micheal the twin towers fell because of the planes but i will not go as far to say Bush and certain people may have conspired to cause a crisis or reason to go back to Iraq . Bush was peed off Saddam put a contract out against his father .

if you watch the video the Landlord of Building 7 says something to the fire brigade which is very wierd to say the least watch it and you will see they did not need a army of demo experts crawling over the building .

And yes i do know the owner of building 7 is also the owner of the twin towers .

You are aware the U.S gov experimented with it's own troops while nuke testing just to see what the radiation effects where so i would not put it past there government to do things against there own people .

maybe i'm not as naive as you are

---

I hope everyone here knows that the planes didn't destroyed the Buildings.
It was the intense heat of burning jet fuel that made the steel structure to collapse.
And it took hours after the hits when they collapsed.
The constructors even calculated that before they where build and made them safe for plane crashes.
Once Empire State Building was hit by a bomber from WWII.

I was working near World Trade Center in Stockholm that day.
First I thought that building was hit...

I hope everyone here knows that the planes didn't destroyed the Buildings.
It was the intense heat of burning jet fuel that made the steel structure to collapse.

Yes and it was the fires and 60 ton of Aluminium that would have caused a Thermite type reaction on the Iron that finally caused it to collapse .

But it doesn't explain everything there could also be some truth about the building being already fitted with explosives incase it did not collapse like they would have thought it would .

I would have liked to see the steel from where the planes hit to see if there was a Thermite reaction on those floors . If there was a conspiracy then maybe in 50 years we mite find out when or if all the documents are released to the public till then we can only speculate

---

I hope everyone here knows that the planes didn't destroyed the Buildings.
It was the intense heat of burning jet fuel that made the steel structure to collapse.

Yes and it was the fires and 60 ton of Aluminium that would have caused a Thermite type reaction on the Iron that finally caused it to collapse .
But it doesn't explain everything there could also be some truth about the building being already fitted with explosives incase it did not collapse like they would have thought it would .
I would have liked to see the steel from where the planes hit to see if there was a Thermite reaction on those floors . If there was a conspiracy then maybe in 50 years we mite find out when or if all the documents are released to the public till then we can only speculate

I know that you use thermite for welding.
Maybe they used that technic when building them.
The traces of alleged thermite could be from that time.

I hope everyone here knows that the planes didn't destroyed the Buildings.
It was the intense heat of burning jet fuel that made the steel structure to collapse.

Yes and it was the fires and 60 ton of Aluminium that would have caused a Thermite type reaction on the Iron that finally caused it to collapse .
But it doesn't explain everything there could also be some truth about the building being already fitted with explosives incase it did not collapse like they would have thought it would .
I would have liked to see the steel from where the planes hit to see if there was a Thermite reaction on those floors . If there was a conspiracy then maybe in 50 years we mite find out when or if all the documents are released to the public till then we can only speculate

I know that you use thermite for welding.
Maybe they used that technic when building them.

Thermite welding is mainly used on railway lines etc not for construction really maybe for large cast items but that's about it , ive got some and know how to use it for both cutting and welding

micheal the twin towers fell because of the planes but i will not go as far to say Bush and certain people may have conspired to cause a crisis or reason to go back to Iraq . Bush was peed off Saddam put a contract out against his father .

I'll be the first to agree with you that the Bush administration used 9/11 to its own shady advantage to go into Iraq. There is plenty of proof to suggest that this is the case. What kind of proof? Government officials who admitted it, policy documents that admitted this, etc.

if you watch the video the Landlord of Building 7 says something to the fire brigade which is very wierd to say the least watch it and you will see they did not need a army of demo experts crawling over the building .

You are suggesting the US government knows how to collapse buildings in a controlled manner that no one else knows about, nor has talked about, nor exist any kind of physical proof to suggest that. Which means its just not the case.

If you want to collapse a building like that in a controlled manner by a controlled explosion, you need a demolition crew working on it for weeks. Otherwise it just won't do.

You are aware the U.S gov experimented with it's own troops while nuke testing just to see what the radiation effects where so i would not put it past there government to do things against there own people .

I'm very much aware of the shady stuff the US has done in the past. And why am I aware of it? Because there are official government documents for it. Government officials have testified about in court or in official hearings. People have talked to the media. In other words, there is a giant trail of evidence that tells me exactly what the US has done. For 9/11? All there is are amateur Youtube videos made by people who claim to be experts when they are not (hence they are liars) and who make arguments that make no logical sense or are build on fallacy after fallacy.

