Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition

I cannot accept arguments about the scientific plausability of steel melting in a jet fuel fire from an economist.

Structural steel is coating in a fire retardant insulation for a reason. Its melting point is fairly low. The temperature point at which it would fail to hold up several floors of a skyscraper would be even lower I would imagine.

Conspiracy theories are interesting but while I'm no fan of the current administration I believe that if they were to have committed such a horrible act as to demolish those buildings they would not be able to conceal their horns, hooves and red, scaly skin from the general public.

Watch out...the black helecopters are circling...

People like that make me sick.I was there for 3 days right after the attacks searching through the pile at the Trade Center site and let me tell you this......... The fire was still burning 3 days later at 1100 degrees 80 feet below street level and the metal beams that were all around us had heat damage from heat that was so hot that a normal explosion could not have caused metal turn turn colors like that steel did.I know we all saw the planes hit on tv and that the statement is made up and that these statements would make some think twice,sort of like the movie JFK did on how Kennedy was killed,but it just torques me to no end to have seen the damage first hand and see so many personnal belongings of people that were killed there just makes me wonder what this world is coming to.Just imagine if this all happened during WW2 after Pearl Harbor,we'd all be under communist power if everyone didn't pull together and defend the US.

125gJoe said:

Quote: "-- Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning.. "

Then maybe this article is just a bunch of lies? How do these supposed "facts" in the article come about?

Click to expand...

I know that anyone can have their beliefs and state things that could make things appear to have possible truth,but its not going to bring back a friend of mine from Engine 33 of FDNY that died that day or the roughly 2000 other people that died that day.Why bring up these "facts" and stir the pot about one of the most horrific events to take place to the USA since Pearl Harbor.By the way 125gJoe I'm not blaming you for bringing this subject up.My venting is all aimed at the idiot who made the statement from Bush's team.

economist

maverick, you are right on-that statement (made by an economist) is just so much hooey, in my book. Just goes to show that sometimes phd = idiot.
They did tons of research (by architects, engineers, etc.) just to find out exactly what happened, and he thinks he knows better???
In addition, he thinks that 19 terrorists can't outfox the government, but someone can sneak into the WTC & plant enough explosives to bring the building down? What did they do-wait for the planes & then push the button? Or what?
Again-idiot!!

Ive got to agree, economists are not structural engineers or explosive experts. There are no additional explosions on other floors after the plane hits, meaning there is no possible way it was controlled explosions.


So, if the Bush administration did plant explosives, what of the planes? How did they convince a bunch of guys from saudi arabia to hijack planes and fly them into buildings that they were just going to knock down anyways?

Ive been looking through there other articles and most of them are not factual at all. Its like a political Enquirer.



""First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not," said Reynolds. "

Allegedly? LOL.