9/11 derail: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[JayJuanGee]

Human + Technology = Human Cyborgs / Bio-Technological hybrids with increased potential
Human + God-Spirit within = God-Humans with infinite potential

The cyborg is already here, we carry things with us, which are always on and through which we can reach every human on the planet and access all information produced in the history of mankind, in any language, it will be translated for us, and they have numerous physical world capabilities as well, and cost only $100...

The God-man is also manifested in an increasing way: remember in the Revelation, the Spirit of God is called Seven Spirits, because it has been magnified sevenfold for the consummation of the age (which is certainly in need of consummation in the next ~20 years, because the serpent has grown to be the Great Dragon, called the Devil and Satan, and is the deceiver of all mankind quite literally these days).

Oh MY!  NOW religion is coming into this in order to justify good versus bad?

[aminorex]

the diversity of worldviews attracted to a common thread is breathtaking

[AlexGR]

Human + Technology = Human Cyborgs / Bio-Technological hybrids with increased potential
Human + God-Spirit within = God-Humans with infinite potential

The cyborg is already here, we carry things with us, which are always on and through which we can reach every human on the planet and access all information produced in the history of mankind, in any language, it will be translated for us, and they have numerous physical world capabilities as well, and cost only $100...

Yes, for now technology is merged on the human body externally with gadgets - later on it will be implanted as it becomes convenient. However the gadgets today do not yet provide intelligence acceleration, in the sense of AI. They do provide "conveniences" though, with a major drawback: As the human mind "accepts" the conveniences offered, it admits its own inadequacy in performing the same tasks.

Two decades ago we would remember a whole list of phone numbers. We would be able to recall a big amount of information. Memorizing text or data was an internal task. Not to mention doing basic arithmetic with our minds. As we progress, these "abilities" are outsourced and the mental capacities associated to them are weakened as a result.

The major problem of techno-human hybridization or transhumanism is that it leads to centralized control of the human species due to the interconnectedness of human brains, plus we will have a two-tier transhuman race, in which those with the best technology (=the Elite who control the tech) will be advantaged over the rest or give the rest a set of tech that can be manipulated with the right "keys".

Another problem is that the risk is too big in terms of an EMP-wave civilization collapse. A generation raised with implants will lose all the natural mental capacities that are now "standard". An EMP from a solar blast can render the transhuman species concept as DOA in terms of survival capacity in adverse circumstances.

The God-man is also manifested in an increasing way: remember in the Revelation, the Spirit of God is called Seven Spirits, because it has been magnified sevenfold for the consummation of the age (which is certainly in need of consummation in the next ~20 years, because the serpent has grown to be the Great Dragon, called the Devil and Satan, and is the deceiver of all mankind quite literally these days).

Yes it is. Small numbers at first but gradually rising. The whole population will attain God-man capability in the next ~50-55 years, rendering bio/machine integration / transhumanism obsolete.

[Its About Sharing]

I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.

The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.

Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.

These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.

Nice post Carlton. Interesting that the governments story from the get go was a quite extreme conspiracy theory. Anyone who questions the governments story (or not) and wants a laugh, please take a couple of minutes and laugh your ass off at what James Corbett put together regarding 911. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

And not shockingly, it was the CIA who pushed the use of "conspiracy theory" forward due to all the criticisms they were receiving starting with and then following the warren report. You just can't make this stuff up. CIA Document #1035-960 http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk/cia-inst.htm

More in tune with this thread, we have a war on drugs, a war on terror, but how about a war on corruption? Funny, the latter will end the formers. Thanks BTC 

Its about sharing

[hdbuck]

I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.

The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.

Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.

These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.

