Do you think I debunked the Pop-Mech Article, or what...

[JTCoyoté]

On another forum, in a thread called "911Demolition" I had to debunk an answer, in Italics below, to fellow's question who asked whether there was any truth to any of the 911 demolition conspiracy theories. Here is the answer he got back... from a debunker...

"I advise anyone who reads this 911 demolition drivel to go to popularmechanics.com and look up their debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories article. It truly is that simple."

Here is my answer back to this debunker person...

Oh, but it's not quite that simple I'm afraid... you are referring to the Hearst Publishing Co. Popular Mechanics article written by Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff's Cousin Benjamin...right??...

The structural diagrams used in the article, for the floor and perimeter attachment arrangements show what was used only above the 95th floor or so, where the weight above this lighter structure was small and where a more tensile intensive style of construction was of advantage. This was above the area where the "H" beams replaced the heavy boxed vertical core columns.  The Pop-Mech article suggests by omission, that the buildings used this type of tensile truss construction throughout the structures, which is patently false!

The Popular Mechanics article, though well crafted, is actually a sophomoric hit piece. They are engaged in the perpetuation of the most unbelievable conspiracy theory in the history of Mankind... Namely that 19 untrained men flying two huge commercial airliners, by the seat of their pants... flew into 2 modern STEEL skyscrapers, hitting the upper quarter of each structure... and the resultant damage and fire brought both buildings down to sidewalk level in less than 2 hrs total elapsed time... Each Collapse ended in a crescendo that plummeted at free-fall speed, in gross violation of the Laws of Conservation of Momentum, among others... NOW who but the untutored, those who have seen too many Hollywood "blow-'em-up" special effects extravaganzas could believe this hog wash...

Let's get right to it shall we...?

The majority of the force created by the initial aircraft impact was absorbed by the structure as it was designed to do... and was attested to by eye witness reports of the moment of impact... Remember, these buildings were designed to absorb the impact of a fully loaded 707, comparable in weight to the 767. These buildings were also designed to withstand the shifting force of a sustained 140 mile an hour hurricane wind, indefinitely!

When the plane hit the second tower, the force that was exerted by the initial fireball and low pressure explosion, which was huge and hair raising to witness, was actually fuel rapidly burning outside the building. Like any low pressure explosion the majority of the pressure wave created will move in the direction of least resistance which will relieve pressure on the side that exhibits the most resistance. Thus the enormous fireball expanded away from the building, and were relatively harmless low temperature, red-orange flame eruptions and billowing clouds of gray/black smoke. This energy expense outside the building consumed at least half of the 11,000 gallons of fuel reported to be on board the aircraft. This display contributed little in the way of damage to the building but was spectacular and frightful.

Because of where the aircraft struck, and the evidence that parts of the fuselage exited the opposite side of the buildings where the fireball billowed, the cores were most likely relatively undamaged. And you must keep in mind that both were designed to take a hit from a fully loaded Boeing 707.

Let's hypothesize however that 6,000 gallons of fuel remained inside the building and was allowed to burn... under perfect, or IDEAL conditions.  Conditions in which the fuel to air ratio are such to give maximum burning efficiency. The maximum "temperature" would be close to 1800 degrees F. Here's where we must make a distinction between temperature and heat. Temperature is a measure of the ability of the reaction called combustion to maintain itself... that is to say, it takes a certain temperature to maintain the oxidizing reaction in open flame of a specific fuel in the presence of oxygen. Or in this case the 21% oxygen contained in free-air...

To illustrate the point, consider a common wood stick match, which requires the end be tipped with phosphorus and friction used to start it. The phosphorus ignites quickly when struck. It reaches a temperature of close to 1300 degrees F, instantly, which ignites the wood stick. Once the initial flare has subsided, you will see an yellow-white luminescence close to the base of the flame. This flame color indicates an extremely hot temperature, as high as 1300 degrees... but a large snowflake landing on the end of the match will be sufficient to drop this temperature enough to stop the oxygen reaction and put the match out.

