Sec_Henry_Paulson covered most of it very well. I only want to add a couple of things.

First, think about what we saw.

We saw two planes crash into two buildings. We saw three buildings fall into their own footprint. When the second plane crashed into the building there was a large fireball that shot out of the building. That was probably most of the jet fuel. The building that was hit second and seemed to have the least amount of jet fuel fell first.

Now in retrospect, we have been shown molten metal from the structures and traces of thermite have been found.

Now, we have some things to explain:

All three buildings fell at near free fall speed which is 10 meters per second squared. That means the speed at which the buildings fell got faster and faster as they fell. That is unexpected. One would expect that the floors below would have provided some resistance causing the building to fall more slowly then near free fall speed.

Why did building 7 fall? No plane small fire. No good reason for a collapse.

Why did the second building fall first? The fire in the second building should have had less jet fuel then the first. The first building's fire should have caused more structural damage. All other things being equal the first building should have fallen first.

Molten metal was found. None of the expected materials including jet fuel burn hot enough to melt metal.

Traces of thermite were found. Thermite will melt metal and can be used to cut steal and can be used for a controlled demolition.

So, if you have a sound background in science, especially physics, you notice several unexpected behaviors. That is suspicious. The traces of thermite make things a bit more clear. The unexpected behavior was due to missing information. If the support structures were cut by thermite during the collapse of each building you would expect them to fall at near free fall speed. You would expect molten metal and you now have a reason for the building 7 collapse. Finally, if controlled demolition brought the buildings down then there is an explanation for why the least damaged building fell first (least damaged of the two towers not including building 7).

Instead of an article, let's just look at this using our own powers of observation, and common sense.

The biggest argument for controlled demolition is the fact that the buildings collapsed completely... all the way to the ground.

How can this be explained without the use of explosives?

Let's think about this.

You have the top of each tower, which represents 1/4-1/5 the total size of the whole building breaking off, and somehow pushes itself through the remainder of the building at speeds which approach freefall?

The important thing to remember here is the core of each of these buildings. 47 steel box columns, sticking straight up into the air. We're being told that this structure gave almost no resistance to the floors above it?

More about the core: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ

http://www.picassodreams.com/.a/6a00d83455ad0369e201053566d3df970b-800wi

Moreover, it becomes increasingly suspicious when the 9/11 commission deliberately describes the core of the building as being hollow, and that the weight was born by the exterior of the building. i think most people, given the evidence, should have no problems realizing that this is simply not true.

Think about it like this. Even if you could take 1/4 of the top of the world trade center off, drag that portion of the building a thousand feet in the air and then drop it on the remainder of the building, i would not expect the building to collapse completely to the ground.

also, keep in mind that even in the lengthy NIST report, it is never explained how the buildings came to the ground.

in the report, after describing the possible conditions necessary for the building to start to fail, they use the phrase "and then global collapse began" .. as if the complete destruction of the building down to the street level could be written off by a single sentence like it were expected behavior.

i, for one, would like an explanation.

then you have building 7 actually falling at freefall speed, which seems to defy logic. other clues include the pulverized concrete, eyewitness testimony, video recording from that day, and the molten steel and extremely high underground temperatures that lasted for nearly a month, etc.

Here's a good video on the subject that I hope you take the time to consider

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3760797491142118919

The first part of the video is what I want you to watch. It's got long long portions of video footage all from 9/11. No commentary or opinion, you're just watching the same stuff that was being broadcast on TV that day.

It's up to you whether or not you want to watch some of the analysis toward the end.

Anyway, just take some time to look at everything again and be willing to be open to other possibilities.

Even if you could take 1/4 of the top of the world trade center off, drag that portion of the building a thousand feet in the air and then drop it on the remainder of the building, i would not expect the building to collapse completely to the ground.

I don't think it's fair to have expectations of any kind about what might happen here. When things get bigger than cars and houses, everyday experience is not helpful in predicting results.

That said, your main point is still valid. I would say it more like this:

It seems very unlikely to an ordinarily rational mind that a fire, even if driven by petrochemicals, would end in total collapse and complete obliteration of a huge structure built from lots of steel and concrete, even one with a hole in it.

