Just curious if someone can point me to another (let alone 3) steel-framed "modern" skyscraper that collapsed into it's own footprint. Curious that the American people are told to accept an "official story" that entails not one, not two, but three instances of perfect and complete structural failure that had never been seen before, nor since.

Personally, I think that any rational person that isn't a bit suspicious of the events that day is being naive. Call me any name you want, but one doesn't have to be an engineer/scientist to understand that what we're being told happen, and what we actually saw happen don't seem to gibe.

I know a civil engineer (PE) who claims to have read every published bit of evidence from NIST and states emphatically that what they're claim is physically impossible. In fact, he was influential in understanding of the events. Before my numerous, and heated, discussions with him I thought like many in here that it was a "attack" by terrorists. Basically, he says (and I agree after looking over the evidence) that a simultaneous failure of all the supports to cause the kind of collapse is impossible once (without, of course, the aid of controlled demolitions) let alone three times.

Tap dat ass! HAHA YEAH BOY!

I saw two jet airliners hit two towers. A brief time later, I saw those two towers collapse. I then saw OBl and AQ take the credit for it and their followers rejoicing.That's enoughto convince me that OBL and AQ were responsible. Of course, I was actually a 30 something year old adult, not an 8 or 10 year old kid like many here were.

" I then saw OBl and AQ take the credit for it and their followers rejoicing."

Your memory is faulty. bin Laden denied any involvement (but he did praise the attacks).

@mm< - First, the three weren't simultaneous in and of themselves. The reports clearly show tower 7 started buckling hours before it fell. It already had structrual failures and the collapse occured when the proverbial straw crushed the camel's back, as it were. Re the other two, I trust the numerous engineers I know in the civil/structural engineering field who have also looked at it and disagree with your supposed friend.

Correction Draugnar, you THINK you saw two jetliners hit two towers, then you saw the buildings collapse. You're assuming that the cause of the collapse was the jetliners hitting the towers -- but what about Bldg. 7? You're mistaking a correlation with actual CAUSATION.

Tolstoy is correct -- the whore media has brainwashed people into believing that OBL and AQ claimed credit.

I'll repeat my original question: has there ever been, before or since, another similarl building that has collapsed into its own footprint like the three WTC towers did due to fire?

The answer to that is an unequivocal, "NO!" Yet the entire "official story" relies upon the suspension of every know structural failure, the laws of physics, and the laws of metallurgy.

No, I *saw* two jetliners hit the towers. Unless the news services were also in on the conspiracy. And then you are taking a conspiracy to a huge epic fucking leap. I saw footage of the first and I saw the second's footage as they swung the cameras to it.

@ww< Has there ever been, before or since, a skyscraper directly hit head-on by a jet airliner? Your question is invalid because it doesn't include all the circumstances.

Back to the OP.

Surely it makes sense to call up Hilary for Vice President? It's highly doubtful that Joe Biden would run for President when Obama's second term finishes - but Hilary has the momentum and popularity to make a very successful bid. Her profile as Secretary of State has been one of the most well-received aspects of the Obama administration, the only thing seemingly standing in her way would be her age - and perhaps the nut jobs who might label her a health care communist.

to whoever doesn't like my lack of capital letters - i don't care. if you cant understand, then dont read. maybe i should get rid of apostrophes too. holding shift keys and finding punctuation marks on the keyboard is too much work.

Firstly, I am not going to get into the numerous and quite compelling discussions of what actually hit the towers because you're obviously too close-minded. I'll just say this, you saw tapes of the event, not the event itself, and I highly doubt that you've actually dissected and analyzed the video footage like many have.

Secondly, my point is perfectly valid. There have been sky scrapers hit by jetliners in the past and the building did not collapse into it's own footprint. Regardless of this fact, is the fact that the official story claims that the jet fuel along with the building material got so hot, that it caused the steel to fail. But wait, there's more. Not only are we told that the heat caused the steel to fail (which is a lie -- the temps were no where near high enough to cause failure), but we're told this heat caused the SIMULTANEOUS failure that cause the perfect implosion of these building. If this weren't enough, we're told that these perfect set of circumstances happened three times in succession, and even happened one time to a building that WAS NOT STRUCK BY ANYTHING! Amazingly, the people that do not believe this amazing set of circumstances are the ones that get ridiculed.

MichiganMilitiaMan, you are also an irredeemable idiot. Perhaps even a bit more than most 9/11 denialists, since you seem to be one of these No Planers.

Can't y'all take 9/11 rants somewhere else? That deserves its own thread if ever a topic did. Back to the OP (please :)...

