of course bush knew about everything before it happened. he is a frequent caller to dionne warwick's psychic hotline. she was the one who told him to sit calmly and not send everything america has to shoot down commercial aircraft loaded with civilians (since this tactic of hijacking a plane and flying into buildings has been used thousands of times before, instead of hijacking a plane and diverting it's destination) i gotta know what else bush knew, i'm logging off to call now

FEMA deathcamps? Really? Where might those be?

Building 7 was heavily damaged when Tower 1 collapsed. It was debris from Tower 1 which ignited the fires in Building 7. The damage from debris weakened perimeter support for several floors. The heat from the fires - which were present in roughly half the floors of Building 7 due to the extensive debris damage - in conjunction with the reduced support caused a shift in lateral support near one of the core supports. Eventually because of weight, a ripple effect went through the building as several floors collapsed. A bulge was even noted on the outside of the building, indicating excessive stress on perimeter supports, which prompted the pull out of rescue personnel. When several lower floors began collapsing, it weakened the core support placing further load on the perimeter which no longer had lateral support. Without sufficient core or lateral support, the perimeter could not handle the additional weight, causing the building to collapse.

It all seems logical to me. In fact, because of damage within the area already, there was not enough water pressure for cooling of the steel. Therefore, the structural steel was subject to the full effects of high heat.

As far as eutectic steel in Building 7, I believe it was introduced to the building via the debris from Tower 1. Jet fuel contains sulphur, and the plane was constructed mostly of aluminum. Chemical processes triggered by the fires could have transformed these two elements into compounds, possibly even in gas form, which might have triggered a eutectic reaction in the steel of Towers 1 & 2. If so, this is just one more reason why Building 7 stood for so much longer than the Twin Towers after being damaged. Weight (almost double the floors above impact) plus a eutectic reaction could also explain why Tower 2 fell first, even though it had been struck second.

So far, there is no credible evidence of thermite being present in debris from Building 7. It is speculation based on circumstantial claims rather than physical evidence. When this was pointed out, they point to photos, which when analyzed, prove nothing. If anything, most photos demonstrate that the presence of thermite is more unlikely.

The photo which is most often brought forth is of some form of red substance scattered throughout what appears to be debris. However, there is nothing in the photo to show us that the debris is in fact from the WTC. It is too closely cropped to allow us to see the surrounding area. No people - including clean up crews - are shown in the picture. Furthermore, the substance is such a bright color despite smoke, dust, and weather that it calls into question how there is no discoloration.

The unfortunate truth is that many of these websites get their information from each other, allowing false information to spread in a viral manner. Think about it. Why does there need to be so many 9/11 "truth" or "conspiracy" sites? Why can't just a few links be passed on so that the information can be discussed and cross-analyzed by those who visit the site? To me, the answer is obvious: to drown out the real truth. It's a disinformation campaign meant to overwhelm and devour the websites that do not agree with the 9/11 Truther sites. They do not wish to entertain opposing evidence or views or facts. This makes it clear to me that whoever began the viral trend has a dishonest agenda. So the question becomes, "what do they hope to achieve with this?" While everyone is pointing at the government, no one is looking at the person (or people) who roused the hornet's nest in the first place. If you want to know the truth, go back to the beginning. See how this all began and who was involved.

So, what I see is, the people and web sites that are spurring so many to seek out the truth are the very same ones who are trying to hide and cover up the truth. Why would the government do that if they had something to hide?

And before someone says the government isn't behind the Truther sites....DUH! That's not my point. Someone has begun a ruthless campaign to discredit the government concerning 9/11 when in fact the government had nothing to hide concerning the events of 9/11. Who? And why? Those are the questions we should be asking.

The impact of the plane alone compromised a number of support trusses because of how the towers were constructed. It then took an hour of bearing additional load plus intense heat to cause enough support failure for the floors above impact to come crashing down.

As I pointed out before, the weight of the floors above was about 200x the force of an atomic blast (we are talking about the shockwave which rips buildings apart) once those floors began falling. Not much is going to stop that kind of power, especially when it is confined to a small area such as 200 ft x 200 ft. (The base of the towers was 208 ft on each side.)

Please understand the meaning of words

Theories as for conspiracies

2
: abstract thought : speculation

Scientific theories.

: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>


Also its the LAW of Gravity not theory. Gravity is a scientific LAW not a theory. Electricity is also not a Theory. Ever heard of Ohms LAW? Didn't think so. This shows you lack of scientific knowledge.

Theories are not truth. You whole theory is based on a lack of evidence. An absence of proof is not the proof of absence as they say. There is an official story and you are trying to disprove it. Despite what you say in your posts YOU are the person that has to prove your point. What do you think if Galileo just said "no the Earth orbits the sun. Prove the Sun orbits the Earth." If you are to challenge what is accepted as true you are the one to hold the burden of proof. I was merely pointing out your failed logic in your statements. If the government cant prove it to you its a lie.. well if you cant prove what I want to me its a lie. See how that logic is flawed?