Cf. Fireman training towers. Admittedly they don't burn for hours, but they burn over and over and over again. Edit: fun with formatting

I'd like to add that I can't understand how there was so little debris left after these building collapsed, like almost the entire thing was just pulverized into dust and what about the buildings steel support beams? I don't understand where they went. If the building collapsed the way reported I would expect that it would have fallen a lot slower and that we'd have atleast a few of the floors stacked on the ground and you'd see the steel support beams remaining pointed into the sky. Building 7 makes even less sense. How it even collapsed for a start, but the big thing for me is that I personally just can't understand how anyone can reasonably believe that it too would then fall at like freefall speed and also leave behind almost no debris. I mean really? I'm not trying to be condescending or anything, but I just can't understand that.

This is one of the points I like to make to which the deniers have no real answer except phrases like "the weight of a 110-story buliding could crush anything" and the like.

But there are two more salient points the deniers just go silent on. One is that the central core of the building, 56 stories high, was made of a vertival cement-reinforced I-beams in a cluster numbering between 50 and 75 (the exact number escapes me).

Where did this enormously strong core go? Pulverized, and neatly broken off in flatbed-sized pieces? Interesting. How, exactly, did that occur, without steel-cutting thermate or thermite strategically placed?

The second point is that the designer accounted for the possiblity of not only one plane hitting one of these towers, but multiple plane strikes. "It will be like a pencil puncturing a screen", he said, it will make a hole, but the rest of the structure will be undamaged."

To which the deniers cry "well. they were using much smaller planes at the time" as if this totally negates the original design's strength against such an event. Baloney.

Some photos of the Pile

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

More Cleanup photos

There seems to be a lot of debris there. It took 8 months to clean up working 24 hours a day.

Moreover, it becomes increasingly suspicious when the 9/11 commission deliberately describes the core of the building as being hollow, and that the weight was born by the exterior of the building. i think most people, given the evidence, should have no problems realizing that this is simply not true.

The 9/11 commission report is not a technical report or an engineering study. It should not be considered as such.

Our mandate was sweeping. The law directed us to investigate ''facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,'' including those relating to intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies, diplomacy, immigration issues and border control, the flow of assets to terrorist organizations, commercial aviation, the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation, and other areas determined relevant by the Commission. link

Nothing about engineering/architecture or collapse mechanisms in there.

in the report, after describing the possible conditions necessary for the building to start to fail, they use the phrase "and then global collapse began" .. as if the complete destruction of the building down to the street level could be written off by a single sentence like it were expected behavior.

What would stop the collapse? You should read Samboti's paper "The missing jolt" and then the rebutal to it. It addresses this claim directly.

Here's a thread at Jref Only pay attention to RedIbis, and metamars (truthers) and Mackey, Grizzly Bear, Newtons Bit, David James (debunkers). Its a good discussion if you can stand the pointless bickering.

The 9/11 commission report is not a technical report or an engineering study. It should not be considered as such.

I never said that it should. I mentioned that they made a potentially deliberate false misstatement about a very important piece of information.

Nothing about engineering/architecture or collapse mechanisms in there.

No, but in their report they took the time to spell out details about the building design and factors that lead to the collapse, some of which are blatantly not true. Why am I not allowed to point this out?

I'll read your paper and arguments, but I really feel you missed the point of my post and are trying to steer the conversation in a different direction trying to argue something that is a minor point.

* I was trying to say, "Isn't it interesting how important the structure of the building's core is, and isn't it interesting that the 9/11 commission would go out of their way.... go above and beyond their mandate, and state something like this that is clearly not even true??"

I'm not trying to steer the conversation anywhere. I just feel that reposting articles about Thermite, Sounds of Explosions 1 2, 3 and Molten Metal 1 2 is getting redundant, as they seem to get hand waved away, and unverrified claims are taken as gospel. I guess I'm just getting too jaded. The mandate of the 9/11 commission is something that seems to be misunderstood around here, so I just took some of what you said and addressed it.

Edit Links

I appreciate your input, but I didn't even touch on thermite or the sounds of the explosions, although one of my video links does.

also the molten metal i only just mentioned by name, and didn't go into detail about it because it's not the core of my argument.

basically what i'm trying to say is this.