I'm not naive as you suggest, but I am a skeptic and 9/11 conspiracy theories do not make sense. They fail to meet any standard of evidence and are wholly unconvincing as a result.

Micheal watch the video . The u.S government does not have to know how to bring down a building all they have to do is pay someone to do it .The guy whom made it tells you how it may have been done and it's very (as MythBusters would say ) plausible he does ask that same question how can a demo crew plant charges throughout the building .

---

I'm surprised that no one has come up with the idea that it was aliens considering all those UFO sightings & claims of abduction :-)

Do people actually have enough faith in government competency to think that a) they could pull this off and b) keep it a secret?

---

Reality Internet Personality

If such a government exists, that is one hell of a government & deserves 100% of people's votes :-)

I'm surprised that no one has come up with the idea that it was aliens considering all those UFO sightings & claims of abduction :-)

You know Sirius that is what some have said in one vid i watch . They claimed you could see the Aleins on the outside of the building and even shows a picture of some space ship that landed . I thought man some people are crazy to make a vid like that , it was funny tho

---

Micheal watch the video . The u.S government does not have to know how to bring down a building all they have to do is pay someone to do it .The guy whom made it tells you how it may have been done and it's very (as MythBusters would say ) plausible he does ask that same question how can a demo crew plant charges throughout the building .

For heavens sake Glenn.
I Watch a few minutes and the Publisher starts to ask silly questions.
How can a skyscraper collapse because it hasn't happened before?
Usama bin Ladens father knew all about how to construct buildings and how to bring them down.
Saudi Binladin Group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Binladin_Group

Janne i don't agree with everything he says but you have to watch it for about 40 mins until he starts to say things that at least make you wonder . The other video called 9/11 consperecy is better but still like all so called doco's some of what is said will be correct but some won't . The video does start to make a bit more cents as you get past the 40 minute mark .
I thought it was rubbish for the first few minutes then he sort of starts to ask some good questions as well as some stupid one's .

I'll keep a open mind as to why , whom , what and how until all the truth is known .

why did the land lord say what he said " pull it " when he was told by the fire chief that the fires where not going to be put out . The chief say's shall we pull it . a reference to blow the building as they could not save it no.7 but watch the vid and you can here what he says your self when he plays the tape of the phone call.

now there is one answer did they blow the building 7 because they could not save it and was getting to far gone ?

If it was that badly damged then a few well placed charges may have been enough if the building was already compromised .

See i'm not that crazy to believe everything i see in a vid . I listen and keep a open mind to all possiblity's until one can be proven

---

The kitties said Dad shouldn't play with any thermite.....LOL.
I'll respect their wishes.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

I'll keep a open mind as to why , whom , what and how until all the truth is known .
why did the land lord say what he said " pull it " when he was told by the fire chief that the fires where not going to be put out . The chief say's shall we pull it . a reference to blow the building as they could not save it no.7 but watch the vid and you can here what he says your self when he plays the tape of the phone call.

now there is one answer did they blow the building 7 because they could not save it and was getting to far gone ?

If it was that badly damged then a few well placed charges may have been enough if the building was already compromised .

See i'm not that crazy to believe everything i see in a vid . I listen and keep a open mind to all possiblity's until one can be proven

I have now seen it, Glenn. Two hours with only question...
No evidences at all.
Only the part when he talks about fire and explosives are correct.
And he doesn't know anything about mechanics and how material of all kind behaves under stress and heat.
He make the US to look worse then Putins Russia:)
Maybe the US gov have moles from the Kremlin...

Did the landlord of Building 7 said "pull it" or "pull out"?

He make the US to look worse then Putins Russia:)
Maybe the US gov have moles from the Kremlin...

Did the landlord of Building 7 said "pull it" or "pull out"?

Maybe Janne the Kremlin does have moles in the U.S

I do think he said "pull it "

If i was the Fire chief and the building was not going to be saved from the fire and would have been to dangerous i would have made the choisce to drop it then .

There where few civilians around and insurance would not be a problem as there would have been no way to figure out what was caused by the twin towers and what was not .

It would explain why the penthouse fell first and the building followed .

A big enough charge placed in the lifts would have caused the main support of the building to collapse and the rest would have followed seeing as there was extensive damage from the fire already and the heat would have weakened the other main supports enough to bring it down . Steel as it heats up loses it's strength at about 600 c (or cherry red as it's called) the steel would not be strong enough to support the building if the main central core was blown up

When you consider how many firemen had already been killed by this time i think it is a very real possibility they dropped the building than take a risk of sending men into that building to fight the fires . It would have stopped the fires spreading to buildings close by if they just dropped it then and there .

