9/11 - Opinions and Thoughts

[R0b0t1]

Oh hey look it's 9/11.

[kingarabian]

I just want to counter people who point to nuclear weapons or gas chambers as 'proof' of science being evil too. Nobody does those things in the name of science, nobody says "For science!" as they walk onto the battlefield. You must be careful not to confuse science with politics.

Science is completely morally neutral. If you want to do good, science gives you incredible tools to do awesome good for the world. If you want to do evil, science gives you weapons to unimaginable evil.




But as those planes flew into the buildings, from the cockpits you could hear one phrase being spoken: Allahu Akbar.

Um... Religion was not the cause for 9/11 attacks. Theirs absolutely no way 14 cavemen from afghanistan that live in caves, could make it the USA, then go on 5 different planes then "hijacking" them and crashing them in 5 specific locations on the same day. Unless it was also an inside job.

[Torrent of Flame]

Zeitgeist and Loose Change pretty much prove it was a setup.

Also, Flight 93 never crashed into the Towers, it never left the airport..

[Yakman]

kingarabian, read the newspaper article I posted please and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. But for now you've just flat-out denied my claim without any evidence.



As for you people who say its a setup, you're pretty much asking me to believe that almost every government in the world is lying to me. I simply wont be able to believe that unless you have some pretty extraordinary evidence.

For now I think its much more likely that you're stiring up a conspiracy theory in the same way that moon-landing-deniers, creationists, holocaust-deniers, people who say they've been abducted by aliens, climate-change-deniers and people who like crop-circles do.

[Torrent of Flame]

<snip>

As for you people who say its a setup, you're pretty much asking me to believe that almost every government in the world is lying to me. <snip>

For now I think its much more likely that you're stiring up a conspiracy theory in the same way that moon-landing-deniers, <snip> and people who like crop-circles do.

Erm, no. I'm saying that there is no irrefutable evidence either way so be left to make your own decisions.

And the governments do lie. Do you think they would get in power if they told everyone the truth? No.

There are conspiracy theorists about everything, there is no irrefutable evidence for anything in this world..

Believe what you will, I have made my decision on what I think really happened.

[King of the Nites]

Also, Flight 93 never crashed into the Towers, it never left the airport..

Hmm? Didn't it crash...

Well here is my opinion on the flight 93:

This is what I really think. This plane crashed a approximately 1 hour after the last plane which hit the pentagon.

If I was in the government and 3 planes had already crashed, I would be thinking there might be some more coming. They most likely got all the info on those flights that they could and matched up the names of the passengers; *I heard that a stewardess reported the seat numbers of the hijackers*.

Now they were getting the info on all flights in the air and I believe flight 93 may have had a name like the other hijackers even though that person might not have been a hijacker. I believe that they got this info and took care of it by shooting down the plane, which I believe was the right thing to do and that is what I would have ordered in the same situation.

They either have a choice of letting that flight crash into another landmark or take it down. Even if there weren't any terrorists on that plane, i still would consider those people heroes. They had their lives taken for a security threat.

Tell me your ideas or anything I can clear up, No Flaming.

~King of the Nites

[Torrent of Flame]

<snip> *I heard that a stewardess reported the seat numbers of the hijackers*.

<snip> which I believe was the right thing to do and that is what I would have ordered in the same situation.

<snip> They had their lives taken for a security threat.

Tell me your ideas or anything I can clear up, No Flaming.

~King of the Nites

The idea is that the plane didn't crash with people on it. Flight 93 landed in another airport and was evacuated, then a plane that was called Flight 93 crashed. The plane number of Flight 93 is still recorded as flying, not destroyed like two other planes which crashed were, Flight 11 and another plane.

Also, the stewerdess' got it wrong, they were not the same seats, the names were wrong (ie the 'hijakers' were reported but 9 of them were confirmed alive. A statement was released saying that the identities were not actually confirmed, and these terrorists were not on the casualties records)

No flaming, this is intelligent (as intelligent as conspiracys can be) discussion.

[King of the Nites]

The idea is that the plane didn't crash with people on it. Flight 93 landed in another airport and was evacuated, then a plane that was called Flight 93 crashed. The plane number of Flight 93 is still recorded as flying, not destroyed like two other planes which crashed were, Flight 11 and another plane.