"It does not make any sense to me that 1/4 of the building with no external forces other than gravity can destroy the remaining 3/4 of the building, leaving a pile of almost nothing behind. It defies logic to me that the steel structure that comprised the core of each building put up no resistance to the collapse of the buildings. I have not seen sufficient evidence in my eyes that would show how global collapse is possible. The way this event is written off in both technical and non-technical reports only raises more questions about why such an anomaly was not investigated properly. I am not saying what did or did not happen, but given everything that I have been witness to, I retain my right to be skeptical about the nature of the tower's destruction."

Thank you.

A few people have addressed the issue Bazant & Zhou and Bazant. I'm currently looking for more links because I know there is another paper either by I think its by Dr. Frank Greening or Dr. Gregory Urich. I'll update when (if) i can find it. (lost my bookmarks)

Edit: I apologize if my responses are generalized, I`m just trying to avoid the typical responses I receive when I post.

Being a sceptic is quite fine.

Here's a 9 second video that may still be the most convincing to me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

These buildings stand for 100 or more years - yet this one fell without being hit by an airliner, all in one smooth motion.

Also, where are the flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders?

They are built to survive crashes directly into mountains; yet somehow they were destroyed when they hit mostly hollow buildings? It seems extremely unlikely, yet that is the official version of events.

Scepticism is quite fine: but it works both ways, for all the conspiracy theories (and there are extremely unsupported ones out there) and for the official conspiracy theory.

I myself am not convinced of anything except that the official version of events is not supported by a sufficiently convincing amount of evidence.

At the end of the day, all I can say is that I dont know what happened in the United States on September 11th 2001, and expect that I will not for a very long time.

Is there something particular in the video you want to point out?

No, it's pretty standard.

I am not a structural engineer, so maybe it is entirely possible that buildings fall in that fashion, and maybe NIST is correct in what they are saying (I have not read the report, so I dont have any basis to criticize it).

It is not that I have evidence of controlled demolition, or evidence of this or that, I have no evidence, and the "evidence" I have seen is not quite convincing.

Problem is, this applies to both what the "truthers" and the government says - neither side is very convincing.

Until there's a public adversarial trial (not Gitmo courts) and I can see all the evidence in public and see the cross-ex, I will likely remain unconvinced.

Thanks for keeping an open mind about this.

BTW - Have you read the 9/11 Report? You'll find some extremely interesting things in there, especially about how FBI informants seem to know about the hijackers long before 2001, pretty much since they stepped foot into the US, apparently met at a Halal food shop... It's an extremely interesting report with tons of "interesting" facts neither the truthers nor the main stream seem to be catching onto. Probably because the both sides have a real aversion to "reading" more than anything :-)

You really should. it's a good read and very interesting even if you don't read all of it and just skim.

Yeah, NIST does not seem like great reading material. But sure, I might try it: what's the name of the report you would recommend?

What part of the NIST report convinced you that NIST is or isnt accurate about WTC 7? What questions still remain in your mind after reading it? Can you provide a good summary of it?

Yet you haven't read it... sigh.

Why would you be more convinced? You haven't really done any research yet.

The 9/11 report was an interesting read, but in order to get a better understanding I need a high quality critique (adversarial process) and see the original source material (discovery process); both are integral parts of the public court system, where all the evidence is laid out for all to see.

I will be more convinced because I can have professionals on either side trying to convince me using evidence and counter evidence: both with access to ALL of the evidence.

All I have at present is one side of the debate (government side), possibly hidden evidence, and bold assertions backed up by questionable (in a literal sense) evidence.

In the public court system we would be at the point of "The Grand Jury" - we are no where near the full trial stage.

When asked about the 911 money trail, the 911 commission said it was irrelevant. That's a coverup. No other evidence is needed. The scientific evidence can be argued all day long, but the admitted fact that the commission refused to follow the money, is admitted proof of a cover up.

They said it was of no practical significance. They estimate the operation cost between 100-400k. Its not exactly a juicy money trail, a series of wire transfers. I speculate that the money probably originated from an 'ally' of the US (Saudis/Jordanians) and they make the decision not to stir the pot. Just speculation on my part though.

