9-11 Demolition Documentary..

[CORed]

Another excellent link. I find the seismographic evidence especially convincing (not that I needed much convincing).

Edit:
I find it interesting that the demolition people make the same point I made in an earlier "9/11 conspiracy" thread. A controlled demolition knocks out the bottom of the building. The 9/11 collapses started on the impact floors and progressed from there downward. I am by no means an expert on explosive demolition, but I have seen countless videos of explosive demolition and one in person, and the collapse os the WTC towers looked nothing like any explosive demolition I have ever seen.

[CORed]

Sorry. Anything that tries to claim that 90,000 litres of jet fuel caused only "small scattered fires" is just not worth watching. You may find the witness accounts of hearing "explosions" convincing. I don't at all. An event like the collapses of the WTC towers is going to make a lot of noise. The fact that some people interpreted the noise as "explosions" proves absolutely nothing.

[MrMon]

To get technical, it was not the jet fuel fires that brought the buildings down, it was the office fires, specifically tons and tons of paper. The jet fuel was consumed in minutes and if it was just jet fuel, the fires would have gone out. Instead, the jet fuel ignited the largest office fires in history, 8-10 acres each of carpets, plastics, furniture, and paper, all vertically stacked in a chimney, plus more as they spread.

[John21]

So "somebody" figured that the thousands of deaths and carnage from two jets crashing into the towers wouldn't be enough to incense the American people. Only if the towers actually collapsed?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
So "somebody" figured that the thousands of deaths and carnage from two jets crashing into the towers wouldn't be enough to incense the American people. Only if the towers actually collapsed?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is one of the reasons I have a hard time buying the conspiracy theories about WTC 7. I think if you ask most people, they'd only say that the towers fell because that was the most visible. If this really was a conspiracy to get us into war, why bring down WTC 7? Did the conspirators not think the towers coming down would be horrific enough?

[vulturesrow]

The true refutation of all 9/11 conspiracy theories:

There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
So "somebody" figured that the thousands of deaths and carnage from two jets crashing into the towers wouldn't be enough to incense the American people. Only if the towers actually collapsed?

[/ QUOTE ]

There you go again, applying logic and reason to the problem. Don't you know you're just supposed to take everything the conspiracy theorists say at face value and be convinced that the guvmint is behind the whole thing?

[CORed]

Well, I'm not going to argue about whether the jet fuel by itself in a bare building would or would not bring the buildings down. Short of pouring several thousand gallons of jet fuel into an unfinished office building and setting it on fire I'm not sure you could be absolutely certain. I think that amount of jet fuel will burn for quite a long time, but obviousy there were lots of other combustibles around to keep the fire going once the jet fuel had ignited them.

Another thing about jet fuel is that it's not easy to extinguish a jet fuel (or other petroleum product) fire with plain water. Jet fuel doesn't mix with water and is lighter than water, so when you put water on a jet fuel fire, the fuel tends to float on top of the water and keep right on burning. This would make a sprinkler system less effective than it would be against a normal office fire, started by an electrical short, cigarette, or whatever. Certainly the combination of jet fuel + paper and other combustibles released a lot of heat into the structural steel of the buildings, already severely damaged by the impacts of the planes.

[Off Duty]

That's a good point.

Ever seen the fire gear at the airport? It doesn't spray water, it is a foam unit.