Goldmine:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

3 years of tested hypothesis, computer models, simulations, video surveillance, fact checking, etcetra, totally demolishing the controlled demolition theory. :)

By the way, it is a legitimate style of debunking. Loose Change made several inferences that they claimed were fact, without showing any legitimate source.

and those military complex makes billions seeling war supplies for it all
oil companies make billions more
and we fund the war
brilliant if your on the right side

^^what'd you expect, unbiased research from an OFFICIAL GOV SITE!?

talk about gullible

me ? i aint gullible shit
im giving crazy hades the benefit of the doubt by thoroughly reading his links and seeing if it is in fact true what he says..........
because if i wanted people to consider MY argument,, i have to consider theirs

No, he's talking to me.

Apexx, stop saying shit like I'm gullible because I don't share your fucking opinion. Yeah, it's a government site, I'm able to read URLs, and so are you. If you can prove me wrong and counter everything -- hell, even a little bit --- of what they said, I'd be more than obliged to bow before you and lick your feet if you are able to prove them wrong.

nah Tav I'm talking to Crazy Hades.

and Crazy Hades, i called you gullible becaues you expect to find any truths unearthed on a government site, i mean be real son, what'd you expect to see "yeah, ok ok, we admit it, you got us there"

you're looking at biased "info" as evidence. that makes you gullible.

i leave you with this quote from from a popular mechanics person who tried to debunk the 9/11 truth movement

The American public has every right to ask hard questions about 9/11. And informed skepticism about government and media can be healthy. But skepticism needs to be based on facts, not fallacies. Unfortunately, for all too many, conspiratorial fantasies offer a seductive alternative to grappling with the hard realities of a post-9/11 world.


and this rebuttal

I couldn't agree more - the most seductive (and absurd) of which is the conspiracy theory that 19 hijackers with box-cutters collapsed three colossal buildings into their footprints by hitting them with two planes.

Apexx, that doesn't fucking make me gullible. Let me explain something:

It offers a possible explanation for everything. Am I claiming it's all the truth? No, you're quite free to prove them wrong. I'm waiting. They say 'we concluded' multiple times, but they also offer things such as explanations for anomalies seen. You can always check it and prove them wrong, and I'll gladly accept your rebuttal.

actually, yea, that's exactly wht you did. you stood on your soap box and said it debunked every concievable response known to man.

you might as well said "see look the gov didn't engage in foul play - look, they even say so themselves!"

I said 'totally demolishing the controlled demolition theory'. It does have plenty of facts for you to check for yourself, explaining a good deal of things. It offers an alternate explanation; might be a lie, but it shows the possibility of the occurence either way that answers questions posed by CD theorists. Once more, you're allowed to discredit what they say if you want.

you're absolutely right. I certainly am

The Towers were built to withstand twice as much as a plane colliding with them. So unless there was an architectural error.. than there's a possibilty something was detonated from within the building.

Incorrect.

Next

^ THAT answer is just like that debunking shit you posted links too

INCORRECT. NEXT
is not an answer

:) Actually, the debunking sites said 'sources please' whenever Loose Change made a random comment and supplied no relevant information. Because after finding about 300 mistakes and showing counter-answers, well-researched, for each one, I doubt the person is going to go on a wild-goose chase.

By the way, it is an answer. But I'll expound:

Read the links. Also, you might want to notice that the government is not incredibly retarded. You'd think, I don't know, they'd figure out these factors such as a simple plane not being able to take down one of their buildings before doing it, infront of almost every American and on almost every television.

the whole gov't not being stupid story doesnt makes sense
gov't doesnt care if your suspicious of them
as long as they cant be prosecuted, or stopped
they couldnt give 2 shits whether you believe them or not
hence the famous bullshit excuse for 9/11 " they hate our freedoms"

as long as we cant prove they did it, they dont care what we think

That's true. I guess we'll have to make a few assumptions here, huh? I think that the government, even if not many people could do much, would at least make it look somewhat legitimate. It'd probably be a lot easier to hijack one of their own planes and crash it. You might say it wouldn't bring down the buildings and be as devestating, but I don't think it'd make much of a difference whether they stood up or simply a plane did crash into them and destroy quite a bit. Maybe not as many people would die, but it'd still be a national tragedy that would "warrant" the invasion of a foreign country. 9/11 was "meant to" instill fear of terrorists into people's hearts. If the government truly couldn't be overthrown, they probably wouldn't care to topple the entire buildings and lose a bit more money in the process. You'd still be pretty outraged if you heard terrorists crashed planes into important buildings.

By all means, Bush could've done it, but I really don't think he did it the controlled demolition way.