Also, the stewerdess' got it wrong, they were not the same seats, the names were wrong (ie the 'hijakers' were reported but 9 of them were confirmed alive. A statement was released saying that the identities were not actually confirmed, and these terrorists were not on the casualties records)

No flaming, this is intelligent (as intelligent as conspiracys can be) discussion.

Wait so why would the people that got evacuated not mention anything about it(or did they)? And did anyone die other than from the crashes on the Towers and Pentagon? I am a little slow on this stuff .

[kingarabian]

kingarabian, read the newspaper article I posted please and I'll be happy to discuss it with you. But for now you've just flat-out denied my claim without any evidence.


As for you people who say its a setup, you're pretty much asking me to believe that almost every government in the world is lying to me. I simply wont be able to believe that unless you have some pretty extraordinary evidence.

For now I think its much more likely that you're stiring up a conspiracy theory in the same way that moon-landing-deniers, creationists, holocaust-deniers, people who say they've been abducted by aliens, climate-change-deniers and people who like crop-circles do.

Theres no need for me to post evidence atm. Google "9/11 fraud" or Youtube "9/11 fraud". If you knew more about Islam then its pretty obvious religion had nothing to do with 9/11. Its all political.

[Torrent of Flame]

Wait so why would the people that got evacuated not mention anything about it(or did they)? And did anyone die other than from the crashes on the Towers and Pentagon? I am a little slow on this stuff .

Well this is a conspiracy theory so no irrefutable evidence but they were told to keep to secrecy, iirc. I mean comeon, the FBI say keep quiet, you will :P

And well the crashes were where the deaths occured.

[King of the Nites]

Well this is a conspiracy theory so no irrefutable evidence but they were told to keep to secrecy, iirc. I mean comeon, the FBI say keep quiet, you will :P

And well the crashes were where the deaths occured.

Wait so was the 'fake' 93 crash a coverup? If so, for what? I am not putting 2+2 together right now.

[kingarabian]

Wait so was the 'fake' 93 crash a coverup? If so, for what? I am not putting 2+2 together right now.

The crash that hit the pentagon was a cover-up to show the people that it was a foreign terrorist attack.

[masterBB]

I'm sure the government is strong enough to hide such a thing to the rest of the worlds. And for the people that say that the government leaked all other secrets, how do you know that? Because if they have secrets that didn't leaked, than we don't know anything about them.

Personaly I keep al posibilty's open, it could be the government aswel as the religion. Religion has proven earlier in history what it can do to humans. Anyone remembering what they did in the middle ages? They have the power to brainwash people, although it seems harder since internet has been released

[Torrent of Flame]

Flight 93 hit one of the towers. 'Flight 77 hit' the Pentagon iirc.

Theres so many conflicting ideas from the government, the FBI say different stuff to the CIA who say different stuff to the Government. Its all a mess.

Flight 93 was a coverup as in the plane didnt hit the tower, the government just said it was Flight 93. They did it so they could invade Iraq or clear some debts or something, you know. The only people who would know are the people could have set it up.

[Yakman]

Theres no need for me to post evidence atm. Google "9/11 fraud" or Youtube "9/11 fraud".

I've done exactly that and googled "9/11 fraud". The first result was a blog that was mostly made up of youtube videos. The bits that were not videos were totally unsuppported. (they didnt cite their sources, so for all I know, they could have made it up)

I should mention that I have a deep distrust of videos. Evidence of this kind should be presented in a paper or book and should appeal to academic audiences as they have the expertise to scrutinise it effectivly. This is very similar to how creationists cant publish their work in a proper scientific journal, so they publish it on websites or popularising books that are aimed at the general public. In other words, its propaganda.

If you knew more about Islam then its pretty obvious religion had nothing to do with 9/11. Its all political.

Oh really? I think I know more then you think.

Its a very difficult challenge to convince someone to kill themself for your cause, but religion that job so much easier.

Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it's a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn't we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don't be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn't appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there's a special martyr's reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.

Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.


