass a said, or jackass b said. I also want to hear your thoughts as well. I am not qualified to say that thermite did or did not take down the buildings. I can only research what other professionals have researched. I always believe in the power of knowledge, so please argue with me or agree with me, all I need is more ideas to do more in depth research. I hope that in turn what I find out may help you out.

Respect again, i am just trying to do the same

There is nothing on that website that most of us have not already seen. It's the same kind of elementary attempts at rebuttals that take place on forums like this, at least every bit as speculative and often moreso than the claims in which they attempt to rebutt, except made into a website.

I don't even really make arguments for demolition theory. I don't see strong evidence for any kind of conventional implosion (excepting WTC7). I just see the official explanation as to how those buildings fell is absolutely ridiculous, and does not add up. It only takes one "side" of the story to figure that out.

Originally posted by lilskeptical
Regarding the molten steel, he does state that steel will act like a plastic at 1500 degrees and in degrees over 2000, it will melt things around it and melt other steel.

Too bad it doesn't become that heated in building fires, and I'm sure he knows this.


WTC7 burned for a few hours only, and even then, the fires were absolutely pathetic. It was more sooty smoke than anything else. And the fact that we have to discuss the fires to begin with amazes me. The building fell straight down at free-fall speed into a 3-story pile, with a kink typical of conventional implosions that allowed it to stay largely within its own footprint.


You know what kinds of arguments you see on sites like Debunking911.com? You see arguments like, "Well it wasn't free-fall speed if you start timing earlier and average out the velocity!" (essentially buffering it with a bunch of 0's before the global collapse took place).

Problem there, and this is typical, is that the underlying point, the real issue, is not addressed. The real issue is that when WTC7 fell down, it was totally unresisted (thus the free-fall velocity of the global collapse), which is impossible outside of controlled demolition. Otherwise the columns and other solid structure would have resisted the fall, and it would have at least SLOWED DOWN, which necessitates a slower-than-free-fall velocity at SOME point. Averaging out the global collapse velocity to avoid this issue and thinking you've thereby "debunked" it is borderline metally disabled, or at least not logically thought out, and yet that's the kind of stuff you'll see.

The same goes for the Twin Towers. They at least should have slowed. The fact that they didn't means that the structure that was allegedly being crushed by falling debris was requiring 0 energy to destroy, and taking 0 kinetic energy out of the falling system. That doesn't happen unless you're using explosives to remove the structure ahead of the collapse wave.

[edit on 1-11-2006 by bsbray11]