Investigative journalists seem to have discovered that $100000 was wired to mohammed atta from Mahmood Ahmed, Director of Pakistan's secret service. Interesting that Mahmood Ahmed was in Washington D.C. on 911. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&num=100&q=%22Mahmood+Ahmed%22+%22white+house%22+meeting&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=op1KBHtfUhE

A discussion of (Mahmoud Ahmad ISI) http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mahmoud_Ahmad_funds_the_attacks.

The funding aspect is interesting, and of everything raised in this thread this is one of the only posts that holds merit.

That is totally irrelevant. Do not pay attention to that information.

I speculate that the money probably originated from an 'ally' of the US (CIA/Mossad) and they make the decision not to stir the pot. Just speculation on my part though.

A plane hit the building, how did that make the building fall that way? If the fire was to cause the building's collapse, the fire where the plane actually hit would be way more intense than the one on the other site - thus the top of the building would of actually fallen off sideways, not down like that.

Yeah, that's interesting.

Considering the whole thing was uncontrolled - and conditions from one side of the tower to the other were different on the infrastructure... how the hell did it go down all at once?

Maybe - and this is a BIG maybe... Where any people around the building? If it fell sideways would more lives be lost?

MAYBE it's like a flooding sub - you have to kill some people to save all the others.

Just a thought...

Yeah, I had a similar thought many years ago (that I give roughly zero credence to, but it's interesting) that a) x_group thought the tower was likely to topple, doing catastrophic damage to surrounding buildings b) decided to pull it to avoid that, but c) the attack was everything we were told it was, and d) the cover up was actually to prevent revealing to the public the fact that all buildings over X size in similar geographies are prewired to blow at the time they're built.

I am very saddened by the lack of actual article links in the replies, but reflects a sad reality in conspiracy circles: 'common sense' prevails over hard fact. I mean, you can't prove anything with these observations of something not being right, you can at most illicit interest in further research and now we're being asked for the research, not reasons to doubt. I hope it took more than the statements given to convince these guys of their 'truth'. Common sense/logic is needed of course when making decisions on the evidence, and here is some that refer to the points that he was referring to.

Now, as to the articles asked for, let's start with concrete puliverization in mid-air, metallurgy studies suggesting explosives, thermite residues found in the dust and finish with WTC 7 which I think has such clear evidence for controlled demolition I shall link no more unless requested.

If you still want more, I recommend AE911Truth's slide presentation.

The fact isn't that the answers are really out there and being hidden, the fact is that true investigations into what the hell happened are totally thwarted and the evidence has mostly been destroyed/scrapped/moved who-knows-where, although further analysis is possible. So let's get some better answers. If they spent 100 million on the Clinton investigation they can spend more than 4 million on 9/11.

Well there is a lot of evidence suggesting not only thermite, but Thermate™, which is nano-level, military-grade thermite that packs an even bigger punch.

Here is an article about scientists concluding there was thermate in the residue:

Berkeley, CA, April 23, 2009— A team of scientists that includes 9/11 luminaries Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, and seven other authors from three countries announced this month the long-awaited publication of their 25-page article "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe."

Here is a slide presentation by Dr. Steven E. Jones, PhD (whoever he is ;) telling about thermite.

Zero: An Investigation Into 9/11 covers some specialists who have studied the residues of the WTC buildings (link to the third part that covers thermite, whole documentary is recommended viewing).

I need no clarifying, you were the one asking for resources ;)

I totally agree that things are far from resolved, what we need is a thorough investigation into these events.
It's only a matter of time, really.

If they spent 100 million on the Clinton investigation they can spend more than 4 million on 9/11.

They didn't spend $4 million on 9/11. The 9/11 Commission cost around $15 million, and that wasn't the only investigation. Strange how Jesse Ventura says it on TV and it starts being repeated as fact shortly thereafter.

Memes are memes :)

Nonetheless we can all agree that the amount of effort and resources into getting things straight lacked appallingly.

I'm sure we can also all agree that incorrect information should not be spread.

edit Or, judging by the downvote w/no reply, I guess we can't.