Islam teaches that you'll survive your own death, that is what allowed the hijackers to fly the plane into the skyscraper, because they believed they wouldnt die! Islam was the source of the hijackers courage.
Islam teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.

Of course, Islam contradicts itself and also teaches nice things like peace and learning. Most of the muslims in the world ignore the nasty things and just follow the nice ones.

It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.

Erm, no. I'm saying that there is no irrefutable evidence either way so be left to make your own decisions.

There are conspiracy theorists about everything, there is no irrefutable evidence for anything in this world.

That is not how logic and reason work.
If theres two conflicting viewpoints with no evidence for either of them, the truth does not have to lie somewhere in the middle.

Because you the conspiracy theorists have made the claim, the burden of evidence is on you.
"the necessity of evidence always lies with the person who lays charges."

There is no reason to believe in anything which has no evidence, so I will not believe in the 9/11 fraud hypothesis.
(However, I've asked kingarabian if he can provide me with evidence, so if he does I may change my mind in the future)

Believe what you will, I have made my decision on what I think really happened.

Well this is very intresting, the whole point of a debate is to convince people that you're point of view is correct. But here you're saying that convincing people doesnt matter and that you're not going to try to convince me?
Maybe I've misinterpreted your words, but to me that sounds like an admision of defeat.

And the governments do lie. Do you think they would get in power if they told everyone the truth? No.

America a democracy with a free press. Any such lie like this would be found out by reporters, they would sell much more copies if they found it out so it is in their intrests.
Another part of your conspiracy theory is that there is no freedom of press, which is something else I simply cannot believe as the effects of that would be obvious (The western world becomes a dictatorship)

Of course governments lie about stuff like lowering taxes, and they 'lie' about national security issues, but lying about 9/11 is in a completely different league.

[Torrent of Flame]

<snip>

Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it's a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn't we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don't be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn't appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there's a special martyr's reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.

Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.

Hitlers reign over the Nazi's. The soldiers were normal soldiers and they were brainwashed by Hitler that what they was doing was correct. Ok, maybe the SS were a bit more sadistic in the first place but again generally normal people. These people were brainwashed by the Nazi regime?

<snip>

That is not how logic and reason work.
If theres two conflicting viewpoints with no evidence for either of them, the truth does not have to lie somewhere in the middle.

Because you the conspiracy theorists have made the claim, the burden of evidence is on you.
"the necessity of evidence always lies with the person who lays charges."

There is no reason to believe in anything which has no evidence, so I will not believe in the 9/11 fraud hypothesis.
(However, I've asked kingarabian if he can provide me with evidence, so if he does I may change my mind in the future)


Well this is very intresting, the whole point of a debate is to convince people that you're point of view is correct. But here you're saying that convincing people doesnt matter and that you're not going to try to convince me?
Maybe I've misinterpreted your words, but to me that sounds like an admision of defeat

However the two conflicting view points are the extremes both way. It was a setup and planned or it was terrorists. There seem to be no other ideas of what it was, so therefore the answer will have to lay within those two ideas, no?

And there is a lot of evidence saying that it wasn't terrorists. I think the one that makes me laugh the most was that a passport of one of the 'terrorists' was found in the rubble after the plane collapsed. It survived the 1100F burning of the Jet Fuel (which miraculously melted the Steel core of the WTC which melts at 3000F), yet Paper can survive?

Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

Jet Fuel or Kerosene burns at about 1100, which wouldnt have melted the steel (575 degrees Celsius = 1067 degrees Fahrenheit), I got the 575 from a good 20 minutes of Googling about Jet A fuel Kerosene. Now this couldn't melt low grade steel, and the steel in the WTC was exposed to temperatures exceeding 3500F for other 3 hours as it should be for High Grade steel. People say that the steel melted under the Jet Fuel, but the Jet Fuel would have burnt off almost instantly on impact, like when you throw White Spirit or something on a fire it flares for a few seconds and then dies. Put that in perspective, the Jet Fuel wouldnt have still been there after Hours. Now ok, so the steel was weakened by the fire, but then it would have snapped off the top of the tower, like with the fire in Madrid in a skyscraper, a big fire took off the 10 floors but it didnt make the building collapse. Planes have hit buildings before, and the only buildings ever to collapse by a fire are WTC North/South and WTC 7.