Heat, on the other hand, measures the amount or volume of this sustained reaction at a given temperature. An example would be an almost smokeless wood camp fire that has been burning for several hours. It has a temperature of 800 to 1000 degrees F. It doesn't have the instant temperature of a phosphorous fired stick match, yet many thousands of snow flakes will sizzle and evaporate in the flames of the campfire before the temperature will lower enough to stop the reaction at the surface of the burning logs. This is because of the amount of "heat" being generated by the campfire, even though the temperature is less.

So the useful part of this argument would be determining if the WTC fires had fuel and air enough to be sustained and maintained over a sufficient length of time to generate and accumulate sufficient heat to cause weakening of the steel members within the building. In other words how much heat was there, and how do we measure it?

The unit used to measure "heat" is called a BTU ... (British Thermal Unit).  It is the amount of energy required to raise 1 pound, (15.3 ounces) of water, one degree Fahrenheit. It takes 180 BTUs to raise this amount of water from 33 degrees Fahrenheit to the boiling point of 212 degrees Fahrenheit at sea level.

Jet fuel, like all liquid fuels, has a BTU/gallon rating ... Depending upon the specific type of jet fuel it will range between 110,000 BTUs to 140,000 BTUs per gallon... This is the amount of heat energy that lies dormant in each gallon of jet fuel when it is burned at its most efficient rate ... for the sake of this argument we will set the BTU rating of the fuel on board the jet at 125,000 BTUs/gallon.

We now multiply this number by the 6000 gallons, which is what is estimated to have entered the building. Thus we get the total BTUs available to this fire from the jet fuel. This figure is 750,000,000 (750 million BTUs). Seems like a lot, right... Well let's see just how much steel can be affected to the point of failure by this amount of heat. Keep in mind that the heat represented by these figures are the maximum this fuel can produce under perfect burning conditions in free-air.

Let's look at the industry standard for steel production... According to a 1970 manual, using natural gas and pure oxygen combined at the proper ratio, it took 37 million BTUs of energy in order to produce 1 ton of molten steel... Now this was under PERFECT conditions, inside a closed furnace, using pure oxygen
and natural gas, so our jet fuel, without the benifit of a furnace, using open fre air as the oxidizer, well these will be far from perfect conditions. But for the sake of argument lets say the conditions were "Blast furnace perfect.

In this case, there would have been enough fuel present in the buildings to liquefy just over 20 tons of steel... or, enough heat to raise the temperature of 200 tons of steel to between 600 and 750 degrees F.  Remember, this is if combustion conditions are steel production, IDEAL, and doesn't take into consideration the heat-sink nature of this huge steel structure.

We know that each building contained 500,000 tons of concrete and steel. Each building was 110 stories in height, each floor was approximately nine tenths of an acre and contained an average of just under 4550 tons of concrete and steel per floor... the majority of the steel being in the form of vertical support, the 47 column core and the external interlocked vertical support structure.  In other words even if previously mentioned 200 tons of steal received the full force of IDEAL combustion heat, the heat-sink nature of the building's mass would have dissipated it...The temperatures seen in the building did not have the fuel and air required to sustain the heat necessary that griddled your morning pancakes!     The sheer mass alone would have prevented enough sustained heat from reaching even the weakening temperatures that are touted in the Pop-Mech article.

As we know the conditions for combustion were much less than ideal in the tower... the black billowing smoke tells us that the burn was incomplete and extremely inefficient... in most areas less than a few percent of what would be considered ideal. By 30 minutes into the second tower's fire, the firemen who had reached the 78th floor reported two isolated pockets of fire that could be knocked down with two lines... the fuel had pretty much burned itself out. People were photographed waving and screaming while standing in the gaping holes opened by the planes... an area that we are told by "experts" is approaching temperatures as high as 1800 degrees F. ...temperatures and heat  high enough to evaporate the clothing and skin from anyone standing that close, yet, there they were, unburned, fully clothed, and waving. 