Nice post Carlton. Interesting that the governments story from the get go was a quite extreme conspiracy theory. Anyone who questions the governments story (or not) and wants a laugh, please take a couple of minutes and laugh your ass off at what James Corbett put together regarding 911. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

And not shockingly, it was the CIA who pushed the use of "conspiracy theory" forward due to all the criticisms they were receiving starting with and then following the warren report. You just can't make this stuff up. CIA Document #1035-960 http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk/cia-inst.htm

More in tune with this thread, we have a war on drugs, a war on terror, but how about a war on corruption? Funny, the latter will end the formers. Thanks BTC  

Its about sharing

Fair enough, there is no conspiracy hence theory where there is proofs (helloo 911), and there is theory hence conspiracy where there is lack of proofs (helloo Manmade Golbal Warming..). It's just lying and hiding.

but cant you also imagine BTC being on top of that cherry?

edit: I mean, the Intelligencia, the Deep State, monitoring it all.  

[RoadStress]

WTC steel was tested for 2000 degrees C and the kerosene's open air burning temperature is around 350 degrees C. You can't have a fire that burns at 350 degrees burn something that melts at 2000 degrees.

Bullshit lies: Max adiabatic burn temperature   2,500 K (2,230 °C) (4,040 °F) Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)
Bullshit lies #2: Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F)

Do you guys even Wikipedia?!

Ok steel melts at 1k degrees, but have you read what I wrote? Let me repeat: Kerosene's open air burning temperature is 350 degrees. Please explain how does it melt the 1k degrees steel.

[Its About Sharing]

I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.

The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.

Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.

These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.

Nice post Carlton. Interesting that the governments story from the get go was a quite extreme conspiracy theory. Anyone who questions the governments story (or not) and wants a laugh, please take a couple of minutes and laugh your ass off at what James Corbett put together regarding 911. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

And not shockingly, it was the CIA who pushed the use of "conspiracy theory" forward due to all the criticisms they were receiving starting with and then following the warren report. You just can't make this stuff up. CIA Document #1035-960 http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk/cia-inst.htm

More in tune with this thread, we have a war on drugs, a war on terror, but how about a war on corruption? Funny, the latter will end the formers. Thanks BTC  

Its about sharing

Fair enough, there is no conspiracy hence theory where there is proofs (helloo 911), and there is theory hence conspiracy where there is lack of proofs (helloo Manmade Golbal Warming..). It's just lying and hiding.

but cant you also imagine BTC being on top of that cherry?

edit: I mean, the Intelligencia, the Deep State, monitoring it all.  

I think/feel that anyone involved in BTC probably has had the fleeting thought that it was started by an agency. I think that, at this point, it really doesn't matter. Unless they get a new world war, I don't see these criminals being able to control where things are going.

Further, they appear to be losing more and more support. What Adam mentioned before regarding perception coming into being, along with consciuosness, is basically beyond "their" control. And if BTC is Trojan Horse, what the heck is perception and consciuosness to tptb? They/we are being hit by a multitude of forces and factors right now. We have a great chance...

Its about sharing

[inca]

I would like to remind you all to stop using this polarising language.

The unofficial 9/11 narrative is not a "conspiracy theory", it is evidence of both identified and unidentified actors that played highly significant roles that went unrecognized in the official US government/media narrative.

Using the "conspiracy theory" expression simply plays into the hands of those who would prefer to marginalise the proponents of that unrecognised evidence. There is nothing theoretical, nor does any of the unrecognised evidence prove any collusion between any parties. That evidence is derived from witnesses and recorded observations that contribute additional forensic/scientific analysis of the event. So, with no theory component, and no conspiring component, there is no conspiracy theory.

These words we use have meanings, let's actually use them in a way that adheres to their meaning and that's consistent.

Nice post Carlton. Interesting that the governments story from the get go was a quite extreme conspiracy theory. Anyone who questions the governments story (or not) and wants a laugh, please take a couple of minutes and laugh your ass off at what James Corbett put together regarding 911. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

And not shockingly, it was the CIA who pushed the use of "conspiracy theory" forward due to all the criticisms they were receiving starting with and then following the warren report. You just can't make this stuff up. CIA Document #1035-960 http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk/cia-inst.htm

More in tune with this thread, we have a war on drugs, a war on terror, but how about a war on corruption? Funny, the latter will end the formers. Thanks BTC  

Its about sharing

Fair enough, there is no conspiracy hence theory where there is proofs (helloo 911), and there is theory hence conspiracy where there is lack of proofs (helloo Manmade Golbal Warming..). It's just lying and hiding.

but cant you also imagine BTC being on top of that cherry?

edit: I mean, the Intelligencia, the Deep State, monitoring it all.  

