skankspankr (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

(cont'd) Yes, the govt had warnings (tho non-specific), and did a terible job of following up on them, which is why the Com Report is tainted. I'm of the opinion that Bush took avantage of 9/11 to seek his desired agenda of an Iraqi invasion (which was no secret, even before 9/11). But Afghanistan could have avoided alot of suffering. And if you dont believe in the legitimacy of the premise for war, then of course you wont trust the war itself, same with the Patriot Act and Homeland Security.

skankspankr (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Are you saying the twin towers were built to sustain larger impacts than the 767s that hit them. That's dead wrong! They were built to endure a much smaller and slower plane (707). Tower 7 may not have been hit by a plane but it was hit by at least one 110-story building. It also sustained massive structural damage to it's lower floors. Skyscrapers have to be able to endure very high sustained winds due to their height. That became a factor. (cont'd)

skankspankr (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Th Windsor building's design is nothing like the WTCs either, and didnt carry the burden of 40 stories over the fires' location. Oh, and the top 10 stories of the W building did collapse. But the video you reccomended said the WTC buildings were the first steel buildings, etc, which is incorrect. And how could the towers fall AGAINST gravity?? Did it fall UP?? LOL

brown55061 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The towers were built to sustain much larger impacts than this. WTC7 didnt get hit by a plane! What does the height have to do with it? Gravity reacts the same at 1000 ft as it does at 1 ft. Even if there were no conspiracy about the govt's involvment they knew this kind of attack was coming. Read about Bojinka. As early as 95 the CIA had intelligence on this style attack and did nothing to stop it. Best case senario, they needed this attack to march off to 2 more illegal undecalred wars.

brown55061 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Those buildings are nothing like the WTC structure design. ALSO none of them imploded on themselves symetrically. The windsor burned for 20hrs, raging at 1000* plus til nothing was left except the steel and it barely sagged. None of these buildings you're compare it to are NEAR the scale of the towers or WTC7, especially seeing as the towers were built to hold 10 times their rated weight for safety. Lastly the towers fell AGAINST gravity into the strongest opposition from below under the impact.

skankspankr (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

(cont'd) There ARE many examples of other burning steel stuctures collapsing pre-9/11; McCormick Center in Chicago, Sight & Sound Theater in Pennsylvania, the Kader Toy Factory in Singapore, and these werent even struck by 767s. So you really think, with your apparent familiarity of scientific knowledge, that these buildings were brought down by CD? And the PM article actually consulted people who actualy investigated, participated in, and witnessed the aftermath on 9/11, not just docs and vids.

skankspankr (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Factual? Science is no good if it cant even be applied to factual information in the first place. The videos are just another example of misrepresentation. For one thing, this guy uses the old tired "Fires weren't hot enough to cause collapse" argument, even though it's well-established that the fires alone DID NOT CAUSE THE COLLAPSE! Why arent the other factors contributing to the collapses addressed? Like the plane crash, resuling structural damage, height, etc. (cont'd)

brown55061 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I think the problem with the PM article was they took everything FEMA and NIST reported (which was lies and twisted facts) and used it for the base of their findings. If you believed the NIST report you could say PM was right too. But science tells a different story. If you know the thermal characteristics of WTC steel and what NIST claimed you could see it's impossible for this result. I encourage you to watch this man's videos for FACTUAL sciences: watch?v=3PawC4u1U7k watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY

skankspankr (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I agree that freelance investigators (scientists, writers, etc) have done a more thorough investigation than the US govt. The 9/11 Comm Report was tainted by ass-covering and politics (but no evidence of complicity to 9/11 conspiracy). I know little about Davin, and have never refered to him as an "idol", but I've seen nothing that could convince me that their 9/11 issue was incorrect in their findings. If we're depending on these 2 idiots debating them to provide answers, we're really lost.

brown55061 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I somewhat agree. The readers SHOULD be able to decipher BS from facts. However if the readers are American engineers I have my doubts. Even the institute of standards has been incorrect on many findings. Many scientists DID call them out on their publishings on their 911 theories. Im not talking about the twoofers on YouTube that always display their ignorance. I am saying real freelance scientists have done a more thorough investigation of 9/11 than the US govt. Davin is hardly an idol!