Thank you. This is the big difference between 9-11 and any other fire aided building collapse. Number 1, as far as I know there has been NO other event in human history where a huge 110 story high building, or even smaller than that for that matter, fell straight down into its' own footprint in less than 10 seconds, just from fire.

So given that for the 9-11 story to be true, it would have to go against all the evidence from history indicating that how it happened simply could not be physically possible because it's never happened before or since. It simply does not work.

not for you, because you don't understand physics...how can it not be possible? can you explain that?

If it's so possible explain why the hell it never happened before or again since? You're gonna tell me it's so possible and yet it's happened ONCE? Come on that's down right absurd.

so your not going to explain why it is not possible? since they fell the way they did, i feel it is self explanatory, so i do not need to explain it. your the one using illogical reasoning, saying it has never happened before, so it couldn't have happened that way... but it did...i'm sorry you do not understand, perhaps more schooling can help you with that...

By that logic any world record holder did something impossible because no one has done it before or sense.

How many huge buildings in history did they allow to burn for 8 plus hours( because they were busy trying to save people from a seperate collapse) that also had the same structural design? I forgot to mention that there were no buildings that day that collapsed just from fire.

That building you posted above was not one of the twin towers. That is WTC #6 --which was only partially collapsed. Building #7 had rubble left that was six stories high.

Not so where the towers were concerned. And the twin towers were a lot taller than WTC-6 and WTC-7 (110 stories) as you can see. The rubble was not there to account for the building.



So tell me, where in this picture is WTC #6 and #7. They are dwarfed by the towers.

So all the people they were trying to save and cut out from under the rubble, that was a lie huh? If there was no rubble there would be noone to save.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxITtmJTSzs

looks like debris to me.

After the twin towers fell, I doubt if they found any survivors in that rubble. There was plenty of rubble from buildings #6 and #7. A lot of people got out of the towers before they were blown up. But I don't think they found any survivors after that, in the rubble.

Sure there were debris. From #7 and #6 and from #3, the Hotel. There was plenty of debris. But for the towers... not enough to account for 110 stories. Not as much as the other much smaller buildings. They were turned into dust. Very little debris.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McLoughlin_(9/11_survivor)

There is one person right there that was and mentions another on the same page

I like how you claim to do all this research and then post stuff like that. It took me all of 2 seconds to search 9/11 post collapse survivors to find that one.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/

there is another post collapse survivor.

Well I can't believe you showed me rubble from building #6 as evidence of rubble from the twin towers.

There is tons and tons of evidence, websites, witnesses, survivors stories all over the Internet. Don't expect me to have read them all. I have better things to do.

Believe the fairy tales if you wish. Good bye I'm done now. I don't give a crap.

I really don't.

Just looking at the picture of those two towers I see how you could have fit five of those smaller buildings inside of them. They are MASSIVE! If they had fallen the way they say they fell they would have destroyed most of the buildings around them!!

The reason this can't work though is because for it to it would have to defy the basic laws of physics, it's really that simple. You can say I don't know them all you want, but I contend it's you that needs the lesson and not me.

Just to give you an idea of what building is what. I found this interesting.

No it doesn't, it fell as physics dictates. You don't understand physics. I doubt you have ever studied it as you always refuse to list your education. You also think that the building should have fallen over which also doesn't coincide with the laws of physics.

you still haven't explained why it is so impossible... i'm waiting

I just watched a high definition video of the event. At one point in the collapse of the towers you could see, through the smoke (or dust) a very tall batch of steal beams standing up. Around them, there were no 'floors' collapsing one on top of another. Then the dust covered the area and the camera moved downward. When it came back up, the steal beams were gone.

What caused them to disappear? There were no floors full of weighted material to cause them to collapse as the official story claims. They just turned to dust like the pictures I posted in this thread. They just disappeared.

Yes because beams cant fall over or anything. Nah they have to turn to dust...... Do you ever actually listen to yourself? But apparently you think its more likely that a weapon we don't have the technology for exists and the government decided to use it on the building but some how it damaged the inside of the building before the outside and didn't cause any sort of visual effect, displace any other heat, or cause any radiation. But that is way more realistic than anything else such as a beam falling over for example.