pageok
pageok
pageok
The Latest 9/11 "Truther"--Fidel Castro:

Australian ABC News:

Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro said the US Government misinformed Americans and the world about September 11, echoing conspiracy theories about the terror attacks against the United States six years ago.

In an essay read by a Cuban television presenter on Tuesday night, President Castro said the Pentagon was hit by a rocket, not a plane, because no traces were found of its passengers.

"Today one knows there was deliberate misinformation," wrote Castro, who has not appeared in public since July of 2006 when life-threatening surgery for a secret illness forced him to hand over power to his brother Raul Castro.

"Studying the impact of planes, similar to those that hit the Twin Towers, that had accidentally fallen on densely populated cities, one concludes that it was not a plane that crashed into the Pentagon," Castro said.

"Only a projectile could have caused the geometrically round hole that allegedly was made by the plane," he said.

Perhaps Castro will give his fellow conspiracy theorists "asylum" in Cuba? Now there's a win-win.

AnonNY:
Did Fidel explain what happened to the lost plane, then?
9.12.2007 11:38am
Jimmy S (mail):
It's in that secret government warehouse, right next to the Ark of the Covenant.
9.12.2007 11:44am
truther-truther (mail):
Given his latest video, even Bin Laden must now be counted as a "truther." (Which should make it harder to be a truther but somehow I doubt it will.)
9.12.2007 11:46am
fffff:
there's a win-win

No good. At some point Castro dies, the Communists fall out of power in Cuba, and they'll be strapped with a reverse Mariel boatlift, a la Scarface...
9.12.2007 11:56am
Steve:
Castro has been laid up for a while. Apparently he's been browsing around the Web.

There are a lot of crazy theories out there about 9/11, but some of them are crazier than others. The idea that there wasn't even a plane, notwithstanding the countless eyewitnesses, is among the craziest.
9.12.2007 12:09pm
GV:
It's a shame that the leader of a country would mislead his people on the state of the evidence on such an important issue. I'm sure every American would agree.

(awkward silence)
9.12.2007 12:16pm
Dave N (mail):
Popular Mechanics did an outstanding job debunking the "Truthers." Next time you run into a 9/11 Nut, you can effectively respond to their idiotic points. You probably won't change that person's mind (very difficult to do with people who think they possess truth), but at least you won't be sucked into the fantasy.
9.12.2007 12:25pm
Adeez (mail):
Great tactic. Take someone that most Americans universally despise and/or ridicule, point out that he's a "truther" (which is an odd choice of words if meant to demean), and then hope that people who support the government's "theory" associate all the right-thinking critics w/people like Castro.

By the way, what is the "official" theory?

I, and many discerning Americans, know bullshit when we smell it. All we want is the truth. Wouldn't those in charge of the "evidence" want everyone to see it? The burden is not on "truthers" to say exactly what happened. No, the burden is on those followers who want to pretend that a satisfactory explanation has been given to the many unanswered questions that still exist. Ironically, many of these questions stem directly from the gov's resistance to any actual investigation into the matter in the first place.

I look forward to Prof. Bernstein's posts regarding all the scholars and military officers who also question the "official" story.
9.12.2007 12:33pm
Lugo:
If you don't think a hijacked plane hit the Pentagon, then you do not know bullshit when you smell it. The theory that "a rocket, not a plane" hit the building is what is pure bullshit.
9.12.2007 12:42pm
LawProfCommenter (mail):
And Adeez wins the "nutty post of the week" contest. Here's a clue: the government's theory is that four planes were hijacked by Al Qaeda terrorists, two crashed into the WTC, one into the Pentagon, and one crash-landed in Pennsylvania following a revolt by passengers. This "theory" is not only supported by all available evidence, but by Al Qaeda itself, which has boasted about its great achievement in videos and Islamist websites, including posting martyrdom videos recorded by some of the hijackes. Geez.
9.12.2007 12:43pm
whit:
"that people who support the government's "theory""

scare quotes notwithstanding... their "theory"...