There is evidence supporting this as a SetUp, you just have to have an open enough mind to believe that such a feat can be obtained and carried out.

And no, I was not admitting defeat, you know that if I am wrong, I will admit defeat, as I have before. I hadn't seen you reply so I was just summing up my ideas.

<snip>

Of course governments lie about stuff like lowering taxes, and they 'lie' about national security issues, but lying about 9/11 is in a completely different league.

[kingarabian]

I've done exactly that and googled "9/11 fraud". The first result was a blog that was mostly made up of youtube videos. The bits that were not videos were totally unsuppported. (they didnt cite their sources, so for all I know, they could have made it up)

I should mention that I have a deep distrust of videos. Evidence of this kind should be presented in a paper or book and should appeal to academic audiences as they have the expertise to scrutinise it effectivly. This is very similar to how creationists cant publish their work in a proper scientific journal, so they publish it on websites or popularising books that are aimed at the general public. In other words, its propaganda.






Oh really? I think I know more then you think.

Its a very difficult challenge to convince someone to kill themself for your cause, but religion that job so much easier.

Could we get some otherwise normal humans and somehow persuade them that they are not going to die as a consequence of flying a plane smack into a skyscraper? If only! Nobody is that stupid, but how about this - it's a long shot, but it just might work. Given that they are certainly going to die, couldn't we sucker them into believing that they are going to come to life again afterwards? Don't be daft! No, listen, it might work. Offer them a fast track to a Great Oasis in the Sky, cooled by everlasting fountains. Harps and wings wouldn't appeal to the sort of young men we need, so tell them there's a special martyr's reward of 72 virgin brides, guaranteed eager and exclusive.

Would they fall for it? Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.


Islam teaches that you'll survive your own death, that is what allowed the hijackers to fly the plane into the skyscraper, because they believed they wouldnt die! Islam was the source of the hijackers courage.
Islam teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.

Of course, Islam contradicts itself and also teaches nice things like peace and learning. Most of the muslims in the world ignore the nasty things and just follow the nice ones.

It came from religion. Religion is also, of course, the underlying source of the divisiveness in the Middle East which motivated the use of this deadly weapon in the first place. But that is another story and not my concern here. My concern here is with the weapon itself. To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.



That is not how logic and reason work.
If theres two conflicting viewpoints with no evidence for either of them, the truth does not have to lie somewhere in the middle.

Because you the conspiracy theorists have made the claim, the burden of evidence is on you.
"the necessity of evidence always lies with the person who lays charges."

There is no reason to believe in anything which has no evidence, so I will not believe in the 9/11 fraud hypothesis.
(However, I've asked kingarabian if he can provide me with evidence, so if he does I may change my mind in the future)




Well this is very intresting, the whole point of a debate is to convince people that you're point of view is correct. But here you're saying that convincing people doesnt matter and that you're not going to try to convince me?
Maybe I've misinterpreted your words, but to me that sounds like an admision of defeat.




America a democracy with a free press. Any such lie like this would be found out by reporters, they would sell much more copies if they found it out so it is in their intrests.
Another part of your conspiracy theory is that there is no freedom of press, which is something else I simply cannot believe as the effects of that would be obvious (The western world becomes a dictatorship)

Of course governments lie about stuff like lowering taxes, and they 'lie' about national security issues, but lying about 9/11 is in a completely different league.

Islam teaches if you do Jihad or in other words kill your enemy for the sake of god that cause harm to you, then you will go straight to heaven. However those "hijackers" did not do any Jihad for the following reasons:

1. You wont go to heaven for Jihad when you kill innocent civilian's.
2. America did not strike Afghanistan untill after 9/11, so it should not be considered an enemy.
3. Taliban are extremist muslims, they go beyond what muslims believe, and they know the rules of Jihad pretty good.

So either Taliban did an epic fail, or it was the most likely inside job.

[n3ss3s]

Gf intelligent debate.