Then come the radio reports from the firemen of explosions in the building. First, the report of a huge explosion between floors 7 and 8, then a report of huge explosions between floors 14 and 15.  Then, within seconds, the building began to collapse ... believe what you will, those aircraft, and the fuel they carried, did not bring down those buildings!

JTCoyoté

"An Unconstitutional Act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." -- U.S. Supreme Court Norton V. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425, 442

[jbrid1138]

A great job at debunking the debunking.  What's truly sad is Popular Mechanics used to be a decent enough magazine, but then again on a much larger scale so was the concepts of our Country and what we once stood for.  Things change, especially when the bad guys get their hands on the control.  And it appears they did that with PM magazine as well.

Popular Mechanics magazine might have been a no nonsense, nuts and bolts magazine once upon a time writing about technology since the days of Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers -- but it sure went down hill from there. 

As I have come to understand it, months prior to the article, there was a radical change in PM's personnel as orchestrated by the president of Hearst Magazines -- Ms. Cathleen Black.

This lady is married to Thomas E. Harvey, who has worked for the CIA, the DoD, and the USIA (US Information Agency).

A Mr. Joe Oldham, the magazine's former editor-in-chief was replaced by James B. Meigs (the new editor-in-chief which in March 2005 published "9/11:  Debunking the Myths").  In October 2004, a new creative director replaced a 21-year veteran who was given 90 minutes to clear out his office.  According to a well-known journalist (Bollyn) three or four more people were simlilarly dismissed.  And as you indicated, we all know Benjamin Chertoff and that relationship he has to Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff.

So the fact that PM magazine was once considered an American institution -- it should now be considered just another tool of our government in helping spread the misleading facts just like it did in the article (and later) the book it published doing basically the same hatchet job on truth.

I like what Jeremy Baker said in this regard:  "if this absurdly flawed attempt to discredit the 9/11 truth movement is an example of PM's research skills and technical expertise, I'm definitely not building that tree house on page 87."

Just some things to add to your excellent comments. 

[JTCoyoté]

Thanks for the additional information jbrid... as a kid back in the '50s, I loved PM, it was a tinkerer's dream...

But as you so eloquently point out, as of late, PM is no longer about Popular Mechanics... PM is now all about Political Misinformation!

--Oldyoti

"An Unconstitutional Act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." -- U.S. Supreme Court Norton V. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425, 442

[Dig]

Thanks for the additional information jbrid... as a kid back in the '50s, I loved PM, it was a tinkerer's dream...

But as you so eloquently point out, as of late, PM is no longer about Popular Mechanics... PM is now all about Political Misinformation!

--Oldyoti

"An Unconstitutional Act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." -- U.S. Supreme Court Norton V. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425, 442

Yeah dude, everytime i pass buy a newstand and see it for sale all i can think of is "cool, sci-fi fiction."

You could also point the guy to the board that shows the many conflicts of interest: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?board=249.0

[TheGoodFight1984]

the book about this that the article in PM turned into has a foreword from john mccain too.. the plot thickens

[TheGoodFight1984]

I'm guessing most will have heard this already but Davin Coburn went on the Charles Goyette show in 2006 and was asked a real tough question about the hijackers DNA, Coburn stating it had been found amongst the rubble at ground zero, and Goyette's question was 'where did they get the original DNA sample from to match it against?" .. Coubrn dodges a straight answer and squirms like a worm in quicksand. Pretty revealing I'd say. He still hasn't got an answer.

http://www.radiodujour.com/people/griffin_david_ray/mp3/20060823_davincoburn_charlesgoyette.mp3

[agentbluescreen]

http://www.youtube.com/v/Iya_s7J7K6Y&hl=en&fs=1

Just LISTEN CAREFULLY to the soundtrack of this 9/11 EVIDENCE and tell us all how many times you hear the massive industrial punch press KLANG-sound of STEEL FALLING, and how many times you hear the EXPLOSIVE CANON-BLAST PERCUSSIONS of bombs in the damaged building filled with firefighters just (exactly at that moment) about to turn on hoses to 'knock down the fires' and helpless evacuating survivors..

