US Releasing 9/11 Flight 77 Pentagon Crash Tape 1098
Robotron23 writes "The BBC is reporting that the US government has decided to release the videotape depicting the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon building, nearly five years after the 9/11 attacks. The government had previously withheld the tape due to 'ongoing investigations' into al-Qaeda's Zacarias Moussaoui. A government representative commented that they 'hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories.'"
Video conspiracy debunking work (Score:3, Informative)
http://xkcd.com/911_loose_change_viewer_guide.pdf [xkcd.com]
Remember: if you can't identify the fake conspiracy theories, you'll never learn who's really out to get you.
Response to 911: Loose Change (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Response to 911: Loose Change (Score:4, Informative)
The plot [gwu.edu] has been on the table for over forty years. You're not one of those that believe that our government would never do such a thing, are you?
It certainly does tell something (Score:3, Informative)
Look at the tapes of the plane hitting the second WTC tower and see how similar the explosions are. Just because there is no hole where the engines should be does not mean a plane didn't hit the building. The building is like a fortrace and could withstand most of the impact of the aluminum plane. This explosion looks like a large amount of fuel exploded, not a missile or bomb.
Re:Video conspiracy debunking work (Score:2, Informative)
Mad props for the National Security Archive (Score:5, Informative)
If you haven't read it, and if you are at all prone to dismissing "conspiracy theories" on the basis that our government wouldn't do that kind of thing, you have to read it. If you've ever wondered: Did the CIA really know and approve of the Contras funding their war by selling drugs in the States? Did the U.S. really know that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds at the same time Donald Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand and providing cover stories for him? Read it.
Nothing that I know of that is relevent to the current situation, but it is still a fantastic archive and a great resource for putting to pasture any remaining naivete you may have about the nature of governments.
Re:Where's The Plane? (Score:4, Informative)
Bzzt, wrong. http://images.google.com/images?q=pentagon%20flig
Re:You can't stop the paranoia. (Score:3, Informative)
The Video Is Out (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html [defenselink.mil]
mms:wmworldmii-streamingnetmediadefenseflight77fl7 7-111094135WMV [wmworldmii...1094135wmv]
mms:wmworldmii-streamingnetmediadefenseflight77fl7 7-211094237WMV [wmworldmii...1094237wmv]
Re:You can't stop the paranoia. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You can't stop the paranoia. (Score:3, Informative)
"At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.
About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response".
www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm
However, that being said, whether it was negligence or conspiracy, the thing we need to concentrate on is that WE NEED THAT MONKEY OUT OF THE WHITEHOUSE!!!
Obvious (Score:3, Informative)
If anything, the US Government could have let terrorist plan the 9/11 attack. Why do it or contribute themselves
BTW, I'm not paranoid, but if there was just a SINGLE camera taking care of the Dep. of Defense of the most powerful country in the world and it had a capture rate so slow that it couldn't grab the frame where the the 747 appeared, you'd need at least to fire somebody because it's insane.
Re:Futile task (Score:5, Informative)
What procedures were ignored?
The FEMA report was preliminary. Further investigation, not to mention some [batcave.net] pictures [kolumbus.fi] and some [firehouse.com] interviews [firehouse.com] with firefighters on the scene, indicate that WTC7 also suffered severe structural damage, not just fire.
This is just plain wrong. http://911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html [911myths.com]
Well, if a building couldn't collapse due to fire alone, then what's the point of fireproofing the steel columns?
It didn't. Indian Lake is not 6 miles from the impact site, as some people would like you to believe. Popular Mechanics has some bits about Flight 93 [popularmechanics.com] (continues on next page, too) in their "9/11: Debunking The Myths" article.
Re:knew I'd seen it before... (Score:5, Informative)
The only reason that the outlines of the planes' wings remained on both of the impacted WTC towers was due to the building materials. Short of the box girders, those sites were covered with a thin stainless steel facade. The underlying girders themselves were in fact a ruddy brown color, which would be invisible to the naked eye under fire conditions, adding to the illusion that those planes somehow punched a huge hole through, when at best it was approximately the size of the fuselage as well. Evidence of this is consistent with the debris left at the Pentagon.
Similarly, you have building materials VS. aircraft design in the Pentagon attack. The Pentagon was initially designed to withstand aerial bombardment during WWII, and retrofitted for nuclear attack in the decades to follow. That translates to LOTS of reinforced concrete and stone which, if anyone else here watched impact testing and missile tests against solid concrete bunkers, et al, showed very similar, if not exactly, the same results when compared to the Pentagon attack. The impacts would not only have sheared off the wings, but the general refusal of reinforced concrete to either snap or bend out of the way would have resulted in a misleadingly small impact site.