FTFY. We definately should be more aware of what we spread :)

controlled demolition convince me, for me it the clearest thing, but there its certainly much more.

if you want to see some good facts watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-YqET96OO0

I had not heard of this documentary before, watched it all the way through.

Best doc on the subject I've seen so far.

Collapsing buildings do not pulverize to powder unless aided by explosives,common sense and physics, that is all.

Actually, that's not true. Concrete is reinforced with re-bar, so the building can't collapse without the concrete and steel coming apart. And, you can probably guess what happens when concrete disintegrates - yes, it turns to powder...

Yup, keep defending the party line and don't believe common sense, you will reap what you sow, hopefully you will remember this exchange, and feel the shame that you should.

What a reasoned and coherent counterpoint!

The best part is that it does nothing to support your original point, or to counter stringerbell's.

It's for people like you that the general population sees those who question the 9/11 official story as a bunch of paranoid, tinfoil-hat wearing fucktards.

Thanks a lot.

Having to nit pic about sentence structure is exactly why the Dick Cheney types run rampant, with little hope of ever being caught. Keep up your grammatical arguments while the western governments create a corporate utopia.

I think his point was that if a building does in fact start collapsing, then some of its concrete will turn to powder. If your statement had started "Buildings do not pulverize...", I don't think stringerbell would have quibbled with you.

Weeeeelllllll EEEExxxxxxuuuussseeee me grammar NAZI. I won't be able to say or show you anything that will change your mind. I do suggest you do a little digging of your own, if you really truly believe the course of events that the government tells you after that, enjoy the ride, killing 2500 citizens is just the start.

Get a grip. I don't believe the plane/fire induced collapse theory. I would not have nitpicked your original statement. I don't think stringerbell fundamentally disagrees with your basic point either. Don't assume every response is an attack.

This is the last time I waste my time in any comment with you tards ever again. eat shit and die, that is all.

Hopefully you will remember this exchange, and feel the shame that you should.

Do you have empirical data to support your claim that the building was pulverized to powder? Moreover do you have data to support that the fine powder observed is concrete, and not other building materials, specifically wallboard and ceiling tiles, and even accumulated dust?

Do you not have 2 eyes to see the truth, or are you going to believe the claptrap they have been telling you. My god get a fucking grip.

See what truth? You claimed that the building was pulverized. I asked you to show or tell me why you believe this in the face of a far more simple explanation.

"But steel-framed high-rise buildings have been felled by severe earthquakes, and in those cases, the buildings were not pulverized and shredded, as the World Trade Center was, but were toppled. "

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuBi8KyOhw skip to about 2:00

that giant cloud that covered manhattan... that was concrete and asbestos and other parts of the building. everything was pulverized.

Your trying to draw a parallel between earthquake damage, and the damage sustained by WTC 1 +2. Those things are not analogous. NOVA explaining the collapse starts at 2 mins, and the release of kinetic energy when the outer coloums bowed and floor truss connections snapped. The NIST collapse initiation theory, calculations and modeling when taken in concert with other work (bazzant etc) explain why the tower fell the way it did.

I'm not trying to draw parallels to anything.

The quote was from NIST, and if you just focus on the last part of the quote and not the comparison they make, what they are saying is that the wolrld trade center buildings were pulverized.

Well, there is the copious video, in which the ration of rubble to dust is very low (i.e. mostly particulates, rather than chunks).

This does go against common sense, although admittedly common sense does not always apply to the actual world, especially to events that are quite a ways outside normal experience.

Speaking of experience, my own is with dropping cinderblocks from 3 stories or so. They tend to shatter--into chunks, with only a little bit of particulates. Which is pretty much not what happened to the WTC.

Uh, does anyone actually have an article or evidence, based on any moderately rigorous scientific analysis, like the poster requested? All I see here are a bunch of posts from people expressing their opinions on what they think happened.

Opinions based on incredulity.

I've never run across one single article that included enough evidence to be convincing all by itself. There are literally thousands of articles with a lot of duplication and occasionally one mentions something few others do. It seems to me there is really very little damning physical evidence of demolitions. 99% of the evidence is in recorded events in the days, weeks and even years leading up to 9/11 and in the days and years since. To me that is all circumstantial but is overwhelming nonetheless. Some of the video evidence is fairly convincing too but hardly "proof".