[TheGoodFight1984]

It's unbelievable, like a train rolling on rocks, just pop pop pop bang pop...

The most damning footage of controlled demolition I have seen yet is in A Film To End All Wars, I'd love the find the original stock footage, you can see the flashes moving down the building as it comes down. It's like a strobe or something.

[David Rothscum]

Great job JT, that's all I can say.

[agentbluescreen]

It's unbelievable, like a train rolling on rocks, just pop pop pop bang pop...

The most damning footage of controlled demolition I have seen yet is in A Film To End All Wars, I'd love the find the original stock footage, you can see the flashes moving down the building as it comes down. It's like a strobe or something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iya_s7J7K6Y

The reason that I rest my case upon this video soundtrack is that I am an audio engineer and have recently patented a new low frequency 3D sound spatialization technology called Ortho-Helical Bass Transmission Line which converts any normal listening room into a giant 3D binaural audio headphone for totally transparent sub bass and full range high fidelity audio reproduction from all existing old recorded audio material.

It converts two walls and the floor corner of any room into a resonating 3D sub woofer manifold using the Lorentz Transformation of quantum mechanics to make any room become the original low frequency referential audio soundstage of the recording room instead of using woofers as merely outward facing, pumping 'bass tweeters', in a locally "boxes in the room-distorted" soundstage fields, which causes gross acoustic pressure intermodulation distortions in the entire reproductive range of all speakers subject to such abuse from their accompanying destructive co-pumping 'bass tweeters in boxes'.

When the walls of a room disappear audibly the listener hears the exact bass of the original soundstage and not the sound of booming boxes in their own room!

This revolutionary sub bass Ultra Fidelity 3D Audio reproduction technology (compatible with all Stereo, Dolby Digital, THX and NEO multichannel platforms, actually FITS and PERFECTLY RE-PRODUCES the psycho-acoustic sizes, locations, the movements of the positions and depths of all the sounds create-able in any huge Albert Hall, studio, or even from the wide outdoors into any room even as small as a bathroom or a closet.

When heard over such a perfected reproduction system the sub bass of this soundtrack proves conclusively there were bombs in the building even as the single solitary one and only huge punch press steel falling KLANG of the steel falling at the end (after the WHOOSH) so adequately illustrates, confirms and clearly indicates, nonetheless.

Blind listeners have fully confirmed the unmistakeable bomb percussion sounds, this film is damning evidence, fully proven by the newest forensic audio technology.

[agentbluescreen]

It's unbelievable, like a train rolling on rocks, just pop pop pop bang pop...

The only thing that DEEP KLANGS (with a high pitched metallic overtone) like a giant steel train crashing (or a giant steel punch press landing on it's target below) is the single Klang after the Whoosh at the end of the soundtrack, the 25 BIG BOOM PERCUSSIONS are BOMBS, not collapse-klangs.

Those sounds are nothing like popping rocks (loud cracks) either...

The recorded sounds here PRECEDE the later rolling thunder of the bomb rubble crashing down afterwards which is the sound that the criminals have maliciously later substituted in subsequent obfuscated 911 Truth hit pieces showing this clip, in a vain. idiotic or criminal attempt to conceal this evidence.

Listen to it with headphones

[TheGoodFight1984]

Wow, some interesting stuff BlueScreen - I mess about with music production as a hobby but that's intense. real clever. (My comparison to a train rolling on rocks was a terrible analogy, all I could think of!)

The other vid I was referring to, not for the explosions but cutter charge flashes I cut from AFTEAW and uploaded, I think it's an ABC or NBC, maybe MSNBC piece of footage used, not entirely sure which, the station logo is bottom right. Maybe you can tell which.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WsjV0Oz3mPo

(JT Sorry for taking this off topic, done a grand job debunking Popular Anti-Science Weekly or Nuts and Bolts Rag, whichever is more apt)

[agentbluescreen]

Wow, some interesting stuff BlueScreen - I mess about with music production as a hobby but that's intense. real clever. (My comparison to a train rolling on rocks was a terrible analogy, all I could think of!)

