honeto wrote: 1- I remember right after the event, there was a news about unusual stock movement taken place few days before 911. We never heard the follow up on that, was that ever investigated?

Yes it was, and nothing significant was found.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp - http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

2- Israeli PM's visit was cancelled a couple of days before this event, why?

Actually, the Israeli PM was scheduled to speak on September 23, not on the 11th.  He cancelled, not surprisingly, on Sept. 12.
http://www.911myths.com/html/ariel_sharon.html - http://www.911myths.com/html/ariel_sharon.html

1-Why was the evidence and all the scrap metal shipped to China for recycling, almost immediately. It was a crime scene and according to the rules, all the evidence has to be preserved and presented before a panel of experts. Why in a haste all of those rules were overlooked and bypassed, was there a motive?

What does "almost immediately" mean?  My recollection is that it took months to clean up the site.  But of course they got rid of it as soon as they reasonably could.  What would you expect them to do?  Leave a smouldering, possibly toxic heap of garbage in the middle of Manhattan indefinitely?

2-Tower seven never got hit by a plane, how was it destroyed as if in a "perfect demolition" according to demolition experts.

Good question.  Why do you think it got destroyed?  Why would anybody stage a fake terrorist attack on the Twin Towers and then plant explosives in Building 7?

Let me hear your response before any further questions.

Okay, but just for the record I'm not going to get caught up in an endless barrage of crackpot theories and accusations.  Just give me your best evidence.  You can Google the rest yourself.

What makes you to say "it's nonsense"?

Because conspiracy theories like this are always nonsense.  It's just not conceivable that such a widespread and intricate government plot could be kept secret in a democratic and open society.  Maybe in totalitarian dictatorships (though even that is doubtful), but not here.

honeto wrote: 1- you know when there is a plane crash even if it is in the middle of the ocean on the botoom of the floor specially if terrorism is involved, they assemble every tinny piece they can find, and they put it together in a secure place to figure out what really has happened. They did not do that, why?

Because despite your attempt to create one, there is no mystery here.  Investigators painstakingly reconstruct crashed airplanes in order to determine the cause of the crash.  In this case, the cause is blindingly obvious: even you would agree that the planes were deliberately flown into the buildings.  There was no design flaw, no stuck valve, no metal fatigue or pilot fatigue.  And besides, the planes were totally incinerated, everything including the metal literally melted or burned beyond recognition.  There was nothing left to assemble.

2- instead of answering this question you are asking me another question.

Right, because if you find the conventional explanation improbable, then you must have some more probable explanation, eh?  But if you want a direct answer to your question: Building 7 was destroyed by fire after large amounts of burning debris fell on it.  There was no demolition.  Firefighters knew at least half an hour before the building collapsed that it was about to go down, which is why everyone got out in time.  No explosives required.

Okay, your turn.  Why would anybody stage a fake terrorist attack on the Twin Towers and then plant explosives in Building 7?

It is because of this that I asked you to watch this video. This is not a bunch of conspiracy theorists as you label them before listening to them. These are experts in their fields, physicists, scientists, demolition experts of no ordinary type rather cream of the crop.

Really?  Have you checked their credentials?  Give my your best example of a "cream of the crop" expert and we'll see.

honeto wrote: 1-and that is my point. To determine all of that. Why there was haste in melting all of that. That is what these experts are asking.

Determine all of what?  We know why the plane crashed into the building.  Why on earth would we bother reconstructing it, even if we could?  And please, what do you mean by "haste"?  According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center - Wikipedia , the debris continued to burn for three months, and cleanup wasn't officially complete until the end of May, 2002.  If this had happened in the middle of your city, don't you think that would have been plenty long enough?

You used the words "melting", that is something you and I would believe the jet fuel would do, right. Not so the experts, who say the temperature with all that fuel burning would not even bend the metal let alone melting. See, you thought you knew that. It is for this reason it is necessary that we let the experts investigate what really happened. What was used that did the melting! Do you know?

"Melting" may not be technically correct, but steel loses much of its strength at high temperatures and certainly would (and obviously did) bend and warp under load.

2- That is my point, how did the firefighters knew that the building is going to go down.