it's not the government's theory.

it's the theory of every sentient being on the face of the earth who can actually comprehend the facts and evidence.
9.12.2007 12:46pm
Dave N (mail):
Adeez's post makes my earlier point.
9.12.2007 12:51pm
whit:
i'm a firm believer in the "smell test", not to mention occam's razor.

let's assume the troofers are correct in regards to controlled demolition

this would mean that

1) even though conspiracies are notoriously difficult to keep secret, all the more so the more people are involved, a conspiracy that necessarily would have involved dozens, if not hundreds of people (to set up the WTC for controlled demolition) has not broken. not ONE of these people has come forward

2)the same bush admin that relied (largely) on belief that SH had WMD's as the causus belli to invade iraq (given the post-911 paradigm), was evil and coordinated enough to blow up the WTC without leaving any evidence of doing so, YET was neither evil nor coordinated enough to plant some WMD's in the desert. note that the latter would be much much much easier to do than the former, involve maybe less than 1/2 a dozen peeps, and not be done in full sight of the thousands of people that stream into and out of the WTC each day.

#2 should be the most compelling. it is simply inconceivable that the same govt. that blew up the WTC (and building 7) wouldn't have planted a few WMD's. the latter almost cost them the election. heck, if kerry wasn't such a nimrod, it WOULD have cost him the election.
9.12.2007 12:51pm
William Oliver (mail) (www):
I was on the team that did the autopsies on victims of the Pentagon attack. Any claim that there were not passengers identified as victims is a simple lie.

See:
9.12.2007 12:53pm
William Oliver (mail) (www):

Hmmm... Site didn't make it. Second try. See:

This site
9.12.2007 12:55pm
William Oliver (mail) (www):
One more follow-up. See this site regarding the DNA identification itself.

billo
9.12.2007 12:57pm
JB:
XKCD has a very good post on this very topic.
9.12.2007 1:06pm
Sean O'Hara (mail) (www):

it's the theory of every sentient being on the face of the earth


Peeve: You mean sapient -- sentient merely means having senses.
9.12.2007 1:21pm
Nifonged:
Don't you people watch South Park? 25% of the population are complete nitwits, I'm surprised that 1/4 of the posts here aren't similar to Adeez'.
9.12.2007 1:21pm
Adeez (mail):
OK, call me all the names in the world if it'll make you feel better about yourselves. Tell me to go fuck myself and my mother. It doesn't change the fact that people a lot smarter than I, not to mention a lot smarter than many commenters on this site think they are, have written tomes on the many inconsistencies w/the gov's "theory."

I have neither the time nor inclination to get into a pissing match w/all the commenters who don't wanna see the truth. So this'll be my last word on the subject, and you all can curse me to high hell in my absence.

All I stated in my first post is that much of the gov's theory doesn't add up. Notice I never wrote one word about whether there was a controlled demolition or whether planes in fact hit the towers (as a live witness, I know they did).

Yet, that doesn't stop Dave N and Lugo from assuming that I did, and fashioning their responses accordingly. Come on now: read critically.

So just a few questions: (1) why were all the cameras near the Pentagon confiscated?; (2) if the Secret Service was caught by surprise, and really thought we were under a surprise attack, why didn't they IMMEDIATELY rush the president to safety?; (3)why did we leave the Bin Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia shortly thereafter?; (4) are Bin Laden's family NOT in cahoots with Bush I and his people?; (5) how, when almost everything is obliterated and turned to dust, do we find a passport of a highjacker at the site?; (6) why was the 9/11 commission resisted for so long, and once it went underway, why did Bush only agree to meet with Cheney present?; (7) why was the Commission headed by someone close to Bush?; (8) why did the admin. tell Richard Clark to find a way to link this to Iraq immediately thereafter?; (9) is the FBI and CIA THAT inept (see recent posts by the guest blogger)?; (10) how does an amateur pilot maneuver a plane into the Pentagon in a manner that'd be almost impossible for a seasoned pilot?

