That's exactly the point, Clunge.  The scientists were not allowed to properly examine the evidence.  It was systematically and illegally destroyed.

Science is being ignored.  A building cannot collapse at freefall speed without being imploded.

I'm not sure if you have watched the video evidence of the WTC 7 collapse recently, sir, but it is clearly a controlled demoilition. 

There is a clip on YouTube of one of the 911 commissioners denying the fact that molten metal was present in the rubble, despite a wealth of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.  Which is simply bizarre.  Why would he do that?

Clunge:  When the twin towers started to collapse a great deal of debris was exploded outwards.  Once in open air this debris obviously began falling to the ground, but here's the thing... it fell at the same speed as the rest of the building which had to make its way through the thousands of tonnes of reinforced steel and concrete the massive structure below it represented.

This is not possible absent exlosives removing the supports simultaneously.  Yes, failure is possible as you say, but not all at exactly the same time.  It is simply not credible, sir.

Good chatting with you again, sir. 

Bye for now.

I think the only conspiracy arising from 9/11 is the covering of a 1000 a**es as the US intelligence agencies try and hide their errors. As polybot says, there would be too many people involved to have kept it secret till now.

Billy

That is highly possible but it will never explain WTC7.

Mad conspiracy

Never has a steel framed building collapsed in such a manner without being detonated and you buy it.

The NIST inquiry could not explain it, but only offer up a THEORY because the evidence had been swiftly transported to China.

I doubt it Pokermonster.

They just like to label those questioning as idiots.

NIST declared that there was no evidence of explosives, thermitic or otherwise..this is because they never looked for explosives. Can you believe that? The most important crime scene in human history and they did not do a thorough investigation.

Its either an architectural masterpiece or an engineering disaster.

At least twenty rescuers attested to the fact, not to mention an abundance of video evidence.

I might ask some of the engineers at work about this tomorrow.  Funnily enough, despite working for structural engineers for the last 11 years i cant recall it ever being discussed in the work place.  Ive drawn some pretty big buildings 20 storey plus in London iirc, but havent a clue whether or not a plane would bring them down in the same way the twin towers went down. 

In fact on the day it happened i remember when news filtered through that a plane hat hit one of the towers, two of the engineers were on opposite ends of the discussion ... Could the tower collapse?  Then a few minutes later they collapsed.  Dont know what that proves, but its my two penneth.  I dont totally dismiss the idea of a conspiracy but havent read so much about it all.  I am continually surprised at the levels of corruption that slowly get exposed within the powers that be that nothing would surprise me anymore.

Good evening Rob, I hope you are well, sir.

I'm a reluctant sceptic.  With regards to whether or not the atrocities of September 11th 2001 were a false flag operation, personally I've always been unwilling to believe that the United States' government could be complicit in such a heinous act of mass murder.  The fact is that many of the theories one reads about on the internet, all purporting to show proof of a cover up in one way or another, are absurd in the extreme and insulting to the memory of those who lost their lives.  Holographic aircraft, ball-shaped missiles disguised as planes, Illuminatic prophecies etc, are all utter bóllocks in my opinion.

What troubles me greatly, however, is the manner in which WTCs 1, 2 and 7 were razed to the ground.  I have seen a wealth of compelling evidence to suggest that these buildings were imploded, and very little of scientific worth to suggest that they were not.  Steel-framed structures cannot collapse at free-fall speed (as per WTC 7) or near free-fall speed (as per the twin towers) without the presence of carefully primed explosives to sever the core columns simultaneously. 

Believe me, I'd be very grateful if anyone could convince me to the contrary, so would be very interested to hear your colleagues' opinions.

If Rob is to discuss matters of collapse with his work colleagues then i would be very interested on their views on WTC7.

Ignore for an instance who the tenants were and just the science of the collapse.

Good evening Toby, I trust you are well, sir.

There are many conjectures as to why these atrocities were committed (a false flag being one of them as I mentioned above) but none of which I am comfortable discussing as I simply do not know.  I feel on surer ground sticking to scientific debate.

Tobe

It has been attempted to be clarified millions of times over by a large percentage of the global population.

The war on terror is now a never ending war. As long as there are muslims(radicalised) there will be terrorists. Depending on which side you are on depends on how you perceive a terrorist.

The events of 9/11 branded into the psyche of those watching live on TV. Support for the cause was automatic. The agenda had always had a purpose but now it had the support of the people. The military/industrial complex could crank it up. There is no coincidence natural riches are hidden beneath these muslim states. No coincidence that horns have clashed over these riches.

What are the hidden riches in afghanistan though?  Ive heard some people say it is about heroin.

I must bid you gentlemen good bye.  Many thanks for your company this evening.

I watched a documentary recently entitled 'The Miracle Survivor' about a guy who survived from the 22nd floor by riding down the debris until coming to rest at the level of the 7th floor sitting on all the debris.  On one hand you had one some medicolegal investigator I think who was extremely sceptical whilst on the other you had some professor supporting the story as a result of hurricane winds created when the towers came down

A lot of random instances will have happened that day that cannot be explained, ask two experts and you'll get different answers.  The fact is whatever question marks have been raised, the probability that they occurred as has been portrayed infinitely exceeds the probability that such an inside job could be covered up after all this time. 

Exactly what historic incidents are there to go on regarding how a building should collapse after 767 is flown into it, or how a close lying building should function after being hammered with the debris.  Their collapse may not follow logical explanation but neither does a guy surfing down a collapsing building 15 floors and surviving unscathed.

How exactly should the building have collapsed? I haven't looked at it in detail but didn't one wing of the WTC7 give way first, I would have thought the other supports would have given way instantaneously rather than the building simply falling to one side.

As bizarre as it sounds GPT, there are people who think that.

I'll put my head in the swing doors and ask this:

How and when were the explosives delivered to the buildings?