I think/feel that anyone involved in BTC probably has had the fleeting thought that it was started by an agency. I think that, at this point, it really doesn't matter. Unless they get a new world war, I don't see these criminals being able to control where things are going.

Further, they appear to be losing more and more support. What Adam mentioned before regarding perception coming into being, along with consciuosness, is basically beyond "their" control. And if BTC is Trojan Horse, what the heck is perception and consciuosness to tptb? They/we are being hit by a multitude of forces and factors right now. We have a great chance...

Its about sharing

Seems like the 9/11 debate could be steering us off btc discussions somewhat..

[BombaUcigasa]

WTC steel was tested for 2000 degrees C and the kerosene's open air burning temperature is around 350 degrees C. You can't have a fire that burns at 350 degrees burn something that melts at 2000 degrees.

Bullshit lies: Max adiabatic burn temperature   2,500 K (2,230 °C) (4,040 °F) Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)
Bullshit lies #2: Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F)

Do you guys even Wikipedia?!

Ok steel melts at 1k degrees, but have you read what I wrote? Let me repeat: Kerosene's open air burning temperature is 350 degrees. Please explain how does it melt the 1k degrees steel.

Explanation is simple. You are either a intentionally deceiving people or are intellectually not equipped to have this discussion.

Google jet fuel open air burning temperature. You will get the numbers from above: 2230 C in an engine, 1030 C in open air. Nobody told me what this was, I had to research it.
http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/dat1/eCombus.pdf


Steel is fully ductile (it can be shaped by rollers) at 1050 C, but it begins to soften at around 700 C. Also at 1200+ C it may be fully liquid. You don't need steel to be liquid to collapse a scaffolding structure, it has to be bend under weight enough, which happens at 700C. You build a steel support that needs to hold for example 1Kg. So you design it so it can hold 2Kg without issues. If you design it for 10Kg, then you use 10x more material for no additional results, it is simple economical reason to use sufficient while not being wasteful. So what happens to your little 2Kg capable support when it heats up to 800C? It can only hold 0.5Kg before it bends onto itself. It doesn't need to melt, have you ever worked with metals before?


Conclusion: Kerosene can burn at much more than 350 C and you state this number as the possible maximum. Steel will start losing it's integrity well below it's melting point but you choose it's melting point of 1500 C as minumum. You are deceiving yourself and others.

Did burning fuel melt steel in WTC? I don't know, I don't think so, it doesn't matter. But I don't go around telling people lies. Do your research before throwing stupid numbers around.

Bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7W8UPdOro

[nioc]

Oh look a thread started by me that wasn't started by me.  I wonder who did it?

Well I have been in both the medical and aviation fields. 

I was driving into Manhattan at the time when the planes hit the Twin Towers so I experienced it in real time even if from a few miles away.

[Its About Sharing]

WTC steel was tested for 2000 degrees C and the kerosene's open air burning temperature is around 350 degrees C. You can't have a fire that burns at 350 degrees burn something that melts at 2000 degrees.

Bullshit lies: Max adiabatic burn temperature   2,500 K (2,230 °C) (4,040 °F) Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)
Bullshit lies #2: Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F)

Do you guys even Wikipedia?!

Ok steel melts at 1k degrees, but have you read what I wrote? Let me repeat: Kerosene's open air burning temperature is 350 degrees. Please explain how does it melt the 1k degrees steel.

Explanation is simple. You are either a intentionally deceiving people or are intellectually not equipped to have this discussion.

