>>>>>>What I find amasing is that some people in US still watch and actually believe, whatever above
>>>>>>mentioned budle-of-disgrace-media is digesting and throwing at them as an daily output.
>>>>>
>>>>>Okay, if I understand your reasoning, you are saying that it is believable that the CIA hired Al Quaeda to fly planes into buildings in Manhatten because four years later in Basra 2 SAS were caught in Basra dressed as Arabs in a car full of guns and plastique.
>>>>
>>>>Why it has to be CIA 'hiring' Al-qaeda ? It is those Arab students claiming that not me.
>>>>When you put it this way, it certainly sounds like 'black helicopter'. But how black is that helicopter really ?
>>>>Only thing that is for sure is that 9/11 was NOT done by 19 cave men, nor that buildings colapsed the way they did
>>>>as result of fire. All the rest is complete mystery, which will probably remain mystery forever.
>>>>What I am saying is that given history of undercover inttelligence operations it is not hard to believe
>>>>that some crazy or corrupt fractions of it are capable of commiting attrocities in the name of some greater good.
>>>>(or massive profits).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And NO I DO NOT believe 9/11 was done by US government. What they did was, since this event
>>>>suited certain interests, they simply distorted proper investigation and exploited consequences of this tragedy
>>>>for pushing for consecutive wars. Only God knows how many secret services, agencies, military groups, militias,
>>>>security companies (and God know what other crazies) are out there who have military experience (kind of top national skill huh ?) and acces to re$ources necessary for commiting crime like that.
>>>>On top of it they are cross-connected with other such 'units' all over the world, which are connected to drug syndicates,
>>>>terrorist groups and so for. Finding particular group is perhaps is like looking for needle in haystack. They will never get found. Flashing fake passport on TV and saying Al-qaeda did is exactly saying; We have no clue, and we don't care either.
>>>>
>>>>It is actually unimportant who really did it, point is that this event showed how easy was to create global mess
>>>>when it suits certain interests, and how unprepared was US to deal with it in a prudent way. When greatest power
>>>>on the world can be pushed in a state of euphoria/hysteria (and 2 wars thereafter) this easy, then whole world security
>>>>is actually one big house of cards which can be brought down very easy. This is something everybody should be worried about.
>>>
>>>Why do you say the towers did not collapse as a result of fire? The heat generated by that amount of burning jet fuel was well above the melting point of the metal support beams.
>>
>>No still-frame building EVER colapsed as result of fire. At the point and the time of of impact temperature might have reached
>>melting point of (naked) steel beams. But jet fuel melting steel beams all the way through thick cement of support columns
>>and then building colapsing at free fall speed is totally banana (pancake) story.
>
>
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html ?
>
>>Tank fuel full of
Termite might have sufficed in destroying the building, but tank full of jet fuel
>>(which burns in mater of seconds) to do this kind of damage is simply impossible.
>>And then on top of that you have WTC7 which colapased without even being hit by plane.
>>
>>Here is hotel building (234 meeters high) that went totaly burned. What caused fire were actual explosives
>>(fireworks stuff gone on fire)
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3133520>>But building did not colapse.
(Replying to your link a few lines up, an engineering analysis).
Very interesting. Thank you for posting it. I stand corrected about the fire having been hot enough to melt steel.
Does the report exactly answer its own question? What caused the top 10 floors to collapse?