Sorry Goodfight, but that analogy got me going again I mistook it as a typical sort of a possible cointelpro counter argument, like as if a floor falling would pop like a ballon when the windows blew out or something, but the windows weren't blowing out and there were only 25 levels of (80 each) explosives = four floor high every-core support beam horizontal frame-wide cutter charges.

You see it's totally obvious, the early pre-explosions in the basements cut out all the base core supports one floor high.  This caused the ground lobbies walls and ceilings to pop off and floors to sag as the cores and elevator shafts sunk a bit relative to the outer can-support frames.

Then to bring it all down they needed to cut core support sections every so many floors  from the top down to pull-in the powerful outer massive steel outer frame container that was now supporting the entire building's floor loads.

In those 8 seconds the entire core to container and cubic frame/level support structures were internally disassembled and three seconds later as the four storey sections sequentially collapsed into their former cores there was no building left!

This isn't off topic it's just more conclusive and damning primary evidence, that proves and confirms all eyewitness accounts rather than the circumstantial facts, the false science and the obvious phony disinformation stuff that all points to the same and only inescapable conclusion!

Boom Boom Boom - all the way down...

[TheCaliKid]

Cliff notes please?

[TheGoodFight1984]

Sorry Goodfight, but that analogy got me going again I mistook it as a typical sort of a possible cointelpro counter argument, like as if a floor falling would pop like a ballon when the windows blew out or something, but the windows weren't blowing out and there were only 25 levels of explosives = four floor high support beam cutter charges.

You see it's totally obvious, the early pre-explosions in the basements cut out all the base core supports one floor high.  This caused the ground lobbies walls and ceilings to pop off and floors to sag as the cores and elevator shafts sunk a bit relative to the outer can-support frames.

Then to bring it all down they needed to cut core support sections every so many floors  from the top down to pull-in the powerful outer massive steel outer frame container that was now supporting the entire building's floor loads.

In those 8 seconds the entire core to container and cubic frame/level support structures were internally disassembled and three seconds later as the four storey sections sequentially collapsed into their former cores there was no building left!

This isn't off topic it's just more conclusive and damning primary evidence, that proves and confirms all eyewitness accounts rather than the circumstantial facts, the false science and the obvious phony disinformation stuff that all points to the same and only inescapable conclusion!

Boom Boom Boom - all the way down...

We agree Bluescreen! The basement was absolutely the first to go, followed by the rest of what you said. And no worries I'll try and up my game with decent analogies in the future

[agentbluescreen]

We agree Bluescreen! The basement was absolutely the first to go, followed by the rest of what you said. And no worries I'll try and up my game with decent analogies in the future

The reason the lesser damaged (glancing airliner blow through one side that most of the plane went right through, hardly even hitting the core) World Trade Center 2 was detonated and demolished so far too early was that the firefighters, unhampered by too many rescues from the already mostly evacuated building  had already got up to the small crash fires and were ready to turn on fire hoses!!

The water draining or spraying down the core shafts would have damaged Bush's Securacom explosives, so they had to be triggered an hour or more too early since the Bush-al CIAda bomber plane was late.

It's hard to stage a Daniel Chapter 8 Show when you leave it up to dummies like Cheney

[TheGoodFight1984]

The reason the lesser damaged (glancing airliner blow through one side that most of the plane went right through, hardly even hitting the core) World Trade Center 2 was detonated and demolished so far too early was that the firefighters, unhampered by too many rescues from the already mostly evacuated building  had already got up to the small crash fires and were ready to turn on fire hoses!!

The water draining or spraying down the core shafts would have damaged Bush's Securacom explosives, so they had to be triggered an hour or more too early since the Bush-al CIAda bomber plane was late.

