Does anybody have any proof to back up the official 9/11 stories?

Question

I'm tired of trying to defend my views that 9/11 was an inside
job. Can somebody please show me hard evidence that the
official 9/11 stories are indeed all geniune?

For example, give me links to photos that show:

1. Pancaked floors sitting in a pile, one of top of each other,
because those Twin Towers collapsed due to a pancaking
floor-by-floor collapse. Where are the solid concrete floors
of the Twin Towers?

2. Show me photos of the aeroplane fuselage, wings, large
jet engines at the crash sites for Flight 77 and Flight 93.
Surely 757 jet planes should leave behind some wreckage
when they crash, right? So show me proof that this happened!

3. Prove to me that air fires can indeed cause steel to fail
catastrophically, resulting in steel-framed buildings collapsing
at near free-fall speeds. Show me an example of a high rise
steel-framed building that caught on fire, and completely
collapsed right down to the ground level (except the 3 that fell
on 9/11)

Here is strong evidence that what we
were all told by the corporate media
about 9/11, was mostly false:

http://www.911weknow.com

(Watch the 9/11 Mysteries movie)

http://www.truth911.net

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7PN-8T2VY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx1E2B5oAEs

Don't believe anything until you have
done your own fact-finding research.

Even the London 7/7 attacks appear to
be an "inside job". Do your research.

It appears these fabricated attacks were
designed to manipulate public opinion,
to garner support for wars and create
bitter hatred and racial prejudice toward
Muslims and Arabs... to make it much
easier to invade and permanently
occupy oil-rich middle eastern countries
all in the name of 9/11... The world's
leaders keep telling us: Remember 9/11
and remember that they attacked us
first!

So why has the US forgotten about the
search for Bin Laden, and why is Al
Qaeda still at large?

What if you had been lied to all along?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx1E2B5oAEs

Thousands of professionals, engineers
and scientists are suspicious about
what really happened on 9/11. Here is
a list of distinguished Professors and
Academics who do not believe in the
official stories:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

Why? Because the physical evidence
for "controlled demolition" of the 3 WTC
buildings is undeniable and simply
overwhelming. Any person with half a
brain or an ounce of intelligence, can
recognize "explosive events", demolition
squibs shooting out of buildings, and
near free-fall (zero resistance) collapses
of very very strong materials after such
a long delay period. These things are
simply unnatural & cannot be explained
due to air fire damage, because even
very hot temperatures will only cause
steel to bend, sag or droop, but not
break apart or explode suddenly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7PN-8T2VY

And watch the 9/11 Mysteries movie:

http://www.911weknow.com

http://www.truth911.net

I know these things are very difficul to
accept because to believe that 9/11
was all an "inside job", means that you
have to agree that the corporate media
and the US government has been lying
to you and deceiving you for so many
years, and it means that this war on
terror is all fake.

Could it be that those who don't even
bother to look at the facts and physical
evidence are in a state of cognitive
dissonance? Denial of reality?

FACT: Steel melts at 1532 C.

Look at all the evidence of molten steel
found in the basements of Ground Zero,
including WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7.

Explain the molten metal which stayed
red hot for up to 8 weeks after 9/11!

How can an air fire, whose fuel source
was depleted almost entirely during the
initial impacts of the jet planes, cause so
much heat build-up and keep the rubble
hotter than air fires for more than 6
weeks after 9/11 ?

Firefighters and 1st responders even
described the basements as being
like a foundry!

Please study these research papers:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/


Look at these photos:

Page 17 of this PDF file by Professor
Steven Jones:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf


http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth911/truth911/steel.htm

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

EXPLAIN ALL THE MOLTEN STEEL!

Steel melts at around 1532 C. Air fires
do not get hotter than 250 C in still air
due to insufficient oxygen. In fact, paper
burning in air burns at Fahrenheit 451,
or around 233 C. (due to lack of oxygen
availability in still air )

Air fires do not burn hotter than 650C,
even under strong winds and with the
best possible fuel burning conditions...

But there is so much physical evidence
that molten metal was found at Ground
Zero, on 9/11 and during the clean-up.

EXPLAIN THE MOLTEN METAL!

http://www.truth911.net

Do yourself a big favour, watch the best
documentary I have seen this year:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Keep an open mind, and prepare to be
thoroughly blown away by all the facts...

Answer 1

There was no "inside: conspiracy on 9/11

All the experts in the world have endorsed the "official" explanation as scientifically correct, & they have done so in print.