According to the firefighters themselves, they knew because they could hear the building frame creaking and groaning under the stress.  What is your theory?  Did they all get text messages on their smart phones saying "clear out - we're detonating the charges now!"? 

According to experts in that field, there has never been a case where fire along brought down a high rise tower. Can you find a case of a modern building like this one that came down in a result of a fire?

No, I can't find a similar case.  Can you?  How many buildings of similar size have been struck by a Boeing 767 fully loaded with jet fuel?

In order to see their credentials, you asked, it is all in that video! In fact that is the most compelling part.

I asked you for your best example of an expert who supports your theory.  I'm not going to research forty different "experts", and I'm not going to pick one myself because you'll tell me he is a bad example.

honeto wrote: I thought of you as a person of reason and of one who sticks to facts and truth. I am disappointed. You somehow give me impression that you know more than the facts out there, do you? or simply you just have a belief and nothing can change it, neither facts nor even science.

I'm open to any facts you would care to present, but so far all you've offered me is rhetorical questions and unfounded speculations.

1- Why was all the steel sent overseas to melt as it was picked up? Why was it not stored (even in an open land somewhere) because it was material from a crime scene. Why it was not treated as such?

Store it where?  According to http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?investigations:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation&timeline=complete_911_timeline - historycommons.org , we're talking about "more than 108,000 truckloads of debris, comprising 1.8 million tons of steel and concrete".  And remember, this is the epicenter of some of the most valuable real estate on the planet.  Who is going to pay for the storage, not to mention the transport?

You fail to give a satisfying answer to a valid question, and I hate to see your belief shaken that yes it is true that the protocol was not followed in this case and why?

I'm not sure what "protocol" you're referring to.  I've never heard of an entire building, or the rubble thereof, being impounded for months.  Did anything like that happen with the Oklahoma City bombing, for instance?

About melting steel, it is pure science. All you have to do is to see when steel is soft, and at what temperature it can bend or melt. For some odd reason your theory does not match with science. That is the kind of issue the scientists in this video discuss, you refuse to know that fact or answer. Rather you take the naive approach, where it suits you.

Forget "melting steel".  It was a poor choice of words on my part.  And yes, the fires were plenty hot enough to soften steel - but that wasn't the only effect of the high temperatures:

Firefighters in this video talk also about explosions before building crumbled to the ground. So it is important to listen to all the conversation, and not cut it where is goes against your belief. Why are people afraid of the truth?

Loud noises are often described as explosions.  You wouldn't expect buildings of this size to collapse quietly, would you?

You mentioned you cannot find a similar case in response to my question. You added, "how many buildings are struck by a plane". There shows your lack of paying attention because you fear it will shake your belief. I never mentioned that building 7 was ever struck by a plane. My question was, in case of fire, how may times a building has fallen to the ground like this one? Oops!

Okay, how many high-rise buildings have been abandoned by firefighters and left to burn for more than six hours?

You have not provided me credentials of experts, but I have, in that video you can see who is who pretty clear.

Name one.  Which of these experts do you find most convincing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI

honeto wrote: I never said I have the answers. In case you missed I said I have questions, and you two are simply denying and refusing to hear those questions.

I think you're refusing to hear the answers, Hasan.  Let me summarize the answers I've given you so far:

1. There was no unusual stock trading activity, according to the 9/11 Commission.  If you know differently, you'll need to be more specific.
   
2. The Israeli Prime Minister cancelled his visit after 9/11, not before.
   
3. There was no undue haste in disposing of the rubble from the buildings, and no "protocol" was violated in doing so.  The cleanup from the Oklahoma City bombing was much faster, and I didn't hear accusations of cover-up.
   
4. A "perfect demolition" does not begin as a raging inferno that burns for six hours in multiple areas of the building.  Moreover, the firefighters on the scene did not see a structurally sound building just waiting for the charges to detonate, as they would in a demolition.  They saw a severely weakened frame that was ready to fall at any moment without the need for any intervention.
   The only sense in which it resembled a demolition is that the building fell down -- just as it would in the case of " http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/towers-collapse/ - total progressive collapse ".  I'm not sure why you find that surprising.  What direction would you expect it to fall?
   
5. I don't know of another high-rise fire that resulted in total building collapse, but then I don't know of a similar building that was left to burn for six hours either.  The situation was literally unprecedented.  One shouldn't be surprised not to find similar examples.
   
