Rath said: Ok a quick bit of a reply to Metalli's last post All of three, four and six world trade center collapsed almost entirely during 9/11. That there is 3WTC, which was 22 stories before the attacks. Also if you want a rebuttal to pretty much all your points on 7WTC http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

I appalud you for attempting to tackle at least one of my points, which is probably more than most will atempt, but it's still unfortunately flawed. Notice that while the top portion is ripped to shred from the rain of debris, the building itself is still standing. No other building suffered complete collapse. That pic you posted was the closest one to reach total collapse, but there's still a good portion standing. One of the buildings suffered a gouge in its roof. But again, no other WTC building suffered complete collapse, except building 7, which was the farthest away, and even had a building between it and the main towers blocking the path of debris.

It took NIST litterally YEARS to come out with their report, and even when it was finally released, it is full of speculation and weak theories. This quote officially discreded the report for me:

"The failure of this structural column initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building."

progressive collapse would take FAR longer than 7 seconds, as each floor would apply resistance. Also, fire is insufficient to weaken steel columns to the point of collapse.  An organic fire is asymetrical in nature, and thus would initiate an asymetric collapse. Yet the building imploded completely symetrically, in freefall acceleration.

I know right? I mean blowing up the building using thermite (or actually pretty much any explosive, thermite seems popular though) would require many people to plant the explosives, never being noticed by anybody, everybody who went into the building to ignore the telltale signs of thermite, the vast majority of structural engineers in the world to ignore that the buildings didn't fall as expected (as it stands the vast majority say the buildings fell as expected) and also for there to be a succesful terrorist attack.

Whereas the CIA ignoring the potential threat only involves the intelligence community and perhaps the White House. Why can't conspiracy theorists pick the somwhat reasonable conspiracy over the 'what the fuck?' conspiracy?

Also why do people post videos of an architect talking about the collapse like he's an expert? Architects are more on the artistic side of building design than structural.

that's the problem with these conspiracy theories. they explain everything from a technical side, but they do not explain why it had to be so awfully complicated. Why would anyone go through all that hassle od staging a terrorist attack, that was , in there own words" not possible in this way", if anyone could figure it out by watching videos.

and frankly i have lost the overview a long time ago. did the planes even exist? why collape another WTC building when the twin towers would have been enough to make a point?

i wonder if anyone in this thread had ever personally talked to someone who had been in the building that day.

Admittedly this is pure speculation, but it is my opinion that WTC7 was the control center for the 9/11 false flag operation, as it had communications with major airports as well as the pentagon. Also, as I mentioned, there were numerous documents housed in that building involving investigations on insider trading and other corporate scandels including Enron. Not to mention, there is the fat juciy insurance policy covering terrorism, purchased by Silverstein.

Why go through the hassle?

- Well for one, it allows for major support of two wars; Afghanistan and Iraq, which probably wouldn't have been possible without the pretext of 9/11 to legitimize the, tightening the grip on the oil, establishing a base in the Middle East, and allowing for major profits for arms sales.

- Then there is the establishment of homeland security, and the stripping of US liberties and the Patriot Act, again under the pretext of 9/11

- Also, the WTC complex were beginning to become large albatrosses, between the issue of asbestos removal, and the growing number of vacant offices. The towers were hemorrhaging money.

- A disaster such as this unites support under the president, and his approval rating skyrockets.

- The seizure of gold underneath the towers

- The claims of $4 billion of insurance money by Silverstein

- The put options on the companies of the planes that hit the towers

Look up "The Project for a new American Century" to find out more about their agenda

Also, research Operation Northwoods and The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and you'll discover that false flag operations are certainly nothing new as a means of uniting people into supporting new wars and policies - in fact, if you know your history, you'll find that it is the norm.

I know I said I didn't want to argue this, but I just need to clear up another thing.  Thermite is not an explosive.  If people were hearing explosions it wasn't thermite.  Also I'd like to see what kind of enclosure this thermite was in that could survive planes hitting at 800-1000 km/h as well as fires for an hour or more, and not have the thermite react immediately.

sure, i know all about these claims

what i don't understand is why make that terrorist attack so overly complicated? why employ literally thousands of people needed for this kind of operation and make them somehow shut up afterwards? don't you think that is a bit silly?

I know I said I didn't want to argue this, but I just need to clear up another thing.  Thermite is not an explosive.  If people were hearing explosions it wasn't thermite.  Also I'd like to see what kind of enclosure this thermite was in that could survive planes hitting at 800-1000 km/h as well as fires for an hour or more, and not have the thermite react immediately.