"Actually, AdamNTM, my family is a major subcontractor in the construction of skyscrapers. My uncle and my cousins. Plus my next door neighbor is a mechanical engineer. I've never heard any of these people question the stated cause of the building collapse. Additionally, having witnessed the massive pile of crap at Ground Zero, I would not call it "into its own footprint."

The reality of the world is that the Reichstag really was burned down by a crazy Dutch Communist. No matter how convenient the fire turned out to be to Hitler and no matter how loudly Comintern proclaimed a conspiracy, the lone crazy guy turns out to have been the cause. And no LBJ did not kill Kennedy either. "

Sounds like assertions from an "authority", who am I to question?... Bah-ah-ah-ah...

I'm sorry your relatives seem to demonstrate your own propensity for failing to note the obvious, but buildings destroyed randomly do not fall into their own footprint. I have not heard a single one of you explain to me, based on your positions, how WTC Building #7 collapsed (unless, of course, we resort to Alcuin's indefensible position that "buildings just collapse", I guess he lives outside for fear of random collapses). Ask your subcontractor family about that one gopher27...

And for the record, for a fire to burn hot enough to melt tempered steel, you definitely require controlled conditions where the fire can burn at near 1000 degrees for a significant period of time; the fires cause by the planes, even with all their jet fuel, could never get that hot in an uncontrolled environment. For a fire to burn that hot, the input of oxygen would have to be closely regulated...

@LoveDove.....my undergrad adviser (random assignment) was the chairman of the Religion Department. I'm well aware of how immoral and unethical a Religious Studies PhD can be. I never implied otherwise.

@AdamNTM....I have not accepted nor have you proven that the WTC fell into into own footprint. It seems fairly probable to me that large chunks of a collapsing building would hit a neighboring building and critically weaken an externally arranged support structure.

I see, so now being related to someone who MIGHT know what they're talking about constitutes being an authority. I think this is going to prove to be an immovable object / irresistible force scenario, so I'm going to have to ask that we agree to disagree, and as I mentioned several posts ago, time will tell who is right, and who is not...

For those "with ears to hear", I'd recommend watching "9/11 Loose Change" on YouTube, a very revealing in-depth examination of 9/11 and the collapse of the Twin Towers...

Well, I know enough about the dangers of free flowing fires that one should never speak of what they cannot do and what temperatures they cannot reach. With the proper accelerant, super combustion is surprisingly possible. It is hardly unheard of for your standard house fire to melt the oxygen tanks of firefighters after they are overcome in a super combustion.

WHAT?!? They may explode, due to pressure, but I doubt they melt off the backs of firefighters as they're fighting, that's outright laughable!!

And what exactly is "super combustion", just for the record?

I'll again point out that AdamNTM can't even seem to stay on one conspiracy theory when challenged. He simply moves on to another unrelated conspiracy theory. So to review: the Federal Reserve is a "private" entity raping the Government; the Government is a criminal syndicate; "the banks" want inflation to drown "the people" in debt, since inflation seems to increase debt rather than dilute it; "the Jews" are out to take over the world; 9/11 was an inside job; The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is absolutely true and not a proven fabrication created by the Cheka.

I'm sure that I have missed a few of the theories that he has jumped to.

Fires even small ones in a house can reach a temperature at which every source of combustible fuel ignites simultaneously and temperatures then spiral up amazingly until all fuel exhausts quickly. Firefighters are taught to watch for the signs of this process because it is lights out for them if it starts. And yes the charred bodies of dead firefighters have been found with melted metal tanks nearby. Have you never seen the charred out shell of a brownstone? How do those steel beam floors collapse if the WTC could not?

And you accuse me of avoiding the question, lol! Enjoy life in your own happy little world gopher27, where rainbows and lollipops abound, steel-reinforced buildings collapse into their footprints from fires, the Fed is a benevolent public institution, the government is simply monumentally retarded, and the banks do not own the vast majority of the wealth in the world, what a happy place for you, weeeeeeeeeeeee!!! O_O

The banks own hardly anything.....that was precisely the point of the crisis. They were effectively renting their own assets given their 35 to 1 leverage. They did not and do not own the world. They owe it. Given what I spend my days thinking about, I would much prefer to live in a world in which the banks are so well funded and have such secure balance sheets that they own the world. My daily fear is that pretty much every bank on Earth is technically insolvent in that their total assets on hand are vastly exceeded by the value of their liabilities.

I've never claimed that the Fed was a benevolent public institution. I've stated the truth that the people running it are not corrupted members of a massive conspiracy. It is entirely possible that their actions have purely malevolent effects. People make mistakes and miscalculate. Decentralized systems achieve good results precisely because the ignorance and stupidity of individual people is not correlated. This allows many stupid people to be stupid in normally distributed ways that counteract one another around a wise result. When a centralized group of decision makers is small, they can make monumental errors of judgement. When a society's elite across many institutions is homogeneous in their outlook and intellectual worldview, their errors can become highly correlated and lead society to horrible places.