There're more. And notice how I never mentioned holographic planes, controlled demolitions, aliens, the Lochness Monster etc. But I'm sure that won't stop others from making-up theories in order to slap them down. So while you're laughing at me, I'm laughing at you. Unfortunately, this matter ain't no joke. So for those who wanna have a serious discussion, please consider my questions. For everyone else, I'll save you the trouble: Adeez is dumb, uneducated, stupid, an idiot, moronic....But God bless ALL of you, really.
9.12.2007 1:23pm
Steve:
Good comment by whit. Most of these theories require a complete lack of critical thinking skills. What's ironic is that it's typically the conspiracy theorists who accuse everyone else of slavishly believing what they're told.
9.12.2007 1:23pm
Nifonged:
" Adeez is dumb, uneducated, stupid, an idiot, moronic....But God bless ALL of you, really."

Thanks for saving us the trouble, now go hang out with the rest of the 25%.

Instead of demanding that others address your questions, how about providing your "theory" so it could be questioned?

Oh wait that's right, you're taking your ball and going home, Heaven forbid you subject your "theories" to similar criticism.
9.12.2007 1:31pm
whit:
sean, thanks for the heads up. i learne something today!
9.12.2007 1:34pm
Adeez (mail):
"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future . . .Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away . . .If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you?"

- Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) -- Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown. 20-year Marine Corps career.
9.12.2007 1:35pm
Nifonged:
Last word, eh (or does that not count since you're quoting someone else...coward)? Can anyone have less than zero credibility? Watch the episode of South Park I reference above to see why people like you think the way you do, unless it hits too close for your comfort.
9.12.2007 1:39pm
William Oliver (mail) (www):
Adeez,

How do you explain all those dead passengers (and terrorists) mixed in with all those airplane parts at the Pentagon? And don't tell me they weren't there. I saw them with my own eyes.
9.12.2007 1:47pm
Montie (mail):

No, the burden is on those followers who want to pretend that a satisfactory explanation has been given to the many unanswered questions that still exist.


Adeez, are you also a subscriber to creationist or intelligent design theories? I have seen this same logic used by them.
9.12.2007 1:53pm
Swede:
Adeez,

About you and your mom?

By all means.
9.12.2007 1:58pm
Sean O'Hara (mail) (www):
It doesn't change the fact that people a lot smarter than I, not to mention a lot smarter than many commenters on this site think they are, have written tomes on the many inconsistencies w/the gov's "theory."


Name two.


So just a few questions: (1) why were all the cameras near the Pentagon confiscated?


Evidence collection.


(5) how, when almost everything is obliterated and turned to dust, do we find a passport of a highjacker at the site?


Who said almost everything was obliterated? Yesterday on MSNBC's replay of the attacks, one of the reporters showed a piece of paper that had been blown out of building and landed several blocks away.

(9) is the FBI and CIA THAT inept


They're government agencies, so yes.

(10) how does an amateur pilot maneuver a plane into the Pentagon in a manner that'd be almost impossible for a seasoned pilot?


The difficulty of the maneuver is a fact not in evidence.

Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) -- Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown. 20-year Marine Corps career.


Appeal to authority -- serving in the military doesn't make someone an expert on September 11th. You can find soldiers who believe in UFOs and the CIA's involvement in the Kennedy assassination.
9.12.2007 2:09pm
whit:
"9) is the FBI and CIA THAT inept"

as somebody who works for the govt., and has worked with DEA, IRS, FBI, CIA, etc. on various occasions... um... yes.

not to mention the chinese wall (clinton era justice dept. ruling) that prevented sharing of many pieces of intel between CIA and FBI didn't help.

this is one of the tenets of the conspiracy theorists. mentioned in several debunking texts (iow, i didn't notice this first). they constantly employ the theory of the infallible omnipotent govt. when in fact, that's FAR from reality.

