Fake site using the same name as the real 9-11Research site.
Random piece from the CT site
Wow. Now where could that haze has come from?
Only if you promise not to dismiss out of hand any sources presented. If not, why should anyone bother to jump through that hoop?
Asking for sources that you will automatically dismiss is a waste of time, and not conductive to honest debate.
Jay-Jay, here are a few videos for you to look at. The first one actually answers many of the questions you seem to have about the physics of what happened when the plane hit the building.
Because the concepts you’re posting are a joke. Your arguments are a joke. You literally said that anything that is not consistent with your viewpoint is automatically false. How can you expect your presentation to be taken seriously when that’s your starting position?
As for why post, I think some people still have the sliver of hope that you might actually learn something.
Look around the 5:40 mark.
Actually, it’s so others can learn or see bullshit being easily refuted.
I can somewhat understand the proliferation of conspiracy stories about 9/11, it’s a lot to take in and leaves room for speculation. But it’s like critiquing a volcanic explosion: this boulder SHOULD of flown this way, this river of lava SHOULD have flowed this way. Mount St. Helens was really a government plot!!!
I’ve posted this before and here goes again: The main theory of conspiracy is that Bush wanted a reason to go into Iraq and take the oil. And Islam bad. So he and his minions planned the whole disaster so the US would be
justified in invading Iraq. So why not just enlist (hire) some Arab guys to fly planes into the buildings? What maybe 30-40 people involved and half of them die.
These “controlled demolition” theorists just can’t grasp how many people would have to be involved, how many secrets would have to be kept among THOUSANDS of people…to this day. And they won’t really talk about it.
I’ll ask Jay: Please estimate how many people were involved in this cover up? You’re SPECULATING about all sorts of things in your theories, please take the time to speculate about this.
Fair enough. 
No, not at all. You see, no one died because of that charade. They had it so well planned ahead of time that they were able to secretly evacuate all of the “victims” before perpetrating the illusion of planes crashing into the buildings. The “fatalities” are living lives of luxury in secure compounds in the South Pacific. The conspirators may have been evil, but they were not heartless monsters.
I only got as far as the assumption “3. That no hot gases left the floor by motion, conduction, convection or radiation” … that’s materially false … as demonstration by any and all explosions that have ever occurred in the universe …hot gases leaving is the definition of an explosion …
Additionally, a 767 has a fuel capacity of 20,000 gallons … not 3,500 as the video claims … although there is a certain logic in pumping 3,500 gallons and charging for 20,000 gallons …
Here is another video for you, Jay-Jay, that talks about the fire and why it contributed to the structural failure. The TLDW is basically that the impact and explosion from the planes stripped off the fire retardant that most steel acting as structural support from the beams, leaving them fully exposed and vulnerable to the fire. Those caused the beams to soften, which caused them to fail. Couple that with missing frames and cut beams from the direct impact and the building came down. At the end of the video, you can see how the building collapse starts right where the impact was. You also get some good views of the back side of the building where debris from the plane impact came out the other side.
That’s just plain funny … thank you Czarcasm …
Because an airplane isn’t a inflexibly rigid one-piece structure? If the airplane had been made from a single piece of glass it would have shattered like you think. But being made of flexible metal, segments of that metal can bend. It is like crumple zones on a car. Notice how the front part of cars in some of the photos are all crumpled up but the back parts are completely undamaged? While the front of the plane was being accordioned, the sections behind it wouldn’t have been noticing anything other than rapid deceleration.
Because this is the real world, not a Hollywood movie.
And somehow screwed that up by planting evidence pointing at Saudis rather than Iraqis.
Yes … these are the people who thought the Iraqi citizens would be grateful for US intervention and privatizing SS in 2005 was a good idea …
Fire retardant that had already been falling off and leaving the steel partially exposed. ISTR parts of the structure were only half covered by then.
I’m assuming you mean as a defect in the build process. I’ve heard this, but, really, the impact alone would have stripped most of it off anyway. If you watch that first video I linked to earlier for Jay-Jay it shows a model of the actual impact, and you can see the plane become almost a high-speed liquid which scoured the structure all the way through and out the other side. They simply don’t design buildings or fire retardant systems with the impact of a 300k lb aircraft going over 500 MPH and filled with jet fuel in mind.
The actual mystery is how the building lasted as long as it did. There were so many points of failure from these events that it’s really a wonder they didn’t collapse sooner.
Pretty much all of them were cherry-picked and basically, the premise was a strawman. Then the guy uses math to show that the strawman couldn’t possibly have happened…there wasn’t enough energy even burning at peak efficiency for the jet fuel to melt the steel!
The fire would have gone out right away … even thousands of atmospheres of CO[sub]2[/sub] won’t sustain combustion …
But yeah, I picked #3 as the most preposterous … even Photoshop Pro wasn’t that good in 2001 …
To the 9/11 conspiracy theorists: The fact that it happened, **is **proof that the laws of physics permitted it.
You want proof that 9/11 was possible under the laws of physics? It is its own proof. See the collapsing buildings? See? There’s your proof.