[Yakman]

Islam teaches if you do Jihad or in other words kill your enemy for the sake of god that cause harm to you, then you will go straight to heaven. However those "hijackers" did not do any Jihad for the following reasons:

1. You wont go to heaven for Jihad when you kill innocent civilian's.
2. America did not strike Afghanistan untill after 9/11, so it should not be considered an enemy.
3. Taliban are extremist muslims, they go beyond what muslims believe, and they know the rules of Jihad pretty good.

So either Taliban did an epic fail, or it was the most likely inside job.

Your whole post smacks of a 'no-true-scotsman' fallecy.

1. IIRC this was justified with that those people who died were not innocent as they supported America, and since America is an enemy (see point 1) it was allowed. Its a wierd justification, I dont agree with it, but thats what the jihadists said.
2. The problems in the middle-east with Isreal and Palastine are motivated by religion. America helps Isreal a lot and many muslims who feel a sense of community with other muslims hate America because it hurts their muslim 'brothers'.
3. Extream muslims go beyond what muslims believe? I'm sorry but to me that doesnt make sense. Could you explain again?


lol at your false dilemma at the end there.

Its obvious to me that you're just a conspiracy theorist, all you types love to use fuzzy logic.



To all rationalists, if you want to judge peoples thinking a good, cheap way is to educate yourself in logical fallecies. They are pretty simple to remember and understand, you'll find them invaluable when cross-examining people.

[rogeruk]

Broken my 1337 posts now..

Its a big conspiracy. Just watch some 911 conspiracy videos and you will be shocked how it shows that their own goverment would do such a thing.

It was all a big coverup to support going to Iraq for the oil.

[kingarabian]

Your whole post smacks of a 'no-true-scotsman' fallecy.

1. IIRC this was justified with that those people who died were not innocent as they supported America, and since America is an enemy (see point 1) it was allowed. Its a wierd justification, I dont agree with it, but thats what the jihadists said.
2. The problems in the middle-east with Isreal and Palastine are motivated by religion. America helps Isreal a lot and many muslims who feel a sense of community with other muslims hate America because it hurts their muslim 'brothers'.
3. Extream muslims go beyond what muslims believe? I'm sorry but to me that doesnt make sense. Could you explain again?


lol at your false dilemma at the end there.

Its obvious to me that you're just a conspiracy theorist, all you types love to use fuzzy logic.



To all rationalists, if you want to judge peoples thinking a good, cheap way is to educate yourself in logical fallecies. They are pretty simple to remember and understand, you'll find them invaluable when cross-examining people.

Calm down. You make things bigger then they should be. America was not an "enemy" to Islam at that time. Infact its connection with the arab world was better then ever.

Lets make some things straight:
If you want to say religion was a cause for this, then do so. But dont say Islam did it, and meant for it.

IF those terrorists did "hijack" those planes and crashed them into the towers, then in our terms they go to hell fire.

And no, im using my knowledge from my religion which is Islam. I know more then you think you know. Your probably an atheist. Its funny how hard atheists work to disapprove god, and blame religion for everything. Keep debating, but nothing will come out of it.

[Yakman]

Calm down. You make things bigger then they should be. America was not an "enemy" to Islam at that time. Infact its connection with the arab world was better then ever.

I think you'll find it was.

Arab != Islam

Have you not seen pictures of Palastinians burning the American flag?
The situation in the middle-east is extreamly relevant to 9/11

Obviously you dont hate America because you live there and it would be wierd, but there are many middle-eastern people, calling themselves muslim, who hate America because of its connection with Isreal.
Are you going to try to tell me they are not real muslims?

Lets make some things straight:
If you want to say religion was a cause for this, then do so. But dont say Islam did it, and meant for it.

All I've ever said in this thread is that religion was the root cause. Since Islam is a religion, it contributed, but I'm not trying to single out Islam as anything special, its just another religion.
The hijackers happened to be muslims, but if the situation was very different, they could have been Christians or Jews too.

The only reason I'm trying to counter is that you're trying to convince me that real muslims would never do that.

IF those terrorists did "hijack" those planes and crashed them into the towers, then in our terms they go to hell fire.

This is the problem, not all muslims believe the same things.
Of course, you're going to believe they're going to hell because you live in America and you would find it difficult if you believed otherwise.
But if you lived in Palastine, you would almost certainly believe they were going to heaven to be rewarded as martyrs.