"how could this have happened without the FBI, etc. knowing...?"

answer: quite easily.

let me give you another tidbit. back in the day (pre-911) i used to fly armed (for extraditions) quite frequently

this was my security screen at the airport (amazing to me)

i walked up to the security gate (you know, the metal detector thingie you walk through) fully armed and said "im with **** PD" , showed them my badge (which can be EASILY faked for pete's sake. hollywood is full of fake badges, as are many tourist shops), and said "i'm going on extradition". they waved me through.

THAT's IT

didn't check my ID, call into my agency, etc., run my name through the computer, etc.

THAT was the extent of screening i went through to get a pistol on a domestic flight.

ANY hijacker with a smooth method acting style, and a fake badge coulda done the same.

that nobody did *is* amazing

but if they DID do it, people like you would think it was a conspiracy, instead of incompetence/laziness, etc. which is reality
9.12.2007 2:17pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
Adeez,

(8) why did the admin. tell Richard Clark to find a way to link this to Iraq immediately thereafter?

Assuming arguendo that this is fact, it would seem to be rather a big hole in your case. If the Bush administration is up to faking a terrorist attack, and anxious to present a publicly creditable argument for invading Iraq, don't you think they'd have had the sense to ginger up a little evidence that Iraq was behind the attack? In particular, as long as they are planting a purported hijacker's passport in the wreckage, mightn't it as easily be, um, an Iraqi passport?

Like most conspiracy theories, this one gives the conspirators too much and too little credit at the same time.
9.12.2007 2:30pm
Dick King:
Adeez:


All I stated in my first post is that much of the gov's theory doesn't add up. Notice I never wrote one word about whether there was a controlled demolition or whether planes in fact hit the towers (as a live witness, I know they did).


This thread is about Castro's claim that no plane hit the Pentagon. By opposing those who are opposing Castro's theory you are buying into that fringe.

-dk
9.12.2007 2:35pm
Preferred Customer:
Adeez,

If she didn't perish in the Pentagon, what happened to my colleague who was on Flight 77?
9.12.2007 2:44pm
Scott Teresi (www):
Here's a very good article answering a lot of the "unexplained" questions people bring up on the net about the WTC collapse (doesn't deal with the Pentagon, though):

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

It's in the form of an easy to read FAQ, and sounds entirely plausible to me. It's written by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Wikipedia has this to say about NIST and 9/11:
In 2002 the National Construction Safety Team Act mandated NIST to conduct an investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center, as well as the 47-story 7 World Trade Center. The investigation covered three aspects, including a technical building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause of the collapses of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7. NIST also established a research and development program to provide the technical basis for improved building and fire codes, standards, and practices, and a dissemination and technical assistance program to engage leaders of the construction and building community in implementing proposed changes to practices, standards and codes. NIST also is providing practical guidance and tools to better prepare facility owners, contractors, architects, engineers, emergency responders, and regulatory authorities to respond to future disasters.
9.12.2007 3:12pm
Buckland (mail):
I for one think that Adeez is onto something. Here's a few more questions I'd like addressed:

-- Why did the AF take Bush to Omaha after the attack. Knowing that GWB is a baseball fan, why wouldn't they go to a city with a major league team? And while on that subject, does anyone seriously think it's not related that the NY Yankees were in the world series just a month later.

-- Why was the attack staged on Sept 11? No Arab would have have known the significance of 911 as being emergency number.

-- While on 911, the initial 911 system was set up under LBJ, another Texan president. A coincident, I think not.

-- Recent developments further prove this contention. Fidel Castro has joined in questioning the airplane in the pentagon theory. Remember that back in the 70's airplane hijackers always chose Cuba as a destination. Don't insult those of us who ponder these things by claiming another coincidence.

-- The supposed hijackers couldn't have pulled things off without coordinating actions via the internet. Everybody agrees that the US government invented the internet. QED

These questions were completely avoided by the Pop Sci piece. Obviously too embarrassing to address.
9.12.2007 3:24pm
Houston Lawyer:
Buckland

Couldn't you work in the Queen of England and the Trilateral Commission into that? Also, we need some black helicopters, ninjas and talking dogs.
9.12.2007 3:48pm
Hei Lun Chan (mail) (www):
And while on that subject, does anyone seriously think it's not related that the NY Yankees were in the world series just a month later.

