@rush4hire: I'm not really decided on what was behind the 11th of September attacks in NY since I don't have enough information and/or am not smart enough to work it out :) However I did want to ask about some of the points you made.
You said these were the only steel frame building to be brought down by fire. Why hasn't it happened before? When's the last time someone's landed an air liner inside a steel frame building before?
Why bring in demolition experts? Because controlled explosives are safer and neater. Because it's cheaper than dousing the building in several tonnes of jet fuel. And keep in mind the actual impact weakened the frame in a way "just starting a fire" does not.
So let's do some maths. UA Flight 175 (which hit the south tower) is a Boeing 767-200. To fly from NY to LA it requires 60498 litres of jet fuel (7991 gallons... sorry not good with imperial measurements :P). Since the plane was heading for LA it would have to have at least this much fuel.
60.5 kL of jet fuel has 1054 GJ of energy (that's gigajoules). That's the same amount of energy that's contained in 252 tonnes of TNT. (Yes, TNT doesn't pack energy very tightly... it's just able to release it very quickly). So, that's probably enough energy to bring down a steel building :)
With respect to your four points:
1. 252 tonnes of TNT. I think that's enough energy to retain heat for a long time.
2. Never heard of the popping sound, could be snapping girders after initial explosion? Would need more info.
3. Not sure what you mean here? Are you suggesting explosions force all the air out of the building or they burn up all the oxygen? How does this affect the collapse? There's not really enough air resistance to force the building to tip anyway... again don't understand.
4. Ah the politics side of things I don't know much about.
Whoa, let's not get ahead of ourselves. Only cause Travis hasn't accepted some dubious evidence doesn't mean he wants to steal lots of money and hates Jesus. Lets remain calm :)
If it was the impact, the buildings would have collapsed as soon as they where hit, not an hour afterwards. That would have been more believable, but they had the decency to give the occupants time to evacuate before they set off the charges.
And those buildings where designed to withstand the impact of airliners.
I haven't had time to gather any resources, but I guess I should. I will have to make another topic.
I didn't say Travis loved money. Where did you get that from? But Travis is out of control. He gives me nothing but opposition. No matter what I say, he either opposes it or says nothing.
Well, if they were designed to withstand the impact of airliners then they did their job, 'cause they kept standing as you say. They probably weren't designed to withstand 60000 litres of burning jet fuel though :) There's only so much you can do with steel... things may have been different if there was more cement in the structure.
And there's only so far you can overengineer a building, if we had infinite resources we'd put 2 metre steel barriers around all buildings but who could afford to do that in the real world?
You know, I've been on boths sides of the fence on conspiracy theories in the past, that taught me a lot. For example, these days I look at this twin tower collapse thing and realise my opinion carries little value unless I've studied how buildings collapse for the last 10 years of my life. You simply can not predict things that don't happen in your every day experience.
Like, take the landing on the moon thing. Conspiracy theorists claim there's a breeze in the studio which is making the flag on the surface of the moon flap back and forth. Except if you watch carefully it actually doesn't behave exactly like that... it DOES behave exactly how it should in a vaccuum as described by simple harmonic motion; this is maths I did in year 12.
As for Travis, well at least he respects your opinion enough that he thinks it's worth his time challenging it. It's an opportunity. Probably not as bad as you make it out :)
I do? I'm sorry that you feel that way (I suppose it wouldn't be appropriate to say, "I'm sorry that you're always wrong!" ;-) ) I'm also sorry that you think I'm "out of control" and want nothing more than to oppose you. I try not to oppose people so much as their ideas.
Yes it would be inappropriate to suggest that i'm always wrong. And highly unreasonable.
So when you take the side of opposition every single time you reply to my posts, mathematically that doesn't add up. That shows that I did something to get on your bad side. Whatever that was I'm sorry. I wish you would tell me what I did.
I was only joking about you always being wrong, hence the smilie. :)
I highly doubt that I am always opposed to your views. If we were discussing something non-controversial such as "Is Jesus God?" or "How do you spell Seventh-day Adventist?", I would most likely agree with you. But most discussions I join are about something controversial that I have an opinion on, and often you and I disagree. You never did anything to get on my "bad side", as far as I know, except feel that you must rebuke me for believing certain things such as listening to music that you don't like and that it's okay for most people to wear simple wedding rings; both of which are non-salvation issues and should not have a big deal made out of them so that anyone feels mistreated.
You may not have noticed, and understandably so, that I often don't agree with 4Him and the other "liberal" Adventists. The reason you may not have noticed is because while they are equally vocal, they don't usually insist that I see things their way all the time, and neither do I, so the conflict usually shifts to one of the more "conservative" Adventists who pops in.
The internet is often a poor medium for discussion because people sometimes can't tell when someone is joking, or when they are angry or upset. If all of us were talking in real life, we would probably get along much better because I doubt most of us turn red in the face and scream bloody murder when someone disagrees with us, even though that's how it may appear online. That's why moderators work so hard, because often we ourselves can't tell when we're saying something that could seriously hurt someone else. That's why the rules say to treat each other with love (although sometimes people can't even agree what THAT means...).
So, I'm sorry that it seems like I'm always against you, and hopefully now you'll see that that's not the case. If we can all try just a bit harder to treat each other like Jesus would, we'll probably get along a lot better.
And maybe we should just avoid discussing conspiracy theories... ;-)
I have to say Travis that I appreciate you here on this board. But, I had to do a double take when you called me a 'liberal'. It really stunned me. For I dont' consider myself a 'liberal'. I guess I have liberal views. But my life style is probably more conservative than 90% of those here on this site.
Travis ... I don't even like drums. Well ... I do like the light African syle drums that they have during the Andrews services. But, my belief is that I don't need others to see as I do or as I live MY life. That is why I mentioned tolerance of beliefs. I don't see anything wrong with drums or dancing ... I just don't care for them myself. And I am willing to bet that there is not another person who guards what they do on Sabbath more carefully than what I do. Well ... I could go on and on. But Travis ... I am certainly not liberal in my lifestyle ... just in my beliefs for others.
I don't know the numbers, but jet fuel does not burn nearly hot enough to melt steel. And that fire was not very hot. The smoke was thick billowing black, indicating a low temp fire. This also shows the mechanism that isolates a fire by closing down the ventilation, was working.
Yet other such buildings have withstood over 20 hours of white hot fire, and have not collapsed. The fire was too high up for firemen to reach, so they just had to let it burn itself out.
And we are not just talking about the twin towers. You should say the WTC buildings. That would include all three buildings that collapsed, including WTC 7 which was not even hit by a plane, but suffered just a bit of damage from some debris, and had a fire. What it looks like is, there where 3 planes that where supposed to hit 3 targets, but one of them failed to reach the target for whatever reason. Yet the charges where there, which would have been damning evidence, so they had to blow it anyway.
And don't start talking about unfounded theories like the man on the moon. That's a completely different kind of thing. It's totally unfounded. Why would they go through the trouble of doing that when they could just put a man on the moon? That's really not that much of an accomplishment. That was not fake. I think some people who tell stories like that don't actually believe them. They are like guys who tell ghost stories.