Google jet fuel open air burning temperature. You will get the numbers from above: 2230 C in an engine, 1030 C in open air. Nobody told me what this was, I had to research it.
http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/dat1/eCombus.pdf


Steel is fully ductile (it can be shaped by rollers) at 1050 C, but it begins to soften at around 700 C. Also at 1200+ C it may be fully liquid. You don't need steel to be liquid to collapse a scaffolding structure, it has to be bend under weight enough, which happens at 700C. You build a steel support that needs to hold for example 1Kg. So you design it so it can hold 2Kg without issues. If you design it for 10Kg, then you use 10x more material for no additional results, it is simple economical reason to use sufficient while not being wasteful. So what happens to your little 2Kg capable support when it heats up to 800C? It can only hold 0.5Kg before it bends onto itself. It doesn't need to melt, have you ever worked with metals before?


Conclusion: Kerosene can burn at much more than 350 C and you state this number as the possible maximum. Steel will start losing it's integrity well below it's melting point but you choose it's melting point of 1500 C as minumum. You are deceiving yourself and others.

Did burning fuel melt steel in WTC? I don't know, I don't think so, it doesn't matter. But I don't go around telling people lies. Do your research before throwing stupid numbers around.

Bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7W8UPdOro

I remember when closely watching one of the WTC's collapse on video, that around a second before it started to implode, the top part (above the impact) was tilting over. Now, it seems to me that the least resistance is not straight down, but off to one side. This is especially so considering that the top part was leaning over. But it suddenly preceded to go straight down (yes, after the weight was shifting to one side.)

Regarding temperatures and steel weakening. A few points - The steel like lattice structure acted like a heat sink, after all, it is a bunch of inter-connected steel. Couple that with the fire never appeared to get very hot. There was black smoke after the initial explosion. Black smoke means not a hot burning fire but rather one that needs oxygen. To further prove this lower heat theory, there were multiple people standing in the openings waving for help, before the building was detonated/thermited by the criminals in question.

If anyone is interested (snippet):

On the night of February 12, 2005, a fire started in the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story tower framed in steel-reinforced concrete. At its peak, the fire, which burned for almost a day, completely engulfed the upper ten stories of the building. More than 100 firefighters battled to prevent the uncontrollable blaze from spreading to other buildings. 1

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
That building was mangled but never came down.

Many have stated that the towers would have needed to have been closed down or the like for explosives/thermite to have been planted. Looks like there is ample evidence for that. Snippet

Scott Forbes, who was a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, located on the 97th floor of the South Tower received a remarkable notice three weeks before the 9/11 attacks. The Port Authority of New York informed his company that there would be a “power down” on the weekend of Sept. 8 and 9, 2001. This would mean that all power would be off in the top half of the south tower for most of the weekend.

Forbes has called this unprecedented, because to have a data centre lose power for two days requires major preparations and disruption. He reports that as part of the power down, all security cameras and security door locks were non-operational for about 36 hours.

“Remember there were no security locks on doors or security cameras, so access was free unless a door was locked by a manual key. Seeing so many ‘strangers’ who didn’t work at the WTC was unusual,” Forbes said.

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/trade-center-cameras-locks-electricity-turned-off-weekend-before-911/

[nioc]

WTC steel was tested for 2000 degrees C and the kerosene's open air burning temperature is around 350 degrees C. You can't have a fire that burns at 350 degrees burn something that melts at 2000 degrees.

Bullshit lies: Max adiabatic burn temperature   2,500 K (2,230 °C) (4,040 °F) Open Air Burn temperature: 1,030 °C (1,890 °F)
Bullshit lies #2: Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F)

Do you guys even Wikipedia?!

Ok steel melts at 1k degrees, but have you read what I wrote? Let me repeat: Kerosene's open air burning temperature is 350 degrees. Please explain how does it melt the 1k degrees steel.

Explanation is simple. You are either a intentionally deceiving people or are intellectually not equipped to have this discussion.

