also dont forget that more surface area = more air resistance, and those floors had a LOT of surface area... not to mention the resistance they would've encountered on every lower floor.

also another example of how i dont take everything from conspiracy sites for gospel is this falling object thing... most conspiracy ppl say that the towers fell in 10.4 seconds and 8.9 seconds and that the falling body works for the towers. i CHECKED that out for myself and i smack the shit outta anyone who says that because the towers fell in 12.5 seconds and 14 seconds... i DO check everything out.

Too Exclusive I don't have a problem with you or the fact you question our goverment or what happened. A suspicious citizenry is what keeps our government in line.

My problem is the conspiracy sites which present speculation as fact, show an unfair bias for their opinion ten times worse than the media they complain about, the great length they go to as they put it " put things in perspective and the vast amounts of misleading information they use to support their claims.

In an earlier post you finally admitted being wrong about the so called Executive Order, why not admit you where wrong in several of your other points you didn't really research but only took as Gospel as you read about them on the sites you link to?

well let's not forget that al-CIAeda was founded, funded, and trained by our government.
al-Qeada wasn't formed until 1989 which is 5 years after the USA stopped funding the Afghan Resistance

the terrorists would have to find some way to get into the country unnoticed, train to be master pilots unnoticed, and find some way to defeat NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense). See NORAD is a system of radars throughout the country whose headquarters are in Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. they track EVERY plane in the sky on radar.
Already has been disproved
Prior to 9-11 NORAD only focused on incoming aircraft.

jet fuel only burns at about 1000 degrees fahrenheit, yet steel has a melting point of 2800 degrees fahrenheit. the jet fuel(most of it) burned up in that giant fireball you saw. the jet fuel didnt burn much inside, and by the end there were only a few smoldering oxygen starved fires. the steel was freezing compared to what it would need to melt!
Another common point the conspiracy sites use to mislead.
When the 1st stories came out citing the fires as the cause of the collapse, every conspiracy nut jumped on the fact the fire didn't create enough heat to MELT the steel.
Melt was just a simplified term used to explain what happened, no one was trying to say the steel melted to the point of becoming molten. Steel's strength in relation to thermal breakdown is almost linear. At half the melting temperature steel has already lost half of it's strength.
Even when this point is argued to show the conspiracy nuts are wrong. The most common reply is the building was over built to start with and cite how the floor trusses where designed to handle 5 times their load so even if the steel had lost half of it's strength they where still well within their design limits.
Even this point is misleading and here is why. When the nuts talk about the load limits of the floor trusses they are talking about the live load limits. There is a very distinct and important difference between live and dead limits.
The dead limits take into account all the force placed on the trusses by the building. Keep in mind the trusses where required to transfer all the weight/force to the core support columns as the WTC had no internal load bearing walls.
Considering all the forces acting on the trusses and other support structure, the dead limits would be far higher than the active load limits.
My point is even though the trusses could of lost half of their strength and still supported their active load they surely wouldn't of also been within their design limits when you factor in the dead limits which would be much higher.
Also keep in mind the aircraft impacts removed a major part of the load bearing structure causing more weight to be applied to the remaining. This increased the dead weight limits even more.

the next event on 9/11 was the attack on the pentagon... which is a completely ridiculous claim. first of all, the official story states that the plane flew inches above the cars on I-395 to slam into the pentagon,
The claim an aircraft didn't hit the pentagon is probably the popular conspiracy from 9-11.
I've yet to see a site answer what I believe would be the most basic common sense question to back up their claim it wasn't a plane.
If it wasn't American Airlines Flight 77, then explain what happened to flight 77.
Do you think it safely landed somewhere and no one noticed?
Do you think American Airlines is part of the government cover up?
Do you think the passengers from flight 77 are alive and well and hiding out with Elvis?
If the conspiracy nuts really wanted to prove it wasn't a plane all they would have to do is prove something else happened to flight 77 or that it didn't ever exist?
Pretty damn simple if you ask me, so simple yet no one has been able to do just that?

the last event on 9/11 occured at 5:20 PM, and that was the collapse of the WTC building 7, a 47 story building about 200 yards from from the towers. question: how does a building with only a few minor scattered fires collapse at the rate of a free-falling body in a vacum?
I don't understand the mention of free falling body in a vacuum, I guess you or whoever wrote it though it made it sound better. I don't know about you but back in school I learned gravity pulled on everything the same.
There has been very little written about WTC7 because everyone naturally focuses on the twin towers. My question would be how much damage did WTC7 receive when the towers fell. I'm not talking about direct damage but damage to it's foundation and support structure caused by the 1000's of tons of rubble cashing to the ground as you mentioned only 200 yards away.