See
-- The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1057
It’s useful to see the investigation team & their credentials at: http://www.asce.org/responds/wtc_team.cfm

-- Scientific American. See
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000

-- Massachusetts Institute of Technology. See http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

--FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/mat_fema403.shtm

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

-- Popular Mechanics published a huge article attacking the conspiracy nuts using over 300 renowned experts in http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

-- World experts in demolition have attacked the 9-11 conspiracy theory. See:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

--PBS/NOVA http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

-- Purdue (http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html), and others

-- Columbia University has permanent seismographic recorders that was running on 9/11 which clearly show no explosives during the collapse of Towers 1 & 2, or of WTC7 . See page 2 of
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

"Explanations" of the WTC collapse by laymen & film-makers are frivolous when compared to what true, world-recognized experts are saying. The above essentially ends the conspiracy theory.
======================================
IMPORTANT ADDENDUM:
The list ( http://patriotsquestion911.com/professor... ) of “thousands” of so-called experts who doubt the official explanation of 9/11 is worthless for two reasons:

1. There is no way to verify that these people are real, that they are experts in the correct field (civil engineering, demolition, etc). If they are real, do they even know that their name is on this list? How can anyone check this??

2. More importantly, the doubting scientists in this list have published NOTHING at all. Not one article. On the contrary, the real experts have printed dozens of real articles, in peer-reviewed journals, technical journals, and trade journals explaining how the jets caused the Towers to collapse. This is the way real science is done. You publish it in a science journal, sign your name. People know your credentials and they review the article & then publish IF it’s good. Given that THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE THING PUBLISHED BY THE “EXPERTS” WHO THINK 9/11 WAS A FAKE, that ends this argument completely, utterly.

==> THIS MEANS THE CONSPIRACY THEORY HAS NO SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY

Also, all the pseudoscientific arguments given above can be dismissed since noone supports them in the real literature.

Here is a partial list of technical articles on how the Twin Towers fell:

Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/040119.asp
IT WAS THE FIRE, CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE - icivilengineer.com
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html
Simulation for the collapse of WTC after aeroplane impact - Lu XZ., Yang N., Jiang JJ. Structure Engineer, 66(sup.). 2003, 18-22
Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
Glover, N.J.
"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”

Answer 2

The reason you are tired of defending the conspiracy theories is because you are CLOSED-MINDED and not being rational or logical. You are citing things you've read on the internet as truth that are opposed to the reality people live every day. You have made up your mind already and defend things other people tell you (on the internet no-less) are correct with no direct observance or thinking of your own.

There is evidence upon evidence (as well as admission by the people that said they did it as they behead Americans in front of a camera and blow up buses and cars in Europe) that points to AQ having committed the attacks. There is only VERY shakey, unfounded, unprovable, politically connected conjecture that George Bush could have pulled off the attacks against the Pentagon and the World Trade Centers.

But good luck believing that a conspiracy that well covered in the world's eyes was committed by a president so inept that chemical weapons were never found in Iraq.

I'll play your game though:

1. Before the terrorist attack, the Twin Towers were 110 stories tall. Constructed of lightweight steel around a central core, they were about 95% air. After they collapsed, the hollow core was gone. The remaining rubble was only a few stories high. The floors made up less than 5% of the volume of the buildings. Hence, you aren't going to find much of the floors intact in the rubble after falling for over 1,500 feet to the ground. Almost all the structure of skyscrapers is vertical. You are asking for pictures showing floors that are obviously going to be break apart and only make up a small percentage of the building? Why? What does that prove? And to take it a step further how does that point to George? Can you answer this?

2. A collection of photos from the Pentagon showing pieces of flight 77 as well a citing of all kinds of secondary witnesses that support that it was indeed an aircraft just like the one that everyone saw fly into the building:

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

There are hundreds and hundreds of pictures all over the internet like this if the internet is your primary source of 'truth.'

3. Go get a paperclip and a lighter. Light the lighter and hold the middle of the paperclip over the flame - you will notice that the metal goes through a process scientist call 'heating up.' Once the metal starts turning red, go ahead and bend the paperclip - you will notice that the metal is softer and bends more easily. Now picture in your head a 1,500 degree fire heating up vertical metal supports and try to grasp that it may just be possible that that metal may soften or weaken with thousands of pounds of weight on top of it. Just like the metal of a paperclip, those metal supports respond the same way to heat especially when you add in the force of thousands of pounds of pressure on them. It's up to you if you want to believe an anonymous person on the internet or your own observations - just putting that experiment out there for you to discard.