It's hard to stage a Daniel Chapter 8 Show when you leave it up to dummies like Cheney

Exactly, if the FDNY had taken out the - quote 'pockets of fire' - and used the two hoses they required, there'd have been no reason for WTC2 to come down. It'd have blown the whole fable wide open.

[TheGoodFight1984]

Here's my encounter with a Popular Mechanics fan...

hopefully mr. masters will see this here and dig around a little more, swallow his pride and admit he's wrong diddly wrong.

I see you had a go at answering a tiny percentage of the questions posed, so here's your rebuttals.

If you did your "research", you would know that many of the experts that conspiricists quote have either been misquoted, or had their words taken out of context. If you use deception as a tactic to convince your readers, you must have a real strong argument.

Examples please... such as? What did this have to do with any of the questions posed? Who is trying to confuse the reader here? anyway, ignoring the trivial messageboard nonsense;

What does Popular Mechanics know? I'll concede this point, as it doesn't really matter what a bunch of editors think. The opinions that do matter are those of the 70+ professional aviation, engineering, and military experts they consulted. And I am well-versed in the laws of motion, I happen to have a Master's degree in Mechanical Engineering. I am by no means an expert, but I've studied enough to know that many of these theories are complete horseshit like the melting steel/jet fuel argument. I've taken the time to clarify/disprove some of "facts" cillibang has presented.

I like the way you put "facts" in the "" - Anytime anyone wants to make something look silly they resort to the inverted commas. man oh man... congratulations on you happening to have a masters by the way, I have a willing, intuitive mind, the ability to learn, and a few years of research under my belt. Let's quit swinging our dicks & rubbing up our own egos now and get to the point shall we?

That Popular Mech article has been debunked to the moon and back... Evertime I encounter a debunker all they can spout is the PM article or what they've seen on the TV. Not even going to bother wasting my time on that. Here's a good rebuttal to that article, if you dare read it: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php/topic,5795.0.html

If you want impressive numbers though, which you seem to like,

Try 660+ architects and engineers, 3600 other supporters of varying disciplines surrounding architecture and engineering at (ae911truth.org)

Try read some peer reviewed papers at http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/ and journalof911studies.com

Try www.patriotsquestion911.com - 660+ Engineers and Architects, 160+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals, 350+ Professors, 230+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members, 150+ Military and Gov't officials, add on to that the hundreds of international diplomats and gov't officials who agree it didn't happen as we were told (I refuse to use the term inside job, it's too easy and gives a distorted image, it was a multi-national job with assistance from inside the CIA / DoD)

Plans were approved in 1998 to privatize the World Trade Center, which consisted of seven buildings total, in order to raise money to fund other Port Authority projects. The Port Authority ultimately approved the lease of the buildings to a joint partnership between Silverstein Properties and The Westfield Group for 99 years on April 26, 2001. The deal went through on July 21, 2001.
   Imagine how big this conspiracy is and how many people are involved if it started back in 1998. George W. Bush must have started planning this while he was governor of Texas, right? The fact is this point doesn’t even matter. Private or government owned, there were insurance policies taken out on all the properties. Whoever the owner was would simply collect a big check anyway. The first step in presenting a conspiracy is to discuss relevant topics/events. So far you’ve failed even that.

Irrelevant? Go away and read some more on Mr. Silverstein, then come back and tell me it is still irrelevant. Bet you don't. If we must talk failure, then you've failed to read enough on that to know what you're talking about. sorry. And no one has implied GWB planned it. Stop implanting fabrications into your responses.