---

He make the US to look worse then Putins Russia:)
Maybe the US gov have moles from the Kremlin...

Did the landlord of Building 7 said "pull it" or "pull out"?

Maybe Janne the Kremlin does have moles in the U.S

I do think he said "pull it "

If i was the Fire chief and the building was not going to be saved from the fire and would have been to dangerous i would have made the choisce to drop it then .

There where few civilians around and insurance would not be a problem as there would have been no way to figure out what was caused by the twin towers and what was not .

It would explain why the penthouse fell first and the building followed .

A big enough charge placed in the lifts would have caused the main support of the building to collapse and the rest would have followed seeing as there was extensive damage from the fire already and the heat would have weakened the other main supports enough to bring it down . Steel as it heats up loses it's strength at about 600 c (or cherry red as it's called) the steel would not be strong enough to support the building if the main central core was blown up

When you consider how many firemen had already been killed by this time i think it is a very real possibility they dropped the building than take a risk of sending men into that building to fight the fires . It would have stopped the fires spreading to buildings close by if they just dropped it then and there .

Two buildings over 1000 feet fall. And the building next door to the heat and ground shacking. And you still think it was dropped on purpose? Why, What was in building 7 that was so secret?
And a B-25 bomber did hit the empire state building during WW2. It didnt collaspe because it was built a hell of a lot stronger.

Edit- There is a huge differance between a fire proof steel beam and a fire resistance steel beam. From what I have read the towers had fire resistant beams. That means they were sprayed with a fire retardent. If they had been incased in concrete, They would have been classed as fire proof.
Yes I know given enough heat and time nothing is fire proof. But when I was in the fire service, We learned that unprotected steel will expand. If I remember right the ratio was for 100 feet of steel, It will expand 1 foot.
Protect it and you buy time.
And the thing is steel will sag with heat also. You get an inital expanding action which stresses it anchor point. Then when it does start to sag you get a pulling effect on those same anchor points. Something will give.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Micheal watch the video . The u.S government does not have to know how to bring down a building all they have to do is pay someone to do it .The guy whom made it tells you how it may have been done and it's very (as MythBusters would say ) plausible he does ask that same question how can a demo crew plant charges throughout the building .

Right, so paying people to do it only expands the conspiracy to outside the government. Don't you think there wouldn't have been a bunch of people who wired the building going to the media and talking about how they got this government contract? Don't you think there wouldn't have been some paper trail people could trace? And again, don't you think the people in New York would have noticed?

The guy talks a lot but nothing he says is even remotely plausible.

Edit- There is a huge differance between a fire proof steel beam and a fire resistance steel beam. From what I have read the towers had fire resistant beams. That means they were sprayed with a fire retardent. If they had been incased in concrete, They would have been classed as fire proof.

The Towers had fire resistant beams.
The fact is that asbestos in the towers was limited to floors only up to the 38th floor of WTC 1 and it was encapsulated. There was no asbestos in WTC2 .
After 30 years the asbestos "protected" beams looked like this.

http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

He make the US to look worse then Putins Russia:)
Maybe the US gov have moles from the Kremlin...
Did the landlord of Building 7 said "pull it" or "pull out"?

I do think he said "pull it "

If i was the Fire chief and the building was not going to be saved from the fire and would have been to dangerous i would have made the choisce to drop it then .
There where few civilians around and insurance would not be a problem as there would have been no way to figure out what was caused by the twin towers and what was not .
It would explain why the penthouse fell first and the building followed .
A big enough charge placed in the lifts would have caused the main support of the building to collapse and the rest would have followed seeing as there was extensive damage from the fire already and the heat would have weakened the other main supports enough to bring it down . Steel as it heats up loses it's strength at about 600 c (or cherry red as it's called) the steel would not be strong enough to support the building if the main central core was blown up
When you consider how many firemen had already been killed by this time i think it is a very real possibility they dropped the building than take a risk of sending men into that building to fight the fires . It would have stopped the fires spreading to buildings close by if they just dropped it then and there .

He did say both "pull" and pull "it" in this video with "secrets revieled".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKUTChb5Hvk
So the firemen choosed to stop fight the fires.
Not to explode a lot of hidden demolition charges as some suggest.