Google jet fuel open air burning temperature. You will get the numbers from above: 2230 C in an engine, 1030 C in open air. Nobody told me what this was, I had to research it.
http://webserver.dmt.upm.es/~isidoro/dat1/eCombus.pdf


Steel is fully ductile (it can be shaped by rollers) at 1050 C, but it begins to soften at around 700 C. Also at 1200+ C it may be fully liquid. You don't need steel to be liquid to collapse a scaffolding structure, it has to be bend under weight enough, which happens at 700C. You build a steel support that needs to hold for example 1Kg. So you design it so it can hold 2Kg without issues. If you design it for 10Kg, then you use 10x more material for no additional results, it is simple economical reason to use sufficient while not being wasteful. So what happens to your little 2Kg capable support when it heats up to 800C? It can only hold 0.5Kg before it bends onto itself. It doesn't need to melt, have you ever worked with metals before?


Conclusion: Kerosene can burn at much more than 350 C and you state this number as the possible maximum. Steel will start losing it's integrity well below it's melting point but you choose it's melting point of 1500 C as minumum. You are deceiving yourself and others.

Did burning fuel melt steel in WTC? I don't know, I don't think so, it doesn't matter. But I don't go around telling people lies. Do your research before throwing stupid numbers around.

Bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne7W8UPdOro

I remember when closely watching one of the WTC's collapse on video, that around a second before it started to implode, the top part (above the impact) was tilting over. Now, it seems to me that the least resistance is not straight down, but off to one side. This is especially so considering that the top part was leaning over. But it suddenly preceded to go straight down (yes, after the weight was shifting to one side.)


Regarding temperatures and steel weakening. A few points - The steel like lattice structure acted like a heat sink, after all, it is a bunch of inter-connected steel. Couple that with the fire never appeared to get very hot. There was black smoke after the initial explosion. Black smoke means not a hot burning fire but rather one that needs oxygen. To further prove this lower heat theory, there were multiple people standing in the openings waving for help, before the building was detonated/thermited by the criminals in question.

The fire from jet fuel ignited everything within the building such as furniture, plastic and paper as well as the airplane itself.  Maybe this is what you saw?  The next day the resulting ash and smell was drifting in the air in my neighborhood 15 miles away.  How hot was the fire?  I was trained in putting out jet fuel fires.  You couldn't just light it as it had a high ignition temperature.  You could put out a cigarette in it.  We had to pour gasoline over the jet fuel and light that which would then ignite the jet fuel.  I also have experience with welding so I know how steel conducts heat.  The red glow will stay localized.

If anyone is interested (snippet):

On the night of February 12, 2005, a fire started in the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story tower framed in steel-reinforced concrete. At its peak, the fire, which burned for almost a day, completely engulfed the upper ten stories of the building. More than 100 firefighters battled to prevent the uncontrollable blaze from spreading to other buildings. 1

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
That building was mangled but never came down.

Steel reinforced concrete.  Different material and totally different construction methods.  Also the fire wasn't at the base of the building which supports the rest of the building.  Then there is the difference in the temperature of the fire.

Many have stated that the towers would have needed to have been closed down or the like for explosives/thermite to have been planted. Looks like there is ample evidence for that. Snippet

Scott Forbes, who was a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, located on the 97th floor of the South Tower received a remarkable notice three weeks before the 9/11 attacks. The Port Authority of New York informed his company that there would be a “power down” on the weekend of Sept. 8 and 9, 2001. This would mean that all power would be off in the top half of the south tower for most of the weekend.

Forbes has called this unprecedented, because to have a data centre lose power for two days requires major preparations and disruption. He reports that as part of the power down, all security cameras and security door locks were non-operational for about 36 hours.

“Remember there were no security locks on doors or security cameras, so access was free unless a door was locked by a manual key. Seeing so many ‘strangers’ who didn’t work at the WTC was unusual,” Forbes said.