I’m not familiar with this argument. It’s no surprise that a source isn’t listed. Nonetheless I will attempt to clarify this misinformation starting with established facts. Steel melts at 2750°F, jet fuel between 800° and 1500°F. The steel, however, didn’t need to melt in order for the towers to collapse, it only had to weaken to a point where it could no longer support the weight on top of it. A basic property of metals (and materials altogether) is that heat reduces its yield strength, which is the maximum force it can withstand before permanent deformation occurs. Steel at 1100°F, for example, is only half as strong as steel at room temperature. NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) concluded that temperatures reached over 1800°F in some areas due to the burning of office materials and furniture in addition to the jet fuel. What happened as a result? The structure of the towers could no longer support the weight of the floors above, thus causing the buildings to buckle and come crashing down, WITHOUT the use of explosives.

Haha! popular mechanics as a source article. classic. I clearly stated NASA as the source for the info, did you miss that bit? Go look for it if you don't believe me - your masters did involve learning how to use google, right?

Anyway, your numbers on temperatures are all pretty much spot on without being pedantic, and yes the heat  may well have weakened steel (read the PM rebuttal link above for detailed info on the BTU's contained within the amount of kerosene on the 2 planes and how much steel it could affect), but it wasn't hot enough to fry the office workers stuck inside calling family members and the FDNY to get help now was it? It was an oxygen starved fire, dark smoke indicates low burning temp due to lack of oxygen.
So, the towers stood for a little over 2 hours as they burned, over the space of about 5 or so floors at each tower. In those couple of hours, these oxygen starved office fires (most of the kerosene went up in the initial fireball after impact, there was no concentrated burn spot like in a furnace for example) spread the heat Allllllll the way down to sub-basement levels and weakened the entire structure causing it to come down at freefall speed, through the path of most resistance, not twice, but three times in a day if you include WTC7 that wasn't hit by any aircraft. NIST finally admitted that WTC7 came down at freefall recently, you'll probably know that already though, right?
Also what about numerous reports, seismic data and visible evidence of explosions in the basement levels even before AA11 even hit? Just another coincidence I suppose.

So putting all that aside, say for a minute we'll go with your incredible weakened pancake theory, how does that idea account for MOLTEN IRON in the WTC sub-basement levels up to 8 WEEKS AFTER 9/11. How? Come on. Does weakened steel suddenly melt itself? This is more stuff ommitted from the 9/11 commission report.

Anyhow.. I worded my question poorly just case it was that which confused you.

Remember the Columbia Space Shuttle Disaster? How’d they recover human remains from the astronauts? You would think they would have burned up during re-entry miles above the earth, but they didn’t. A fireball won’t destroy everything, neither will a building collapse. Think of all the office papers you saw raining down in the streets after the planes struck the towers. How’d they not burn up in the fire? With that being said, some things were never recovered, like the remains of some of the victims.

I'm talking about a passport, no, wait, 4 passports, no, wait, 5 passports!!. 2 found at both WTC, 1 at shanksville and 2 at the Pentagon. 5! This must be a coincidence too. It's about as believable that this happened as the magic bullet theory is to the JFK case. Besides, All those sheets of paper weren't inside aircraft, they were blown outward by pressure from an explosion.
Logic would have you think that the Atta passport would have travelled in the trajectory of the aircraft strike, but no it was found on Vesey St. BEHIND the WTC, in the opposite direction... and the Suqami passport was found in two different locations!! How about that?! I'm sure you'll have a masters in coincidence sorcery to disprove that though. 5 passports uncharred. you could blow up 5 challenger rockets and not get that level of consistent results. And besides, passports aren't needed for internal flights in the US, but that's not that important.

I don‘t know what you’re trying to accomplish other than scare the readers who don’t realize this is completely irrelevant to the “conspiracy”. The anthrax attacks were committed by Dr. Bruce Ivins, a microbiologist at the Army’s biological research laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Unfortunately he committed suicide as prosecutors were set to present their case to a grand jury implicating him in the attacks. Once again, this is completely unrelated and is simply domestic terrorism with no connection to 9/11. If staff members were given Cipro at the time stated, it is merely a coincidence and cannot be concluded that the US government participated in sending letters to THEIR OWN SENATE LEADERS! Take a second and actually think about that and you’ll see the idiocy of the above claim.

