What exactly don't believe about it? What caused the collapse? Or how it is impossible for the buildings to fall the way they did due to the collisions of the aircraft? How do you think they fell?
Rather than doing your job, and acting immediately to prevent the hijackings of flight 77 and 93 (Pentagon and Pennsylvania) that were yet to take place at the time Bush was informed.
Seen experts explain how the crashes and fire could topple the buildings in the manner that happened,
Ok, fire is your answer...
Clearly the towers did not collapse because of the plane impacts alone, because both towers stood for 45 to 90 minutes after impact. The official explanation, parroted faithfully by the mainstream media, is that the towers collapsed because burning jet fuel caused the steel girders supporting them to melt. Let us examine this hypothesis as to its credibility.
Much (perhaps, in the case of the second impact, as much as two-thirds) of the jet fuel was consumed immediately in the fireballs which erupted when the planes hit the towers. Furthermore, according to one FEMA investigator (Jonathan Barnett), most of the jet fuel which managed to enter the towers was consumed within ten minutes.
The Twin Towers were giving off a lot of black sooty smoke, but there was little fire visible. But to melt steel you need the high temperature produced by, e.g., an oxy-acetylene torch. Jet fuel burning in air (especially in an enclosed space within a building, where there is much smoke and little available oxygen) just won't do it. And if the steel columns had melted, would this have produced the implosive collapse observed? If the columns had melted it is unlikely that the resulting structural weakness would be completely symmetrical (as required when a building collapses upon itself in a controlled demolition).
Irregularity in an uncontrolled collapse would have produced the kind of collapse in which concrete and steel girders would have rained down over a wide area (causing huge damage to the surrounding buildings in lower Manhattan and many fatalities among their occupants). This did not happen. These considerations (and others, given below, concerning the probable maximum temperature of the fire) show that the claim that thousands of liters of burning jet fuel produced a raging inferno and caused the steel columns to melt is extremely dubious, and does not account for the collapse of the towers.
Never before, or after (with the exception of WTC 7 which was demolished on the same day) has steel framed building collapsed due to fire. In fact there are numerous cases of sky scrapers burning for far longer, far more intensely than either of the twin towers did, and not even look like falling.
As the above quote mentions, assuming fire did cause the buildings to fall, it still does not explain how the towers BOTH fell into themselves, straight down into the most resistance in nearly FREE FALL SPEED. That is a hell of a lot of sky scraper giving way in a matter of seconds, which is impossible without getting at the under infrastructure of the building (ie demolitions). IF the buildings had of fallen and not been demolished, then they would of actually fallen
down, not disintegrate like they did.
And, if you wanna know how bombs could get in there?
The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. [NY Newsday]
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... urity.html
Guess who was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport?
I will give you 1 guess at his last name... his first name is Marvin, and he happens to be the little brother of someone quite central to this topic...
How exactly could he have prevented them, and why need to go anywhere to do it, surely him or one of his aides has a mobile phone. This is an irrelevant matter as has more style than substance, what does him staying there actually show.
Ummm, NORAD (defense fighter jets that regularly intercept planes when a situation arises, they failed 4 times in the one day, watch Loose Change, it explains it all)? Maybe that's how he could of stopped the planes? Had he wanted to that is. In fact, Dick Chaney gave DIRECT orders NOT to stop the plane headed for the Pentagon.
9:26 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Cheney Given Updates on Unidentified Flight 77 Heading toward Washington; Says â€˜Orders Still Standâ€™
According to some accounts, Vice President Dick Cheney is in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) below the White House by this time, along with Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and others. Mineta will recall that, while a suspicious plane is heading toward Washington, an unidentified young man comes in and says to Cheney, â€œThe plane is 50 miles out.â€ Mineta confers with acting FAA Deputy Administrator Monte Belger, who is at the *'s Washington headquarters. Belger says to him: â€œWeâ€™re watching this target on the radar, but the *'s been turned off. So we have no identification.â€ According to Mineta, the young man continues updating the vice president, saying, â€œThe plane is 30 miles out,â€ and when he gets down to â€œThe plane is 10 miles out,â€ asks, â€œDo the orders still stand?â€ In response, Cheney â€œwhipped his neck around and said, â€˜Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?â€™â€ Mineta will say that, â€œjust by the nature of all the events going on,â€ he infers that the order being referred to is a shootdown order. Nevertheless, Flight 77 continues on and hits the Pentagon. [BBC, 9/1/2002; ABC News, 9/11/2002; 9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003; 9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003; St.
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline. ... dickCheney
LOL I actually have that P&T episode (along with the whole series) on my computer. I find it shameful how they dont actually deal with any of the claims made by the 911 Truth Movement (google it) and instead wheel out a couple of 'conspiracy theorists' and make fun of them the entire show. If you want to conduct a truly biased assessment of a situation, you simple don't include anything that could hurt your argument. This is something that P&T did very well in this case.
And by the way, watch Loose Change (http://www.loosechange911.com/finalcut/
), it features testimony from MANY (not one, but many) fire fighters who were there on the day and KNOW that it wasn't fire that brought the buildings down.