BEFORE 9/11, NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. AFTER 9/11, NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. STEEL BUILDINGS DO NOT COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE. again, if u say it was because of the planes, NO PLANE HIT BUILDING 7.
A key point you overlooked.
The design of the WTC is very different from most other buildings past and even present. As much as you try to show this as proof of cover up or consiracy. The common sense question would be did all 3 building share a common design flaw?
For an in depth review this is by far the best report I've read.
http://www.structuremag.org/forum/WTC-Scheuermann.pdf
Unlike most other studies this one is done by a retired fire chief only looking to improve fire and building codes.

Or how about this nugget
i can't believe u guys dont realize that there is NO WAY that kind of attack could be planned, ppl trained in flight schools here, and the CIA (with it's extra funding from the OKC bombing in 95) didn't find it out.
2 big problems with this.
1) The CIA has been prohibited by the 1947 National Security Act of any involvement in internal security, their only focus has been foreign intelligence activities relating to national security. Which means they wouldn't of had anything to do with the OKC case
2) The CIA budget has been a closely guarded secret from the very beginning as a way to protect their intelligence sources and methods from disclosure.
The CIA has no direct budget, the CIA gets it's funds from several undisclosed items in the DOD budget.

So I'm very curious how you can claim the CIA budget went up after the OKC bombing in 95 when no one knows what the CIA budget has been for the last 50 years.



and about all your misleading points.
If one part fails under common sense doesn't that mean the rest is likely flawed as well?
Ok WTC7 according to you was brought down by demolition charges.
As you have already claimed it would takes days/weeks of prep work.
Are you saying no one going in/out of the building noticed tripping over the circuitry involved?

You try and make some point over WTC7 falling in it's footprint.
Why is this surprising? For the most part WTC 1 and 2 did the exact same thing.
Why? Simple gravity pulls things straight down.
Gravity doesn't pull sideways. There's not even a logical reason for it to fall anyway but straight down.

Are you really going to claim some secret group rigged the building like this


And no one happen to notice in the days leading up to 9-11???
Get real. [/COLOR]

What is your point? Are you out to disprove all physics?? So what? What are you trying to say?

you have no clue what's going on...
correct grav pulls things straight down, but think about it. for gravity to pull a building down like it did building 7, the stresses would have to be evenly spaced out or it would hit a kink along the way that would make it tilt a noticable amount.

assuming trusses are trusses if one truss fails they all fail steel or not.

Here is an idea, stop with the 101 points of speculation, how about you give me a detailed description of what you think happened on 9-11 and the days leading up to it.

i already did give a detailed description of what i think happened on 9/11... it's on the first page of this thread... not the days leading up to it tho. and silver, im not talking about trusses... im talking about all the supportrs... if a few scattered supports fell the building wouldn't even collapse, and even if it did it would hit something and tilt, just like the south tower did... but there is NO tilt in building 7 it's completely symmetrical...

And so you automatically assume it was a bomb? It had to be the U.S. gov't blowing up the building becuase there were people who knew too much. Right. What else could have caused this, because i'm telling you dude, no bomb blew that place up.

I agree, the government would go far enough as to blow up a building with thousands of people in it just to pull off a greedy act? I wouldn't count on it.

As long is there are suspicous citizens as druid pointed out i don't think the government would pull off something that major.

BOINK?

what am i if im not a suspicious citizen? but im just labeled a conspiracy nut for being suspicous. THAT'S how they got away with it. and napoleon, i do assume it was a bomb... YOU're the one who's supposed to tell me how it can collapse str8 down without a bomb... and you haven't yet...

we have answers you dont accept. its common belief, ur burden of proof.

it's not that i dont accept most of ur answers, it's that im good with physics and i know better. how about this, ill take my case straight to the physics guru in my school and see what he has to say about the matter. he is not biased either way. one of these days ill bring the case to him after school or something. he'll be able to tell me that there's definitely something wrong with building 7's collapse.