Still, here's a pretty good one about access by Kevin Ryan (fired from UL for his stance on 9/11):

Demolition access to the World Trade Center towers: Part one - tenants

Here's some timelines worth reading up on:

September 11 Television Archive

History Commons - Complete 911 Timeline

9/11 coincidences and oddities

I also highly recommend comparing some of the reputable "truther" websites to some of the "debunker" websites and pay particular attention to these types of details:

Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies

Top 10 Thinking Traps Part I - Link to Part 2 at bottom of page.

The Rules of Disinformation

The Engineering of Consent

Edit: Content.

FH I too am a skeptic. There are a few things that have me leaning over into 9/11 deception: Jesse Ventura did an interview with Alex Jones and JV has a background in...DEMOLITION. He had some very convincing arguments as to how buildings are supposed to fall and not fall. How they should sandwich instead of free fall in the way that they did.

The other point is it is the only steel structure in the history of the world to collapse from a fire. There are examples of other skyscrapers that had burned many hours longer and never collapsed.

Still a skeptic but the arguments are interesting.

Buildings don't fall down by themselves. Nor is jet fuel hot enough to melt steel. But let's forget about both of those things.

If you aren't convinced it's controlled demolition, how did WTC7 fall down?

Oh yeah, here's a published research paper about nano-thermite found in the wreckage: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Stock Response

The article is not scientific proof. Its conclusions were called into question within days of its release. Bentham has been shown to be a Vanity Press, with no peer reviewing, and editors quitting because of the pulbication of the article.

Lets also add the two main researches have both said they believe thermite was only a fuse. Jones saying it and last week Harrit. Both beleive that hundreds of tonnes of conventional explosives were used, evidence of which has yet to be produced(positive empirical evidence).

The active thermitc paper is a joke to everyone but truthers.

The other red flags are the fact that these samples have not been independently verified, and that the samples were literally scooped up by someone in the days following 9/11 from their windowsill. The fundamentals of this research are tenuous at best.

And a new refutation

ETA: The fire didn't melt steel, it merely weakened it.

How'd the fire weaken the steel in the building across the street?

I see WTC7 has been ignored again, as usual.

From an eariler post I made in this thread

I'm not dodging anything. In my initial response I linked to the NIST WTC 7 FAQ that answers this exact question. If you are going to dismiss that with the wave of a hand, what if anything do you expect me to say to change your mind?

WTC 7 FAQ

WTC 7 Final Report

Why are we ignoring the towers, the poser above you seemed pretty happy to regurgitate talking points about them? No one seems to care that those points were false, and we just keep going with debunked theory after debunked theory.

WTC 7 was on fire for 6-7 hours. The fire was started by falling debris from the towers.

So do you want to talk about the nano thermite article now? Or are you going to ignore all its problems and continue to cite it as irrefutable? Are you also going to stop saying that the steel was melted? Because no one claims that except ignorant truthers.

I mentioned the paper on the side, my main point was WTC7. Of course I'm sure you'd love to concentrate on that paper.

What exactly was it in WTC7 that burned for 6-7 hours and was hot enough to weaken steel?

I also suppose it was just chance that FEMA was already set up the day before, that the vaults under the WTC were freshly cleared, and that 3 steel buildings fell due to fire all on the same day, the first time fire has ever destroyed a steel building and it took out 3 at the same time. I also suppose it was just chance that one of the FBI's main guys in charge of finding bin Laden was assigned chief security office of the WTC right before the planes hit.

Read history, this story's happened over and over again. You wanna start a war? Fake an attack. Or turn a blind eye to an attack that's already coming.

That paper wasn't peer reviewed you liar.

I was told that it was prior to being published. I see now that was incorrect. It's been peer-reviewed now though.

Have you read this?

The bentham "paper" is a joke.

No articles, and I've found three videos--equaling 6-or-so hours of viewing and listening time--that are clear and direct.

You be the Judge......