Which version of Islam is correct? The one which says they're going to hell, or the one which says they're going to heaven.

Both sides can quote from the muslims holy book, it only serves to confuse.
Non of you have any way of deciding except by saying "This is my faith".


Its the same with the question of is America the enemy.
American muslims say it is not, Palastinian muslims say it is. Who is right?

And no, im using my knowledge from my religion which is Islam. I know more then you think you know. Your probably an atheist. Its funny how hard atheists work to disapprove god, and blame religion for everything. Keep debating, but nothing will come out of it.

I dont know why people always do this.
I'm only debating you for some fun, or to pass the time, or whatever reason I felt like that day.

Am I debating you to try to change the system? No.
If I wanted to do that, I would continue to picket, petition or do some other thing through the democratic process to change things.




As of this post, I havent seen any evidence for 9/11 conspiracy yet.

[Torrent of Flame]

Also, I fail to see how my logic is fuzzy.

[Yakman]

Hitlers reign over the Nazi's. The soldiers were normal soldiers and they were brainwashed by Hitler that what they was doing was correct. Ok, maybe the SS were a bit more sadistic in the first place but again generally normal people. These people were brainwashed by the Nazi regime?

I wouldnt use the word 'brainwashed'. (in fact I havent used it up til now)
I would prefer 'persuaded' or 'convinced'.

But yes, I can see why you would draw a parallel between facists and religion.
In fact the word "islamofascist" has been coined in the last few years.

However the two conflicting view points are the extremes both way. It was a setup and planned or it was terrorists. There seem to be no other ideas of what it was, so therefore the answer will have to lay within those two ideas, no?

Well we have to look at the evidence, it is entirely possible that one side is completely wrong.
Also, its possible that both those options are wrong and third thing is correct.

(this is an example of a false dilemma logical fallecy)

And there is a lot of evidence saying that it wasn't terrorists. I think the one that makes me laugh the most was that a passport of one of the 'terrorists' was found in the rubble after the plane collapsed. It survived the 1100F burning of the Jet Fuel (which miraculously melted the Steel core of the WTC which melts at 3000F), yet Paper can survive?



Jet Fuel or Kerosene burns at about 1100, which wouldnt have melted the steel (575 degrees Celsius = 1067 degrees Fahrenheit), I got the 575 from a good 20 minutes of Googling about Jet A fuel Kerosene. Now this couldn't melt low grade steel, and the steel in the WTC was exposed to temperatures exceeding 3500F for other 3 hours as it should be for High Grade steel. People say that the steel melted under the Jet Fuel, but the Jet Fuel would have burnt off almost instantly on impact, like when you throw White Spirit or something on a fire it flares for a few seconds and then dies. Put that in perspective, the Jet Fuel wouldnt have still been there after Hours. Now ok, so the steel was weakened by the fire, but then it would have snapped off the top of the tower, like with the fire in Madrid in a skyscraper, a big fire took off the 10 floors but it didnt make the building collapse. Planes have hit buildings before, and the only buildings ever to collapse by a fire are WTC North/South and WTC 7.

There is evidence supporting this as a SetUp, you just have to have an open enough mind to believe that such a feat can be obtained and carried out.

I hope you dont mind if I quote from a website I've found.

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

You must wonder, if they really did set it up, wouldnt they be more careful so it wouldnt be found out in such a simple way like this?



I do have an open mind (read: accepting of new ideas), but I also have a sceptical mind.
If you only have an open mind, you'll have no way of telling the good ideas from the bad. You need a firewall of critical thinking too.

[Torrent of Flame]

Yakman, I can see that the steel could infact melt, but then why would the whole tower collapse inwards? Surely the whole of the tower's steel structure would heat up to beyond 1800F?

The whole idea of the steel melting is very skeptical, there are experts saying different things about the situation, so I apologize for using that as an argument, as it is in dispute by people who are experts in their field.

I appreciate the comment on open mind, but why are you so skeptical to accept it was set up, but have taken up the idea it was terrorism instantaneously? If you was skeptical you would look at the evidence either way and see there is no way to prove or disprove efficiently either way in the argument.