The twin towers’ fires weren’t even hot enough to melt the windows next to the impact zone.
First, on what evidence are you claiming that no windows were melted? All the pictures I can see are at too great a distance and have too much smoke in the way to see the condition of the windows clearly. Secondly, what were the windows made of? There are plenty of glass-like substances that have better heat tolerances than many metals, and it’s not like they would have been supporting any real weight, either. Third, who says that there needed to be temperatures high enough to melt steel? All you need is for the temperature to be enough to soften or distemper the metal. There was a large fuel fire after the airplane hit, and that would have produced enough heat for the metal to warp (I’ve seen plenty of buildings that burned down just from ordinary fires, and that had their metal beams warped by that amount of heat). Or are you trying to say that there was no fire, and that all the flames and smoke that all the eyewitnesses and cameras saw was just special effects?
the buildings could not have collapsed at free fall speed in their own footprints.
And they didn’t. And what does this have to do with anything?
I didn’t say anything about aliens or changing planes in mid-air.
Not about aliens, no, but you did about them changing airplanes.
WTC 7 wasn’t struck by anything and collapsed at free fall speed. Larry Silverstein confirmed it was pulled.
Here’s what Silverstein apparently said: “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”
After the building was already on fire, they decided to go in, place explosives, and knock it down (they had something like eight hours in which to do so, since the building didn’t finally fall until late afternoon). They openly talked about it and planned it, which means that it had nothing to do with any sort of a conspiracy. Also, if it was only on fire, why would they decide to pull it down? If the fire wasn’t enough to do major structural damage to the building, then it would make more sense to just leave the building there and repair what would be mainly cosmetic damage. But they decided to pull it, which meant that they thought that the fire alone was enough to destroy the building, and so they wanted to destroy it before the fire did so that it would fall in a less dangerous way. So really, what Silverstein is saying is that 1) the fires alone were enough to make the buildings fall, and 2) the fall of the building had nothing to do with any sort of government conspiracy.
So, what does this have to do with the airplanes hitting the other towers, or the Pentagon, or crashing in Pennsylvania, and how does this do anything to “prove” a conspiracy by anyone other than the terrorists?
Give me one example of a steel beam building that suddenly collapsed due to just a fire (prior to the alleged 911 collapses due to fires). There was a steel building with a fire so hot the windows melted yet it didn’t collapse.
Give me one example of one of the World Trade Center buildings being hit by a fuel-filled Boeing and not falling down. Not many buildings (if any) are built in the exact same manner as the WTC buildings, nor have many buildings had a 767 slam into them at high speed. The only event that can compare to the airliner striking the first building was the other airliner striking the second building. . .and in both cases, the building fell. So, this means that in all known similar incidents, the results were the same.
You didn’t address the firefighters’ witnessing the series of explosions. Those men in “In Plane Site” weren’t actors.
I’m not going to buy some DVD that uses lots of flawed reasoning to try to support some weird claims, so I can’t tell what firefighters you’re referring to or exactly what they say. I do know that a number of people saw, as the buildings were falling, things that looked like explosions. . .which is exactly what you would expect to see if a building was falling in on itself.
If there were explosives there, then they would have had to be able to survive a direct hit by a Boeing and the resulting fireball (after all, the “explosions” took place a while after the crash). Also, as you yourself already pointed out, there wasn’t any way to put the explosives in place.
What’s also fishy is that the the alleged hijackers who lived in San Diego had drivers licenses and bank accounts in their real names. They were even in the phone book! Yet we’re supposed to believe they slipped through the FBI’s fingers.
Plenty of other people do the same. The FBI is made of people, not superhuman psychics. And again, if this was some sort of big government conspiracy, don’t you think that they would have been slightly more careful about covering up the official records on the hijackers?
Then why did it fall down?