Answer 3

It's about time that you acknowledged that there was more then WTC involved in the September 11th attacks.

So, here are your answers:
1. The floors of WTC 1 and 2 will not, nor should you expect them to, pile up neatly at the base of the tower. The kinetic energy created as the floor slabs fell 70 plus stories guaranteed that they would be smashed into rubble. So, no, I will not even attempt to provide pictures. Try dropping a stack of plates (NOT paper, plastic, or chinette) from a height of a few feet. Betcha they will not remain in a neat little stack. Even if you contain their lateral movement through use of a tube.
2. Proof of a plane hitting the Pentagon? Want pics, look at the links below. This one has been refuted so many times I am surprised that you even bring it up. Frankly, I'm disappointed in you.
3. Steel loses well over 1/2 its strength at open air fire temps. This has been proven over and over again. Put a significant amount of load on that steel, and the building will collapse. Why do you have problems understanding that? Is it because the WTC buildings where the first in recorded history to collapse from a combination of severe structural and fire damage? So, using that logic, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin could not have possibly walked on the moon, because no one had done it before. Just because it has not happened before does not mean that it could not possibly happen.

I posted several web sites that have pictures and repeatable scientific evidence that answers all of your questions. But, I know that you are not going to look at any of it, because to date you have not looked at any information presented to you.

Answer 4

I don't believe Silverstein was giving an order to demolish the building, but I do have to wonder why of all other buildings official story pushers allege were damaged on that day, NIST chose to even do a report on WTC7. Just because it collapsed? All the answers were concluded by the government on the very day, and they never even tested the debris from WTC1 and 2 for possible demolition because they already knew that wasn't the case. The commission report didn't feel WTC7 important enough to mention, so why is there a study into the cause of it's collapse at all?

Answer 5

Aliursis answered regarding the buildings better than I could have. As to the airplanes, there would have been very little wreckage at either site considering the manner of the crash. A typical airplane crash does not involve a plane being deliberately crashed at full speed as these two did. Given that, one would expect very little, if any, wreckage. The Flight 93 site is what one would expect. As for the Pentagon, most of the fuselage would have been destroyed on the explosion and fire. I've attached a photo showing some of the wreckage outside the Pentagon. Is it part of your claim that whoever was behind this had airplane wreckage matching Flight 77 on hand?

Now, can you please show some hard evidence, rather than conjecture, backing up any claims that say the attacks did not happen as most of us understand them to have? Considering the size of the conspiracy that must have been involved, by now surely we'd have a conspirator or at least a few documents or photographs to support your case.

Answer 6

Sorry no proof but you may want to consider this:
1. The towers didn't fall straight down which would cause pancake effect, they actually tipped ever so slightly to one side. This is not imedatlly obvious just by looking at the footage of the colaspe.
3. The twin towers where not standard steal frame buildings. Much of the weight was distriubed to the walls, essentially creating a tube with high load bearing walls. This would also help to explain why there was no pancaking.
-I got nothin' on 2

Answer 7

Much research was done for the following books. I suggest you get and read them. Your question will be answered.

"The 9/11 Commission Report Omissions & Distortions", by David Ray Griffin

"You're Not Stupid: Get The Truth" by William John Cox

Answer 8

do you or anyone else have proof otherwise. ref to the popular mechanics issue where they addressed the 9/11 stories. it was not an air fire, it was a fully fueled airplane. a bridge in california did the same exact this past year when a fuel truck caught on fire. we need hard proof to challenge the 9/11 stories not accusations with no proof.

Answer 9

I am with you ,, see they cant show what you are asking because it was a Inside Job,, period,
Even the footage of when it was happing was cut short ,,
I truly believe it was mr bush and the mossad , the 3rd building went down for no reason except to bury important papers and secrets ,,
We are trying to find out more but its a tough job ,
But in the end we will know the truth ,,that it was our own
Now for all of you who are going to put us down ,, for this
show us different ok , Because we have proof, that it was not just the planes and fire, Bombs where in those buildings

Answer 10

Actually, it is Bush and his ilk are the conspirators and have conveniently either destroyed evidence, hid evidence, or made it "Top Secret"" The FBI has had 6 years to produce a picture of a 757-200 and they haven't. The flight data recorder produces information that proves that the 757 could not have hit the Pentagon, and this is using the governments own information!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580