Actually, consider that the Yankees won 4 of the previous 5 World Series titles before 9/11, then after 9/11 they haven't won one since. Coincidence? I think not.

Obviously Osama is a Red Sox fan. (If you can't see the obvious link, if you rearrange the letters in "Osama bin Laden", you get "Boston Red Sox", plus or minus a few unimportant letters.)

But wait, there's more.

We all know that the Red Sox prior to 2004 hadn't won the World Series in more than 80 years because of a curse. The plane crashes might have killed almost 3000 people, but it couldn't also lift a curse as powerful as that. No, some powerful witchcraft was involved. My number one suspect is Willow Rosenberg. It's not a coincidence that Buffy the Vampire Slayer was dead during the months leading up to 9/11. Without her in the way, Rosenberg can work her terrorist magic unimpeded. Then after it was over, Rosenberg brought Buffy back from the dead, just to cover her tracks. Clever girl, but not clever enough, I say.

And I'm sure the Masons were involved--they always are. There are many Masons in sports, after all. Someone should try to arrest or at least question Derrick, Desmond, Anthony, et al.
9.12.2007 4:33pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):
(1) why were all the cameras near the Pentagon confiscated?;

Evidence collection.

(2) if the Secret Service was caught by surprise, and really thought we were under a surprise attack, why didn't they IMMEDIATELY rush the president to safety?;

To make sure that the surroundings and route were not under threat and to determine where they were going.

(3)why did we leave the Bin Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia shortly thereafter?;

We withdrew troops from SA in 03 after the fall of Sadam.

(4) are Bin Laden's family NOT in cahoots with Bush I and his people?;

Define cahoots. When you have 56 siblings (like OBL), there are lots of contacts with everyone. And what about WJC and Bubai?

(5) how, when almost everything is obliterated and turned to dust, do we find a passport of a highjacker at the site?;

Paper is tougher than flesh. It can blow away.

(6) why was the 9/11 commission resisted for so long, and once it went underway, why did Bush only agree to meet with Cheney present?;

Because it was a meaningless

(7) why was the Commission headed by someone close to Bush?

Neither of the 2 heads was close to bush. Kean is a liberal Republican from NJ. No Bush connections.

(8) why did the admin. tell Richard Clark to find a way to link this to Iraq immediately thereafter?;

Don't you want an investigation? There were links between Iraqi Intelligence and the '93 bomb.

(9) is the FBI and CIA THAT inept (see recent posts by the guest blogger)?;

Yes.

(10) how does an amateur pilot maneuver a plane into the Pentagon in a manner that'd be almost impossible for a seasoned pilot?

GPS and altimeter.
9.12.2007 4:44pm
Jam:
Why not release the confiscated videos? How would the release of the videos damage the case?

Airplanes did hit the WTCs and the Pentagon. The question is: is ther more to it than just the airplanes?

Google: maximum theoretical temperature fire

You will not get conspiracy sites but you will get academic type type articles.
9.12.2007 4:53pm
Aleks:
Re: President Castro said the Pentagon was hit by a rocket, not a plane, because no traces were found of its passengers.

So are we to suppose that the missing passengers went through the Bermuda Triangle instead and are now partying with Elvis and Big Foot on Mars? Good grief, someone please send Comrade Fidel Occam's Razor and tell him it isn't for his beard!

Re: the Secret Service was caught by surprise, and really thought we were under a surprise attack, why didn't they IMMEDIATELY rush the president to safety?;

The president was not anywhere near to the affected areas. He was in Sarasota, Florida, al ong way from either NYC or DC. Do recall however the confused, almost panickly AirForce One oddyssey that occurred later that day. Such behavior is not evidence of foreknowledge; one woudl rather have expected thje president (knowing there was no more danger) to hve returned forthwith to Washington to make a great show of taking charge, mourning the dead etc.

