The "Popular Mechanics" article was written by Benjamin Chertoff......cousin of Homeland Conspiracy's very own Michael Chertoff.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm

Did you even read the article? Did you even read my post? The fires couldn't possibly get hot enough to melt steel. And Popular Mechanics agrees. But what Popular Mechanics says is that it doesn't have to melt the steel to cause possible structural failure. My point is that melted steel was found. So something must have sped up the process, like incendiary, controlled demolitions. To back this theory, there were chemical tests done on the structural steel residue. Thermate was found. Which is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur, which produces the molten yellow steel that was found. Do I need to spell it out for you? Molten steel means incendiary, incendiary means controlled demolition.

And yes, there is a problem. Just the small problem of that never happening before to a steel-framed building in the history of mankind; then for it to all of a sudden happen three times in a row is just a tad bit suspicious don't you think? Considering this completely and utter lack of historical precendent for the total progressive collapse theory, don't you think we should be giving questions about the WTC's just a little bit of credence?

And Lucidthots. Please, if you're going to join the debate then debate. We actually have a good one going, don't mess it up with your propaganda posts.

I think its important that we all know exactly who wrote the article....Benjamin Chertoff.....cousin of Michael Chertoff.

That is important.

"the Moooooslims did it."

So? What is your evidence the US government was behind the WTC attack?

We never in the history of mankind had 2 passenger jets fly into buildings this big either. When rescuers are removing debris, don't you think there would have been some molten metal. I remember that thing burning for weeks. Also, if you look at the implosions, they begin right where the planes flew in. Not at the bottom on a controlled demolition explosion.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse2.mpg

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide.../wtc_7_cbs.mpg

http://www.whatrealyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem1....down.soon.wmv




-----------------------

Okay, first of all, it doesn't matter, because WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane yet supposedly fell the same way. Second of all, your assessment is wrong. It has happened before, even with larger planes and very tall buildings. A good example is when a B-52 bomber smashed into the Empire State Building; the majority of it hitting the 79th floor, putting a whole in the building eighteen feet wide and exploding its high-octane fuel inside the building sending flames throughout the building. Guess what...the Empire State Building still stood. The WTC towers, like the Empire State Building, were designed to take a hit by a plane and still stand.

Another good example of a hudge plane (bigger than 747) was when an Iranian Air Force C-130 crashed into an apartment building in Tehran. Guess what? It stood. I could go on and on with examples, so just a couple will convey the point I'm making.

The molten metal was found as soon as the rescue workers got to the basements, which was only a matter of a couple days if I'm not mistaken. And anyway, even if flames were able to burn on metal for weeks at a time, its still not hot enough to melt it into molten steel.

Watch Fox news right now. The next segment is on this very topic.

No, I'm not going to watch Fox News. Why? Because all its interested in is a biased attack. Its not interested in finding the truth.

Even with all the undeniable evidence I have presented to you here, are you still not giving the 9/11 Truth Movement credence?

That's obviously a personal confession.

You're not interested in watching anything, or reading anything, that doesn't fit with your pre-conceived ideas.

Nice...