https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Son0BWduQx4&mode=related&search=

Some experts want to re-open a new 9/11 enquiry as momentum gathers against the official story.

Watch a few min of video and discuss.

Wrong. :roll:

Watch the vid man.

"Why the hell would you need to rigg the buildings with explosives when two planes full of fuel were going to **** into them at top speed?" Blau Star.

Do you know anything about it?

Not with shaped charges no.

Yet these people are established physicists from some of America's best Universities.  How long can this go on describing people that are well versed in their field being described as crackpots. 

https://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=476951 - There's one being hounded out of his job for daring to question the official version, oh yeah, and writing a paper on it, as to why the official version doesn't make sense. 

"Do you?  Have you compared it to other incidents where planes with a full load of fuel have been stotted into buildings the size of the WTC to show that's not how they would have collapsed?" Blau

Yes.

They have compared it to simiar buildings that burnt all weekend and never came down, not just for a few hours.
Jet fuel would have burnt of in a few minutes without reaching the temp to melt reinforced steel.
What happened to the core of the building ie the steel pillars? How did they end up as molted steel in the floor? The only thing that could have done that is thermite, a very exotic steel melting explosive or gel...Depends on what they used.

As others have said, they really are just theories. No one has experience of the effects that crashing a airliner into a WTC tower would have.

I think it has more to do with finding traces of thermite, than what the planes did, or did not, cause.  Where exactly did the thermite come from?

How the buildings fell makes as much sense as saying this is a conspiracy; its very difficult for me to belive the officail events due to the physical evidence, yet its hard to believe a government being willing to sacarifice so many lives in front of the world for their own gains.

"No you haven't because this situation has never happened before. A smiliar building with a fire in it is not the same as a building deliberately hit with a Boeing."


So how about WT7? Not hit by planes and with a much smaller subsidiary fire...How did that come down? Seriously how did it?

Shoddy bulding work, controlled explosion because they wanted to make it safe, vibration from the catastrophic explosions that had happened nearby and which no-one had expected when building it.  None of which would mean that they pointlessly put bombs in a building that was going to be totalled by an airliner anyway.  All these idiotic theories do nothing but aid the cause of neo-cons who want to paint people who disagree with their kamakazi foreign policy as subnormal and gullible fruitloops.

Global warming - people point to the lack of evidence that it is happening. They fail to understand that true evidence on this can only come counter-factually. That game is about prediction, not 'i observed X repeatedly and therefore we know Y will happen'. Not the way that research game works, there is uncertainty until it happens and only then can you be sure. until then anyone can say 'categorically prove it'

6000 years old etc - no academic in the world challenges the age of the earth, theological or not.

Aliens etc - astro-physicists have worked out the probability that they exist using complex mathematical models and basic probability theory. Its Billions and billions to one on that they exist.

These physics boys put together a coherent argument based on known physics models, no conjecture.

I personally am ambivalent to the theory but they can not be dismissed in the way you have done although i agree with the sceptical sentiment regarding the overall question.




* Note to self - stop coming over as a bit of a t***.