Core of Corruption

The Ultimate Con

and Fabled Enemies

There are plenty more--Endgame by Alex Jones, Ring of Power by Grace Powers, The Cause of Effect: Highjacking Humanity from Divergent Films, Craig Brockie and 8th Estate Media, even Zeitgeist by Peter Joseph (though Mr. Joseph has shown himself to be more aligned with the net result of a new world order, as a technocratic global governance, rather than against, his film does highlight the 9/11 events more-or-less accurately as an inside job).

Good Luck.

edit: Oh, one other, a recent find (for me), though no recent film--The Capitalist Conspiracy by G. Edward Griffin. It shows the international banking connection(s), the shock-and-awe, problem-reaction-solution, and neo-con doctrines, false flag and covert interventionist policy events--both planned and unrealized and fully opeational--, as well as COINTELPRO-like operations that go beyond infiltration to actually funding and organizing reactionary anti-government groups within the country. Kind of a historical context and 40-year-prior validation of what we have seen, and are seeing so much of, today.

edit2: typo

edit3: I did not read the title correctly--so my videos are not exactly relevant. (Fabled Enemies, actually, is--with some, perhaps surprising revelations on "whodunit.") I do believe, however, that you will find an amazing amount of evidence in these videos to, at least, lead you to "inside job"; from there, it is only a short distance to controlled demolition--or at least a re-investigation into the potential, possibility, probability, and actuality of such an engineered event.

Please forgive the significant number of edits, and therefore, alerts on your oranger envelope.

There have been many skyscraper fires worse than the WTC. None of those buildings fell. It just doesn't happen. These are fires hotter and more widespread than the WTC fires. This is really the only evidence needed.

Were the buildings the same size as wtc? Were they hit by fully loaded jet liners with full fuel tanks? Were the buildings designed the same? Did they use the same materials? The answer to all these questions is NO, so maybe you should rethink the standards of evidence you use.

WTC 7 was not touched by a jet liner or a full fuel tank and it still fell at free fall speed. And YES, the Mandarin Oriental hotel was the same size and designed similarly. It burned much hotter and still didn't fall. So looks like the answer to all these questions is YES.

The Mandarin hotel is the same as the WTC???? Pics of the mandrin2 2 notice the robust base of the tower almost 2x the size of the tower portion.

The building was also only 40 stories. The building also didn't sustain a plane impact.

ETA:

After the fire, the building did not collapsed. Its structure of zinc remained standing.

Zinc..was the WTC made of Zinc?

It was also built after the NIST report on WTC 1 +2 the recommendations made were more than likely followed specifically to allow the building to withstand a global fire.

Construction was the same? How can you look at this then thisand tell me they are the same?

Yes, the Mandarin Oriental hotel was only 100 feet shorter than WTC 7. That is nearly identical in size. And if you remember, WTC 7 didn't sustain a plane impact either. Also, the Empire State Building was hit by a bomber in 1945. Another steel structured building hit by a plane full of jet fuel. Did it collapse?

B25 vs 767. Clearly there is a disparity in the size of the planes, the amount of fuel and potential energy. There are also fundamental differences in building construction and design.

Look at the robustness of the ESB vs The WTC The WTC towers were designed to maximize floor space where at the ESB was designed primarily to be tall and strong. Construction techniques and engineering changes allowed for this. If a 767 hit the ESB it would not collapse. WTC 1 +2 are unique skyscraper designs.

WTC and the Mandrin are similar only in height. The designs are much different. For one WTC had long span floor trusses that would not pass building code today. WTC 7 was also hit by falling debris from the collapse of the towers. NIST can explain it better than me.

The WTC was also designed to withstand a jet impact. They specifically engineered the buildings to be resistant to what happened on 9/11. And we're supposed to believe the engineering failed that spectacularly? So poorly designed and constructed that a small fire in one of the buildings is enough to make it implode? 3 buildings all fell straight down on the same day. The first and last time that has ever happened. I'm sorry, it just doesn't add up.

It was designed to withstand a 707 impact. A 707 lost in fog well below top speed.

The World Trade Center was designed to withstand the force from the impact of a Boeing 707, lost in the fog and travelling at a relatively slow speed of 180 miles per hour

Leslie Robertson has also said that they had no way to model how the fire would spread, and they didn't account for the jet fuel. Though realistically a plane looking to land would have considerably less fuel than one taking off. It wasn't just fires either that caused 1+2, it was structural damage coupled with fire damage that led to the collapse.