Haha! ANOTHER coincidence!!! No connection to 9/11? Unrelated? Idiocy? Again, you've failed to do good research here. Which website are you copying and pasting from by the way?
 The anthrax attacks and 9/11 were part of the same sequence of events. The letters themselves were dated 9/11/01 clearly indicating a link with the attacks. The letters were faked, and sent by imiginary muslim fundamentalists, and as you say was discovered to be the ames strain only from Ft. Detrick.
The strain came from a US military base, and was set up as a false flag to coincide with the 9/11 attacks, this is proven by the letters themselves. There was foreknowledge of the anthrax, just as there was foreknowledge about the 9/11 attacks. So, unrelated huh? Ivins was the perfect patsy as he was already dead! He didn't even have clearance for level 4 security at Detrick. Do some research. Look up Lt. Col. Philip Zack.
I don't feel any idiocy burning through me right now either, just for the record, but you may when you do some real digging on this.

It wasn’t immediately destroyed, it was sent to Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island in New York to be analyzed piece by piece by police officers and FBI agents. Reporters were even allowed to visit and film what was going on. Fortunately there is not a lot of experience in aircraft flying into buildings to bring them down. As a result of this inexperience, it takes time to determine the cause of failure by meticulously reviewing all of the facts and evidence collected.

Wrong, about a quarter of it was shipped to statten island, and was it analyzed piece by piece by the FBI and Police? Nope, not thoroughly analyzed at all, 185,000 tons of it was put to scrap without examination, or so US congress were told, then it was sold off to chinese and indian steel merchants for $120 a ton. Some of it was turned into a shiny new warship. Many first responders 'weren't authorized' and were turned away, only closely monitored, selected companies and gov't officials were allowed access to the clean-up operation.
They couldn't get rid of the evidence quick enough, dismissing it as useless because computer models do all the work these days according to Bloomberg et al, models that FEMA and NIST amongst other channels went to town with and hilariously contradicted each other. FEMA's BPAT who wrote the WTC report had no access to ground zero or to collect any of the samples according to appendix D of the FEMA WTC report.
The 150-odd pieces of steel that were saved for future use have been stored in a hangar at JFK, with no access to the public for research / investigation.

Would you rather have an investigation that was complete and thorough or rushed and half-assed? If an investigation report was already mandated by law, it’s not a question as to whether or not there was going to be a report. At this point it’s best to do it right the first time.

What?! You misnterpreted the question. Bush and Cheney did not want an investigation, full stop. They did everything in their power to stop it. Don't believe me? Watch the film 9/11 press for truth, and then come back and talk to me about who cares about the victim's families. Cos it weren't the Bush admin that's for sure. If it wasn't for the Jersey Girls and 9/11 truth families, there would never have been a commission, you don't need a masters degree to find that out.
Guess how much was spent on investigating the Clinton / Lewinski scandal? $40m
And the 9/11 Commission? $14m.
   

Terrorists don't have to act with the support of a country. What country helped Timothy McVeigh blow up the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma? None. Afghanistan’s government, the Taliban, refused to give up Osama Bin Laden. Our intelligence indicated that he was in the country so we were prepared to use force to go get him. It’s that simple. Iraq is an unrelated issue, don’t try to make connections that aren’t there. Haven’t you learned anything from George W’s WMD claims? It makes you look like an ass.

And yes we agree on one thing! W's WMD claims. BS. Same as Saddam was harboring al-qaeda. oh yeah. Also see my post above about OBL, feel free to call Rex Tomb at the FBI and ask him about it.
Anyhow, I never related Iraq to 9/11, the US gov't did that for you. W also spoke with tony Blair about painting up a US spy plane in UN colours and flying it over Iraq in the hope Saddam would shoot it down, so they would have a reason to pre-empt. False Flag? Yup. They did all the relating there my friend with a masters.

Feel free to use google to find out anything I've said here. it all exists, and it'll all be available on mainstream sites.

Good luck!