In all of your many, many statements, I cannot find this "question" of which you speak that I am supposedly avoiding. Should you gather the rhetorical discipline to pose a single tightly reasoned question, I should be happy to respond to it in all serious.

seriousness, not serious

I wanted to know what "super-combustion" was...

I believe that that has been answered

And what do your family construction professionals have to say about the fact that both buildings collapsed at free-fall speed?

My family manufactures and installs specialized systems in tall buildings the need for which is related to the unique physics of tall buildings. They do not demolish buildings.

I don't know how old you are, but I watched the buildings fall live and before the second building fell there was speculation as to whether we were merely looking at an empty shell. The WTC's design was considered innovative when it was built because it effectively had an exoskeleton. The outer shell was the load bearing element. The one time in college that I went up in it, even my untrained eye could recognize how open the floor plans were. It was always going to be hard to tell from the outside what was going on inside. As the floor slabs began to pancake inside, the entire structure would collapse after a critical moment.

I guess it might elucidate my understanding of what you are claiming, if you could answer some basic questions. Are you claiming that the US Government blew up the buildings? A global Jewish conspiracy? Both? Are you claiming that bombs were placed inside the building to bring them down? Are you claiming that these bombs were placed in the building long before the planes hit or after? Do you accept that planes did in fact hit the buildings? Was an Islamic Terrorist group in any way involved in the hijacking of these two planes? If it was all a conspiracy, then why were planes used at all if they were no sufficient to bring the buildings down? Why not drive 18 wheelers into the lobby and detonate? What difference would it have made to such a conspiracy whether the planes hit the build or the buildings collapsed after most people has evacuated? Why were so many people allowed to escape? Why were these explosives not merely detonated 10-15 minutes after the planes hit?

According to my theory; the government did not blow up the buildings directly, but the highest levels of power (ie. Bush and company), were aware of what was about to happen. More likely, MOSSAD was tapped to plant the bombs. Insofar that the U.S.A. is little more than a puppet of Israeli policy (AIPAC anyone?), yes it is a global Zionist conspiracy (to differentiate from your typical Jewish person). Al-Qaeda was probably involved in the plane hijacking, unwitting puppets of the plan (remember, the CIA was working with bin Laden back in the 80's, and they were instrumental in helping Al-Qaeda cast down Gaddafi in Libya). The planes did hit the buildings, but the buildings would not have collapsed from plane impacts alone. The planes were used to a) implicate Al-Qaeda in order to justify conquests in the Middle East (see the Pentagon's report "Project for the New American Century", published in 2000, that states the U.S. can only protect its interests in the Mideast with aggressive action, but such action would not be justified "short of a new Pearl Harbor" [!!!]). Planes were used instead of 18-wheelers in order to justify upping airport security and tightening border control. So many people were allowed to evacuate because the people weren't the target, it was simply the enormity of the act, a "new Pearl Harbor" in effect, that was required. The explosives were not detonated right away because they wanted their story to be at least semi-believable (at least, to the unenlightened masses).

Why set the bombs at all then? The planes crashing into the buildings was the image much more than the buildings coming down.

@LoveDove.....I'll let you respond to this narrative in a point by point manner.

I just can't. It pains my soul to see all that combined.

One of my favorite parts is "tightening border control." Obviously not from Texas or any other SW state... Don't forget that giant Canadian border!

Whatever, I have no time for the willfully blind, enjoy your lives sheeple...

Especially given that an Islamist was caught trying to cross the Canadian border with a truck full of explosives a bit before 9/11, so a truck bomb would have led more directly to tightened border control.

I do enjoy my life, although I get the impression your sentiment is neither genuine nor heartfelt...

Though I have to admit this thread did my brain juices flowing... And the conversation opens up new questions for me. Adam, Holocaust: true or not, and perpetuated by an independent evil or under the guise and direction of the nascent NWO?

Or I guess I should ask that of WWII in general. Directed to occur through the NWO, or something they didn't plan for? Curious how that world event factors into the understanding of history.

I'm my opinion; Hitler was on to the Zionist conspiracy, thus his "Final Solution". In fact, it was Germany's INDEBTEDNESS to the other European Powers stemming from the Treaty of Versailles that instigated the war. So yes, Hitler was on to the NWO, possibly influenced by Nietzsche with regard to the "slave" versus "master" morality, and decided to create the Third Reich, meant to display the superiority of German culture and breeding...

I think we have established beyond doubt that he has just been putting us on.

@GOD: If you're really interested in learning about who REALLY runs the show, check out the Bilderberg Group...