Re: how, when almost everything is obliterated and turned to dust, do we find a passport of a highjacker at the site

???
Who said everything was "obliterated and turned to dust"? A great deal of physical evidence was found.

Re: is the FBI and CIA THAT inept

Sadly, yes.

Re: how does an amateur pilot maneuver a plane into the Pentagon in a manner that'd be almost impossible for a seasoned pilot?

The Pentagon is a HUGE building (I've seen it). It surely is not difficult to hit with an airplane.
9.12.2007 5:41pm
Lugo:
Google: maximum theoretical temperature fire

And here is the response to those sorts of canards.
9.12.2007 5:47pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
No, the burden is on those followers who want to pretend that a satisfactory explanation has been given to the many unanswered questions that still exist.

Adeez, are you also a subscriber to creationist or intelligent design theories? I have seen this same logic used by them.
Indeed. The goal is to present questions that haven't been answered, to insinuate that "haven't been" is the same as "can't be" answered, imply that the actual theory can't be true unless these questions can't be answered, and then hint that if the actual theory isn't true, the kooky theory must be, even though the kooky theory doesn't actually supply answers to these questions either.
9.12.2007 6:13pm
BGates (www):
I used to buy into the government 'theory', until the day I heard Rosie's immortal words, "fire can't melt steel." I thought that was ridiculous. Why, even Sesame Street used to show a segment on how an I-beam was made. But then I realized I remembered watching that segment during the 1970s. And who was in charge of the CIA in the 70s? George HW Bush. And who broadcast Sesame Street? PBS. Government controlled media. They planted the idea that fire could melt steel in children's programming decades ago.

I just hope I haven't already said too
9.12.2007 6:40pm
BGates (www):
This is BGates posting again. Sorry about the interruption in my post. I would like to make it clear that the CIA is a completely above-board organization that I, long-time commenter BGates, have no connection to at all, and the above comment was a joke which will not result in the indefinite detention of BGates, because the CIA doesn't do that kind of thing.

Incidentally, if you would like to learn more about the CIA, visit their website. Positions are available.
9.12.2007 6:45pm
Dave N (mail):
Yet, that doesn't stop Dave N and Lugo from assuming that I did, and fashioning their responses accordingly. Come on now: read critically.

Adeez's direct call-out was in response to this post of mine (my first post preceded his first post):
Adeez's post makes my earlier point.
My earlier point was:
Popular Mechanics did an outstanding job debunking the "Truthers." Next time you run into a 9/11 Nut, you can effectively respond to their idiotic points. You probably won't change that person's mind (very difficult to do with people who think they possess truth), but at least you won't be sucked into the fantasy.
I continue to stand by my original points.
9.12.2007 6:46pm
whit:
"Re: how does an amateur pilot maneuver a plane into the Pentagon in a manner that'd be almost impossible for a seasoned pilot? "

rubbish. fwiw, microsoft flight simulator is widely regarded as EXTREMELY realistic, such that i know pilots (my friend flies for a commercial airline) have used it as a training aid. when you set all the bells and whistles to full realism mode it is quite realistic. feel free to spend 80 hrs or so with msft flight simulator, and assuming you are not a complete 'tard, you should be able to strike the pentagon quite well.

while, it's certainly EASIER to strike the WTC towers than the pentagon, hitting the pentagon aint in any way that difficult.
9.12.2007 7:02pm
Michael Edward McNeil (mail) (www):
>it's the theory of every sentient being on the face of the earth

Peeve: You mean sapient — sentient merely means having senses.

Incorrect. "Aware" is a recognized meaning of sentient.
9.12.2007 8:04pm
Jam:
Lugo: Did I say anything about melting of steel?

For what I have been able to understand on the theory of fire (not from conspiracy sites) is that optimal conditions must be present to achieve the maximum theoretical temperature. Restricted supply of air due to enclosed areas, like in a building's structure, limits the fire ability to reach its maximum temperature.

