You are actually quoting Goering to promote peace? Double mindedness of the democrat party at its best. It is expected.

jdub...That's a common misconception. The debris was not immediately melted down and it was available to multiple bodies for testing and research. Here's a site that explains what kind of research was done by a team of analysts: American Society of Civil Engineers This is a quote from the document (my emphasis in italics): "There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures." *If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

The notion that a cross-country passenger aircraft (a Boeing 767) loaded with jet fuel cannot hit a skyscraper with enough force to not only destroy steel beams, but for the fuel to ignite and heat the still standing beams to a degree hot enough to soften them and render them incapable to support thousands of tons of structure above them, is just plain nonsense and requires quite a bit of ignorance of physics and structural engineering. The metal does not have to melt in order to compromise the structure. When steel is heated beyond a certain degree it expands and deforms. Jet fuel burns plenty hot enough in order to heat steel, and the upper portions of the steel frames in the Twin Towers were not coated with asbestos, which is a much better flame retardant than what was used - but much of this retardant was blown off of the columns at the time of impact. When you have steel support beams that are expanding, it compromises the integrity of the structure. Once that integrity is compromised beyond a certain point, the structure fails. Because of the massive weight above the impact floors and the amount of support beams that were destroyed at impact, a collapse was inevitable. So, why did it appear to be a "controlled demolition"? Well, first of all, the people who claim that it was "controlled" obviously have never seen a controlled demolition before. Controlled demolitions are not initiated at the tops of buildings. Add to that the fact that the collapse of both towers started at the impact zones, and it is quite obvious that the idea of a "controlled demolition" is pretty absurd. (On a side note, it would take - at minimum - months of tedious preparation to set up a controlled demolition in buildings that were over 100 stories high...yet nobody noticed any such preparations.) Secondly, the buildings did not fall straight down. That's why WTC #7 had a massive tear in the side of it...one of the Towers actually fell into it leaving a hole nearly 20 stories high. WTC #7 also had a fire burning in it throughout the day - and the firefighters were instructed not to fight it because of the compromised structure due to the large hole. Later in the afternoon, it was understood by the fire crews that the building was in fact going to collapse because of the hole and fires. So, when people claim that these buildings fell in a "controlled demolition," it leads me to believe two things. One, that they have never seen such an event before (a controlled demolition). And two, that they did not arrive at this conclusion by themselves and that they do not have the proper expertise necessary to confirm this claim. Now, mrhanke, would you like to debate these topics, or would you like to continue making fantastical claims about things you apparently do not fully comprehend? Because if you'd like to debate, I'd ask you to bring forth your evidence and show us how the accepted version of a 767 (loaded with jet fuel for a cross-country flight) crashing into a skyscraper at hundreds of miles per hour would have little to no effect on a building's structural integrity and cause its subsequent collapse. *If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, but I do believe that many things about 9/11 just don't add up. I doubt we will know the whole truth in our lifetimes. The collapse of the third World Trade building is still highly suspicious to me. ↑ Grab this Headline Animator