6. The collapse of a huge building is necessarily a noisy event.   I'm not surprised that it might sound like a series of explosions.  For that matter, there probably were plenty of actual explosions of fuel tanks, compressed gas cylinders, etc.

You have also failed to scientifically prove your beliefs. You remember Oklahoma City bombing, a huge bomb, fire, still the structure was still there.

I do remember the Oklahoma City bombing, but I don't recall any significant fire.

honeto wrote: Ron, there were no fact you offered that were not part of the official version of the event.

Facts are facts, Hasan.  Why should a fact be disqualified simply because it is cited by the authorities?

Why there is opposition to find facts? Why they are being dismissed as "conspiracy theories"? We have not yet listened to the other side yet. How can we be sure that we have the truth. Only our refusal to hear them or dismiss them as conspiracy theorists itself is suspicious.

They are called "conspiracy theories" because the underlying assumption is that hundreds or perhaps thousands of people in a dozen different organizations and at various levels of authority all secretly conspired together to commit a horrendous crime that killed thousands of people.  This just doesn't happen in real life.  It is hard enough to find even one such cold-blooded killer.  For hundreds of them to identify and contact one another, while keeping the plan secret from anyone else, is inconceivable.

I you know the process of how one becomes a jet pilot let alone a passenger jet pilot, it is pretty interesting that these must be the smartest people on the planet to achieve such perfection in a very short time, while it takes a long time and a lot of sophisticated training for our pilots to achieve, to steer one of these. Your mind can fathom that, mine still questions it.

Where are you getting this strange idea that one needs to be some kind of genius to steer a plane into a building?  Takeoff and landing are the hard parts, but frankly anyone with a basic familiarity with the controls plus a couple of hours' practice on http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/ - Flight Simulator could probably hit a target without much trouble.  (I've played with Flight Simulator.  It's not that hard, really it's not.)

About building seven I am the one asking question, if you don;t have the answer, leave it there.

Sorry, I won't accept that.  If you want to convince anyone of your theory, you have to show that it is more probable than the "official" theory.  You can't just pick holes in your opponent's position while totally ignoring the gaping chasms in your own.  If you can't explain why on earth the conspirators would plan in advance to blow up Building 7, which wasn't even supposed to be a target of the airplanes, then I don't see how anyone could find your theory more credible than the obvious explanation.

Sorry to be asking this one again:

What did al-Jazeera report after the attack? Did they check their sources before broadcasting al-Qaeda's claim of responsibility? Has the claim ever been retracted? Or are both organisations also part of the same conspiracy, along with Israel and the US?

honeto wrote: Ron, fact is something science can prove, in this video science is proving that what happened could not have happened with what was available there according to the official statement.

If there is any actual science in this video, I wish you would tell me about it.  So far all you've told me are a number of unsubstantiated claims.  I'm still waiting for you to offer the name and credentials of a single one of the so-called "experts" in this video.  Without that, it's not science, just hearsay.

You are telling me the governments don't lie to their people? Our government never lied to us?

I'm saying that our/your government never killed thousands of its own citizens simply to score some kind of cheap propaganda victory, and even if it did there is no way such a thing could be kept secret.  What you are suggesting is not only enormously evil, but as far as I can tell pretty much pointless and not worth the risk.

I'm also saying that in order to present a convincing alternative theory, you need to show that it is more plausible the conventional explanation.  So far all you have done is to nitpick tiny details of the official version, while totally ignoring the huge logical and logistical improbabilities of your own.

honeto wrote: the answer to your first question: It is in the video, watch it, and then tell me if that's not science.

If what is not science?  No, a video is not science.  If you think the video contains science, then tell me what.  Don't expect me to go hunting for it.

Government not killing its own people, a separate issue but you did not answer my question, does our or any Government ever lies to its people?

Of course it does, when there is a strong motivation to do so and and fair probability that they might get away with it.  But neither of those contingencies applies here.  Calling them a "separate issue" does not answer them.

And I am not presenting any theories as I stated before, I am only questioning official theories. Hasan

And that's the problem.  Whatever nitpicking objections you might want to suggest, the "official" theory remains the most likely explanation unless/until you can offer a better one.