"9/11 Conspiracies...Make no Sense".....yeah thats why there called conspiracies....

fair enough.....on another note
that whole instill fear thing thru 9/11 brings me to another point, i see the govt using fear of terrorism more than the "terrorist" do
they've abused it to the point where YOU can be a terrorist based on their wording of it......dont support your govt? your a terrorist appeaser. you dont support our foreign policy? your a terrorist appeaser. your not passing our laws congress? your being a terrorist appeaser. what? im too late to order breakfast bitch? your a terrorist appeaser. 1st thing Bush said was the terrorist wanna see our freedoms taken away....what does he do? abuse and manipulate laws to expand his power, take away civil freedoms with that warrantless eavsdropping program he was running, promotes fear to the point of paranoia
basically exactly what the "terrorist" wanted
he gets us into TWO wars based pn 9/11, then admits that saddam had nothing to do with it, didnt pose an immediate threat and STILL calls it the war on terror
YEAH ITS THE WAR ON TERROR, THE TERRORISTS WE'RE CREATING AS WE GO ALONG BOMBING COUNTRIES AND FUCKING SHIT UP PEOPLE WILL RETALIATE SOMEHOW..........so not that i dont believe people want to hurt us. i just think our policys create more than was ever there
All beginning with 9/11, which is why its important that we speakout now while we still can
WE as in THIS youth, this generation will have to cover the remarkable debt we going into, WE will have to make up the new army for all these wars you hear about including the impending one coming with Iran...can someone say draft?
so yeah im just ranting but you get my point
we gotta care cuz it affect us the most
you cats in other countries can just make opinions on it and not worry, WE do though

no your fuckin incorrect......that man is right....the architects themselves said they were amazed at how the buildings just collapsed after the planes hit them...those buildings were meant to withstand most natural disasters and they specificilly....yes..SPECIFICLLY...said they were meant to withstand airplane crashes...i mean shit....its simple....its obvious a secondary device was used in these tragedies...if not...then those two buildings would still be standing today and repairs on them would be near finished and people would be going back to work on the 100th floor and everything would be alright.....

Nope, you're incorrect. Here's the official report by the government, accept it if you want. You're allowed to prove them wrong, by all means. Oh, by the way, I'd love to see where you're getting your facts from. Links, please. I know it was supposed to stand over 160+ winds, but uh, the plane was by no means small, and it was traveling over 500 mph. I'd be happy if you showed me some links where more than one legitimate expert has said that the WTC could withstand a plane crash.

Official report:

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.



Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm



Nice try though. And of course you will say 'that's a government website, you're so gullible' and continue on your life, probably masturbating to the thought of you being so totally open-minded. Because you know, Shear, something makes me think you've been looking at conspiracy theories without checking other facts and you think that you know what the fuck you're talking about. Whereas many conspiracist theories in the first place received much of their theory education off videos like Loose Change, which I will remind you is abundant with over four hundred mistakes.

But forget me, you're so much better because I'm brainwashed and believing the lies of The Man. Fight the power, I'm sure you were in no way influenced by anarchists and that your opinion is entirely your own. I mean, you did spend a lot of time looking at both sides of the argument, checking facts, and forming your own hypothesis, right? Right?

By the way, I don't support the government in any way. I just support the Controlled Demolition theory even less.

yo "hades" you really aren't accepting all that garbage as gospel and ultimate truth are you?

No, for the last time, I'm just saying it's a possible truth to the matter. I know the government is benefitting from all of this and possibly did start it, but I'm just against controlled demolition.

^^i actually sat and read each one and for real all of that information sounds dumb suspect to me

Either way, I'm sure in theory it is possible. It assists to dispel things such as controlled demolition by giving an alternate theory to some potentially incorrect statement. And if you think I'm contradicting myself now, I'm quite aware.

I don't believe in CD, you do (or so it seems). Fact of the matter is, it's a personal choice and both have their ups and downs and require a certain aspect of belief. You think the explanation sounds dumb, which probably does stem from the fact that your idea opposes mine (if it doesn't, ignore). From my side it seems to be a logical alternative. To me, the idea that multiple thousand pounds of explosives were planted in a building during a relatively small period of time, where there was ironically an evacuation and bomb-detecting dogs brought in due to a bomb threat. I see it as dumb to think people were able to conceal enough bombs to satisfy the needs of theorists in their speculation of the requirements to destroy the WTC.

^^you find that hard to see because you're under the impression that it takes..as you say..."several thousand pounds" to do that type of damage. it actually takes not even 1/10th of that, one person can carry in a block of C4, that's not hard, and it's not liek the gov dont' got access. SHIT THEY WERE KEEPING C4 IN WTC 7!!!! -- WHICH ALSO WENT DOWN "MYSTERIOUSLY"!!!


cmon man, smarten up.