Surely it makes sense to call up Hilary for Vice President? It's highly doubtful that Joe Biden would run for President when Obama's second term finishes - but Hilary has the momentum and popularity to make a very successful bid. Her profile as Secretary of State has been one of the most well-received aspects of the Obama administration, the only thing seemingly standing in her way would be her age - and perhaps the nut jobs who might label her a health care communist.

The problem with that is that Hilary has said she doesn't want to run again, and it looks like she may mean it.

It also just doesn't happen that a president replaces his running mate. The last time I can think of was when FDR switched to Truman from Wallace. That's seventy years ago.

ok wait, michiganman, planes did hit the towers. don't be fooled by the online disinformation. there is a lot of garbage online. a lot of it is counter-intelligence to discredit any questioning of the official story.

Yes, she did say that but if she was given another serious opportunity to become leader of the most important country in the world, I think she'd do it. If she really wanted to let go of politics, she would have done it already so I think there's still a credible chance. My impression was that she denied the rumours so they wouldn't follow her through the 8 years Obama will be running the country.

I take the point about replacing running mates though. What it naturally seem like a massive affront to Biden if he was replaced? Or are there ways for it to happen cordially?

@Invictus:

Name calling is very telling. When you don't want to debate/discuss like a civil rational adult, call the opposition names to make yourself look/feel intellectually superior.

I am not saying that I am a "no planer", I am saying that there are some very interested dissections of the video evidence that come to some interesting conclusion. Can one really call themselves "informed" if one refuses to look at the evidence, all the evidence? I suspect that you'll claim that some evidence is more important and worthy of your time than others. To that I would caution you. A truly informed individual takes in all the information possible, without bias and judgment, and then constructs a their understanding of the subject. Yes, sometimes that entails reading through information that is a bit "out there". But, simply dismissing it out of hand, and then calling people that have looked at it names is doing yourself a disservice. You assume that I was claiming that there were no planes, but you never thought that I was claiming that they weren't the allegedly hijacked jetliners. Your prejudice is clouding your logic.

Is calling me a "MilitiaMan" supposed to insult me? Why such vitriol?

As I said before, dropping Biden brings up the issue of his failing to get a troop agreement with Iraq. Obama doesn't want Iraq back in the discourse, especially if it implies that he screwed stuff up. Rightly or wrongly, that would be an issue in the even Biden left the ticket.

And it'll be Cuomo in 2016 anyway.

@mm< I have already pointed out the facts of WTC 7, but I will repeat them. Buidling three didn't *not* have the supposed perfect collapse you claim the official story claims (which it doesn't).

From wikipedia:

As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building[29] and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.[8] The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41.[8] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[30][31]

After the North Tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[32] Over the course of the day fires burned out of control on several floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[33][34] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[29] In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[35] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[36] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building.[37] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[38] At 5:20:33 pm EDT the building started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, and at 5:21:10 pm EDT it collapsed completely.[1][39] There were no casualties associated with the collapse.



As far as the temps inside and the failure of the steel, they most certainly were hot enough to cause the steel to fail. Steel begins to lose it's ability to support a load at as low as 650 degrees F. I'm sure you are about to quote either the 1500 degree number (steel actually melts at 1500) or a 1000+ number, but by that time (1000 degrees F) steel has lost 80% or more of it's load bearing capacity and would already have collapsed under the weight of the floors above it. A little research and logic shows that at the temperatures of jet fuel *and* the plastics and other common chemicals in a typical office environment, the steel would easily have failed under the load of the floors above it.

As far as it's collapse down the center instead of toppling sideways, that was an element of it's design to begin with. So unless they planned this attack back in the 60s, the fact it came straight down would have no bearing on the supposed conspiracy. The WTC was designed differently from many other skyscrapers.

Finally, please provide even one other example of a skyscraper hit head on by a commercial jet airliner. I am honestly interested if you can. I can't find one.

What is funny is that you people talk about the "election" as if it is actually real, and not simply a dog-and-pony show meant to reaffirm the delusional American public that the have the power to choose their leaders.

You guys a hilarious!

Ah, a wikipedia quote...by far and away the definitive voice on our reality.

You're all so naive that it would be laughable if such nativity weren't such a danger to the Republic!

Here's a dissertation titled: "Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics" that clearly shows that the "pancake theory" is patently false.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf

OK, discussion over. Rant if you want mm<. You have proven yourself to be irrational and a conspiracy theorist of the highest order. Draugnar out (of this discussion).

"9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible"

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf

Despite thier claims to the contrary - that particular website is a conspiracy theorist website and does not represent an impartial perspective at all. So not a reliable source for facts, so much as a reliable source for twisting the truth to meet their needs.