Why do you keep on dodging the question about WTC 7? Forget about the two towers.

Why did building 7 fall when it wasn't hit directly by any jet at all?

I'm not dodging anything. In my initial response I linked to the NIST WTC 7 FAQ that answers this exact question. If you are going to dismiss that with the wave of a hand, what if anything do you expect me to say to change your mind?

WTC 7 FAQ

WTC 7 Final Report

Why are we ignoring the towers, the poser above you seemed pretty happy to regurgitate talking points about them? No one seems to care that those points were false, and we just keep going with debunked theory after debunked theory.

One picture is worth a thousand words.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp2.html

If you can enlarge it in your browser, so much the better.

[deleted]

Yeah lots of people have trouble thinking big enough with all the mediocrity laying around.

With no one seeing any explosives, no concussive damage from explosions, no one on the pile seeing any evidence of explosives, no conventional explosive traces found (which Jones and Harit claim would still be needed even with nano thermite), no 120+ dB blast preceding the collapse, collapsing from the top up, none of the bomb sniffing dogs found explosives in the week before, no one saw increased traffic or suspicious activity in the weeks leading up to 9/11 (ie people removing drywall and glass, planting explosives (hundreds of tonnes) Harrit contends)and on and on. Not one person has posted real evidence for a controlled demolition, and everyone has ignored a massive body of evidence of the 'official story' (NISTS report). No one has even linked semi technical papers that challenge NISTS theory except fucking me. Truthers do not even know their own theories and their own researchers.

Controlled Demolition is fucking retarded.

With many people seeing and hearing explosions, with photos of concussive damage in the lobby, with examples of top down demolition, with structural pieces clearly damaged by something hotter than an office fire, with the sound very similar to top down demolition, with bomb sniffing dogs and security pulled from the WTC weeks before 911, with increased traffic and suspicious activity leading up to 911 and on and on. No one has posted any evidence that the official conspiracy theory is true. Decepticons seem to suffer from a serious case of anal cranial inversion. (ed - not you specifically, cyince)

[deleted]

It's not any science at all. Silvertein admitted to it being "pulled", so why the effort to cover it up?

Yep and saying that he meant pull the fire-fighters out is stupid because the firefighters weren't at building 7.

Go here and then perform a ctrl+f for "Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire". Enjoy!

edit Whoever down-modded me for posting irrefutable proof that Larry Silverstein was in fact talking about pulling people out of building 7 should feel ashamed.

This is perhaps the most convincing article that I could think of. Enjoy!

Weeeeelllllll EEEExxxxxxuuuussseeee me grammar NAZI. I won't be able to say or show you anything that will change your mind. I do suggest you do a little digging of your own, if you really truly believe the course of events that the government tells you after that, enjoy the ride, killing 2500 citizens is just the start.

Yep and saying that he meant pull the fire-fighters out is stupid because the firefighters weren't at building 7.

That is totally irrelevant. Do not pay attention to that information.

A discussion of (Mahmoud Ahmad ISI) http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mahmoud_Ahmad_funds_the_attacks.

The funding aspect is interesting, and of everything raised in this thread this is one of the only posts that holds merit.

From an eariler post I made in this thread

I'm not dodging anything. In my initial response I linked to the NIST WTC 7 FAQ that answers this exact question. If you are going to dismiss that with the wave of a hand, what if anything do you expect me to say to change your mind?

WTC 7 FAQ

WTC 7 Final Report

Why are we ignoring the towers, the poser above you seemed pretty happy to regurgitate talking points about them? No one seems to care that those points were false, and we just keep going with debunked theory after debunked theory.

WTC 7 was on fire for 6-7 hours. The fire was started by falling debris from the towers.

So do you want to talk about the nano thermite article now? Or are you going to ignore all its problems and continue to cite it as irrefutable? Are you also going to stop saying that the steel was melted? Because no one claims that except ignorant truthers.

Memes are memes :)

Nonetheless we can all agree that the amount of effort and resources into getting things straight lacked appallingly.