A lot has been said about the fact that no steel framed building have ever collapsed from fire before or since 9/11. I've found that if you take this one simple fact just a little further, the truth of 9/11 becomes unmistakable.
In order to convince everyone of the truth, this is the only argument you'll need. Lets take it from the top: Something that pundits of the official story as well as the media like to ignore is that there was a third collapse on 9/11. Building 7 (WTC 7) collapsed around 5:20 on 9/11 and WAS NOT hit by any airplane. Officially it caught fire from debris and collapsed due to these fires. Additionally, the existence of diesel fuel stored in the building is often blamed for creating the non-existent inferno and bringing the tower down. However, even FEMA's half baked analysis of the collapses conceded that there was only a small probability of that being the case. Additionally, the FEMA report states that it was the infernos that brought down the twin towers, not the impacts. This fact is supported by the fact that the buildings did survive the initial impacts and stood for an additional 90 minutes and 45 minutes respectively. This is further supported by these images that depict what affect a major structural failure will have on skyscraper: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall6.jpg http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall2.jpg http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall7.jpg And it wasn't the jet fuel that caused the inferno, according to FEMA, the jet fuel burned off in ten minutes. It was the resultant fire of materials in the building that caused the collapse, the furniture, computers, paper files and the planes' cargo. Based on this, on 9/11 three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed due to fire. Despite the fact that there is little evidence of an inferno, this other basic truth proves this last theory false as well. No steel framed building has collapsed from fire in history, never. Here are some examples of buildings that have survived real infernos: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1389 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html Furthermore, one of the towers suffered a far more severe inferno in 1975 and did not collapse: http://www.total911.info/750214nytimes.jpg Officially, as the fires weakened the steel columns in the building, the floors let go and "pancaked" down floor by floor until the entire building was reduced to rubble. Interesting characteristics of these collapses is that the concrete was reduced to dust and the buildings fell at free fall speeds. Free fall speeds? Implying no resistance by any of the 100 or so lower floors? Impossible. Now if we are to believe that three buildings can collapse in this fashion in one day, then there must be some historical precedent for such an event. Images of what happens to buildings after suffering a structural failure have been provided in this document. Additionally, images of what happens to steel framed buildings during an inferno have also been provided. Where is the historical precedent for steel framed buildings being reduced to dust due to office fires? Answer, there are none. Are we to believe that three buildings collapsed in one day in a manner that has never occurred previously in the history of mankind? Here are some examples of controlled demolitions: http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030226180703 http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030324142951 In this document, we have seen images of buildings suffering structural damage, buildings being engulfed in an infernos, and buildings experiencing a controlled demolition. Which category does the three collapses on 9/11 fit into? To anyone who insists the three buildings "pancaked" as the government insists it did, please provide examples of such an event happening in the past. Because if "pancaking" can happen three times in one day, then it would have to be a common occurrence. The laws of physics did not take the day off on 9/11, buildings catch fire everyday throughout the world, buildings are bombed, hit with missles, suffer earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters. If "pancaking" was a plausible theory, then it would be happening all over the world. Consider the carnage taking place in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other war torn countries; are buildings disintegrating to dust in any of these locations? Physics and simple logic tells us that something that has no basis in reality cannot occur three times in one day. Until pundits of the official story can provide a historical precedent of collapses occurring from fire in the manner they say they did, then their argument is irrelevant. Historical precedent tells us in no uncertain terms that the three collapses on 9/11 were controlled demolition. However, if this was the case, wouldn't someone have heard the explosions? Well another often ignored fact by the media is the dozens of witnesses to secondary explosives on 9/11: Here are several firemen: http://911blimp.net/vid_FDNYfirehouse.shtml Here's another fireman: http://www.911blogger.com/2005/07/former-auxiliary-ny-fireman-paul-isaac.html And another fireman: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/heavy.duty.explosion.wmv And another fireman: http://911blimp.net/vid_FDNYman.shtml Heres a reporter: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.msnbc.2.wmv And another reporter: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.2.wmv Here's a witness: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.1.wmv And another witness: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness
