I give you this telling paragraph from popular mechanics:
World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes.
You know the link. The reports of firemen indicate that the fires weren't extreme. Popular mechanics has no credibility. I don't know why people say that it has.
The propaganda piece was even written by the cousin of Michael Chertoff (the head of homeland security).
The NIST article linked by that clown Maddox is also pathetic. They say a) that they didn't look for or test for residues of explosives and b) That they also didn't find any evidence for explosives. Talk about moronic! They also say that the speed with which the buildings collapsed could be explained by 'limited resistance to the enormous mass falling from above'. Well, since the falling mass would obviously have been increasing progessively and at the start it was relatively small, there would have been resistance at first. This is intellectually bankrupt and obviously BS. There is plenty of evidence for explosives, from Silverstein admitting it, the lab tests showing the presence of thermite, the dust and the eyewitnesses to police reports of unexploded bombs. But, for some reason, NIST just didn't follow this up, wouldn't you have followed it up? I know I would have.
If you compare sections 11 and 12 in the NIST report, you can see the problem The theory had been hatched and evidence was only looked for that might support it. As far as I'm concerned this is completely balloney.
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
So they provide no explanation for the molten steel, and in fact don't even directly confirm or deny it's existance. Why can't they be explicit about this? If molten steel is found I demand an explanation for it; it is rather important.
Maddox is an idiot. He hasn't mentioned any sensible theory and successfully debunked only straw man theories. What a genius!
OK so, loose change is an anthology of some of the wilder and less plausible theories about 9/11. OK so it's not particularly credible, but that does not support the official theory in any way. In fact it's the loose change guys and others that are damaging the truth campaigns. I just wish people wouldn't lose their critical faculties so easilly.
Having said that, there is worse nonsense coming from the official side.
Thanks for the link! Quick question, though. What the heck is "bukkaked"? His hit counter said something like "<insert number here> have been bukkaked".