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/trade-center-cameras-locks-electricity-turned-off-weekend-before-911/

[Its About Sharing]

I remember when closely watching one of the WTC's collapse on video, that around a second before it started to implode, the top part (above the impact) was tilting over. Now, it seems to me that the least resistance is not straight down, but off to one side. This is especially so considering that the top part was leaning over. But it suddenly preceded to go straight down (yes, after the weight was shifting to one side.)

Regarding temperatures and steel weakening. A few points - The steel like lattice structure acted like a heat sink, after all, it is a bunch of inter-connected steel. Couple that with the fire never appeared to get very hot. There was black smoke after the initial explosion. Black smoke means not a hot burning fire but rather one that needs oxygen. To further prove this lower heat theory, there were multiple people standing in the openings waving for help, before the building was detonated/thermited by the criminals in question.

The fire from jet fuel ignited everything within the building such as furniture, plastic and paper as well as the airplane itself.  Maybe this is what you saw?  The next day the resulting ash and smell was drifting in the air in my neighborhood 15 miles away.  How hot was the fire?  I was trained in putting out jet fuel fires.  You couldn't just light it as it had a high ignition temperature.  You could put out a cigarette in it.  We had to pour gasoline over the jet fuel and light that which would then ignite the jet fuel.  I also have experience with welding so I know how steel conducts heat.  The red glow will stay localized.

The fire wasn't hot, there were people standing around up there. Clearly things were cooling off. I think we are all aware that there were other materials burning but again, that was not a hot fire.
Steel transmits heat. The fires were cooling off as well as the heat being dissipated. I am not sure how you can argue basic physics.

If anyone is interested (snippet):

On the night of February 12, 2005, a fire started in the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story tower framed in steel-reinforced concrete. At its peak, the fire, which burned for almost a day, completely engulfed the upper ten stories of the building. More than 100 firefighters battled to prevent the uncontrollable blaze from spreading to other buildings. 1

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
That building was mangled but never came down.

Steel reinforced concrete.  Different material and totally different construction methods.  Also the fire wasn't at the base of the building which supports the rest of the building.  Then there is the difference in the temperature of the fire.

So, the top of the WTC's was heavy enough to flatten the entire building? And it did so in such extreme fashion that the concrete was pulverized? Explain to me how the upper portion of the building had enough energy to flatten the rest and WHILE it was falling over. Explain why all of the computer simulations couldn't duplicate what happened that day. Explain how a building falls at free fall speed? Wouldn't all the steel and concrete slow things down? You are simplifying things. The Spain fire was apparently a hotter burning fire.

Regarding the base of the building. You are aware that the lobby was blown out? Even the Janitor stated it looked like a bomb had gone off down there and it certainly wasn'T from the jet fuel that burned off above. He further stated bombs were going off in the basement before the first plane hit.

Many have stated that the towers would have needed to have been closed down or the like for explosives/thermite to have been planted. Looks like there is ample evidence for that. Snippet

Scott Forbes, who was a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, located on the 97th floor of the South Tower received a remarkable notice three weeks before the 9/11 attacks. The Port Authority of New York informed his company that there would be a “power down” on the weekend of Sept. 8 and 9, 2001. This would mean that all power would be off in the top half of the south tower for most of the weekend.

Forbes has called this unprecedented, because to have a data centre lose power for two days requires major preparations and disruption. He reports that as part of the power down, all security cameras and security door locks were non-operational for about 36 hours.

“Remember there were no security locks on doors or security cameras, so access was free unless a door was locked by a manual key. Seeing so many ‘strangers’ who didn’t work at the WTC was unusual,” Forbes said.

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/trade-center-cameras-locks-electricity-turned-off-weekend-before-911/

I bolded in red the parts you skipped over.

[giveBTCpls]

Here is the latest bitcoin adjusted transaction quantity graph with log scale and 7-day moving average. Note the transaction quantity in the month of August  is now above May levels. The Bitstamp bitcoin price in May peaked at $683.

We really seem to be on an upswing what adoption is concerned. I think over the summer a lot of people got to know Bitcoin or talked about it with friends. Now that the summer is nearing its end, and people will soon get back from their holidays, the demand may increase again.