And there are pictures, that are not fakes, which show pools of molten steel at the WTC-7 site. It is molten steel and not aluminium. Supposedly there is also witness (firemen and rescuers) accounts.

What I have problem accepting in the "plane/fuel only" scenario is that asymetrical damage to 3 buildings caused identical outcomes: collapse onto their footprints with near free-fall speed.
9.12.2007 8:38pm
buzz:
Jam, yes your are correct. In fact those buildings still stand. It was all one big trick. Penn and Teller created the illusions the buildings fell. How clever of you. So, just out of curiosity, what do YOU think happened. Remember, it has to make sense, and not require a lot of people to implement.
9.12.2007 9:06pm
advisory opinion:
I don't buy the Titanic theory either. An 'iceberg'? Who's the government kidding. Have you ever tried breaking steel with an ice cube? I dare you to try it. Get a bunch of ice cubes and try breaking a metal spoon with it.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ICE TO BREAK STEEL.

The truth will out.
9.12.2007 9:34pm
Lugo:
For what I have been able to understand on the theory of fire (not from conspiracy sites) is that optimal conditions must be present to achieve the maximum theoretical temperature.

Obviously, the fire does not have to reach its "maximum theoretical temperature" in order to weaken the steel sufficiently to cause the structure to collapse.

there are pictures, that are not fakes, which show pools of molten steel at the WTC-7 site. It is molten steel and not aluminium.

They show incandescently hot steel, not molten steel - there is a difference. You can get steel hot enough to glow without melting it.

What I have problem accepting in the "plane/fuel only" scenario is that asymetrical damage to 3 buildings caused identical outcomes: collapse onto their footprints with near free-fall speed.

Um, so you have a problem with the laws of physics? Once a building starts to fall, it's going to look the same regardless of the original cause. This is because the collapse - whether initiated by deliberate demolition or catastrophic structural failure - will be governed by a force known as "gravity".
9.13.2007 12:08pm
Jam:
Lugo:

1) Eye witnesses stated molten.
2) Actually, I have no problems with the laws of physics. Still, asymetrical damage causing symetrical outcome I have a problem with.

I have questions and I am not sure that we have been given compelte answers. I am not on the controlled demolition side yet.
9.13.2007 1:26pm
Lugo:
Oh please. A layperson will say something is "molten" when it is actually just "incandescently hot", but the temperatures needed to achieve these two states are quite different.

Why does it cause you a problem that buildings that were fatally damaged in different ways should fall down in the same way? Gravity acts the same way on a building no matter how it was initially damaged.
9.13.2007 1:58pm
Scott Teresi (www):
Jam, this article by the NIST provides good answers to your questions.
9.13.2007 4:10pm
Aleks:
Re: Restricted supply of air due to enclosed areas, like in a building's structure, limits the fire ability to reach its maximum temperature.

This is not true. Patrial restriction of ventilation focuses a fire's heat (hence the design of a blast furnace) whereas completely open, unrestricted ventilation reduces a fire's ability to heat by allowing its heat to dissipate into the enviornment.

Re: What I have problem accepting in the "plane/fuel only" scenario is that asymetrical damage to 3 buildings caused identical outcomes: collapse onto their footprints with near free-fall speed.

Gravity is straight-line force. (In fact I know of no force that is not). A falling object that has no lateral motion initially, and is not given any impetus in a lateral direction, will fall straight earthward. The collapse of the buildings earthward is exactly what the phyisics predicts! Why is such a mystery made of this? It reminds me of the tactics of the Clinton Chronicles which cited "mysterious" deaths in the putative "murder victims" that turned out to be heart attacks suffered by men in their 60s.

Re: Still, asymetrical damage causing symetrical outcome I have a problem with.

What "symetrical" outcome? The rubble piles looked rather different in their small details, did they not? They were not symmetrical, except in the general sense that they were all resting on the ground. Good grief, more mysteries made out of non-mysterious facts.
9.13.2007 6:12pm