Legit. Over the summer is the only chance most people get to stop their wageslave lifestyles and actually have some extra time to "check stuff out" with a peace of mind. Some may be finding out about BTC and researching on it.

As for 9/11, there are good arguments to support the official version and there are good arguments to suport the unofficial version (inside job).

I remain undecided.

[Tusk]

Legit. Over the summer is the only chance most people get to stop their wageslave lifestyles and actually have some extra time to "check stuff out" with a peace of mind. Some may be finding out about BTC and researching on it.

As for 9/11, there are good arguments to support the official version and there are good arguments to support the unofficial version (inside job).

I remain undecided.

Given the latest media manipulation of Gaza and Ukraine, don't you think this is not the first time? Whatever the truth is behind 9/11 only the perpetrators themselves will know. but one thing is certain you have to go beyond the mainstream official lie to find some semblance of the truth.

[BombaUcigasa]

Even the Janitor stated it looked like a bomb had gone off down there and it certainly wasn'T from the jet fuel that burned off above. He further stated bombs were going off in the basement before the first plane hit.

Ok, case solved, the janitor has the proof. I'm out...

[nioc]

Even the Janitor stated it looked like a bomb had gone off down there and it certainly wasn'T from the jet fuel that burned off above. He further stated bombs were going off in the basement before the first plane hit.

Ok, case solved, the janitor has the proof. I'm out...

In the first reports I heard on the radio an eyewitness said a DC3 flew into the first tower.

It's About Sharing, the construction of the towers was unlike anything that had ever been built.  They did survive the impacts of the plane which most buildings would not have.  The way the floors were attached to the uprights was such that once the first floors lost the integrity of their attachments due to the heat, physical damage and added weight of the plane, the weight/ momentum of those floors caused the failure of the floors below in rapid succession.  Again the construction of the towers was unique.  The second tower that was hit came down first because of the way the plane hit it which caused more physical damage to the structure.  That damage was obvious to see.

But you know all this.

[Wekkel]

I wonder: does the order still stand?

[Its About Sharing]

Even the Janitor stated it looked like a bomb had gone off down there and it certainly wasn'T from the jet fuel that burned off above. He further stated bombs were going off in the basement before the first plane hit.

Ok, case solved, the janitor has the proof. I'm out...

Are you serious? Do you discount a witness because of their title or socioeconomic background? Is this just another Ad Hominem attack?
The guy toured the world telling his story and the so called government committee didn't even include his first hand testimony.

[Its About Sharing]

Even the Janitor stated it looked like a bomb had gone off down there and it certainly wasn'T from the jet fuel that burned off above. He further stated bombs were going off in the basement before the first plane hit.

Ok, case solved, the janitor has the proof. I'm out...

In the first reports I heard on the radio an eyewitness said a DC3 flew into the first tower.

It's About Sharing, the construction of the towers was unlike anything that had ever been built.  They did survive the impacts of the plane which most buildings would not have.  The way the floors were attached to the uprights was such that once the first floors lost the integrity of their attachments due to the heat, physical damage and added weight of the plane, the weight/ momentum of those floors caused the failure of the floors below in rapid succession.  Again the construction of the towers was unique.  The second tower that was hit came down first because of the way the plane hit it which caused more physical damage to the structure.  That damage was obvious to see.

But you know all this.

I'm not sure what your intent is, but basically you ignored my replies and then bring up Red Herrings. Are you trained to avoid discussion?

The towers had an inner steel core, an incredibly large one. That building was designed to withstand multiple hits as it did.
How many theories has the government now put down regarding the collapse? They must be up to 4 or 5 I believe. And few are buying it.
Again, buildings don't just fall down on themselves. Perhaps one can fall over given enough force, but not implode upon itself at free fall speed.
There is a reason architects, engineers and professionals all over the world are involved in this.
There is a reason that most people don't believe the governments story.

Your mind is made up and is not open to discussion. Your job here is apparently served.

Its about sharing