As for nonexistant skid marks at the Pentagon, it may just be possible that the plane was either in level flight, or on the rebound (as evidenced by light posts that were snapped off at the base, exactly as they're designed to) before impacting.
Additionally, to all the nutters who claimed the WTC was hit by a missile, those so called pods are in fact the rear landing gear bays, the flash they claim to be a launch is more than likely a high voltage discharge from the radome in the aircraft's nose (visible just as the fiberglas dome comes into contact with the outside of the towers). Just bright enough to arc and trigger theories everywhere from people who have no idea how planes are made, sadly enough.
But nowhere enough to give people the real story about 9/11, just more noise to keep people with real credentials from being heard.
Anyway, the long and short: There's a lot more involved in aerospace than most would imagine, and even fewer bother to verify or study, like much junk science or conspiracy theories. If the idea of aircraft "disappearing" in the process of crashing sounds like a conspiracy, then the Valujet crash in the Everglades a decade or so ago must have come from little green men indeed.
Re:Video conspiracy debunking work (Score:4, Informative)
"You must be thinking of the old Pentagon, which was made of balsa wood and marshmallows" (p. 31)
"KARL! Thank God we've got an expert in the house!" (p. 33)
"And they're all accounted for. You can check yourself if you don't believe me." (p. 41)
"They work for the 'Boss'. (Springsteen?)" (p. 42)
This sloppy scarcastic language is found throughout the guide. Why should I take it seriously?
Re:Incredibility (Score:5, Informative)
That's why he didn't say it. You introduced the word "never", and yes, your straw man is nonsense.
He was referring to the claims that Iraq had WMD circa 2001-2003, which were used as justification for the illegal [guardian.co.uk] 2003 invasion of Iraq. Those claims were lies.
Yes, we know Iraq had WMD in the past. Of course we know that, we sold them the WMD. But Iraq had used or destroyed all its WMD prior to the illegal invasion.
Oh, do pay attention. He was saying that the claim that oil prices would be controlled was false. The current high prices are demonstration that he's right.
And as for bringing up Bill Clinton: Did anybody claim that the problems started in 2000? No, I don't think so, so once again you're erecting a straw man.
In fact, if you look at the people who complain about the lies used to justify the invasion of Iraq, you'll find that almost all of them were also deeply critical of the Clinton era sanctions that resulted in the lingering death of tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and their children.
PDF not worth (Score:2, Informative)
i won't say i read it all because it is a 285 page document.
Sounds like there whole documetary doesn't have one single valid proof. everytring is false. and everything the author says seems to be the thuth and he even has a comment for every single footage or line in the movie!!!!
Many of his comments are of the kind of (look for the ***):
177
00:16:06,200 --> 00:16:10,700
If Flight 77 had crash landed and skidded into the Pentagon, it would have looked like this.
*** "Crash landed and skidded?" Haven't you heard that pot makes you dumb and paranoid?
127
00:10:55,500 --> 00:10:57,800 " And yeah, I just look around looking for "
128
00:10:57,900 --> 00:11:02,000
" who had the motive, who had the opportunity, who had the equipment, "
129
00:11:02,100 --> 00:11:04,500
" who had the will... "
**** Islamic Jihadists, that's who.
look for #822 to see more (it is too much text to paste here)
please. don't waste your time.
Re:Satellite? (Score:3, Informative)
Typical orbits for KH-12's are 202 x 689 km, inclination near 90 degrees (meaning twice a day coverage of most areas).
Re:let's be honest (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You can't stop the paranoia. (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, a "rookie pilot" with dozens of hours in a simulator, could ease the plane towards the ground and actually find it like "dropping into a pillow" as he got close to ground level and being able to run the plane straight into the Pentagon.
On the other hand, landing a plane involves a ballet of speed, flaps, landing gear, drag, nose angle, angle of attack and half a dozen other variables. Doing everything perfectly in a landing is the *hardest* part of flying.
Ask a pilot about ground effect, and they'll tell you all about it.
Re:let's be honest (Score:3, Informative)
Pictures:
http://wtc7.batcave.net/_webimages/WTC-7_sw_corne
http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg [kolumbus.fi]
Firefighter interviews:
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/g
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/g
The Origins Of al-Qaeda (Score:5, Informative)
That is completely untrue.
Al-Qaeda is Arabic for "the Base" or "the Foundation" - but it's actually a shortened form of the Arabic term "qaedat bayanat" - or database. Al-Qaeda started in the mid 1990s based on Osama bin Laden's personal database of Arab mujihadeen who had fought with him in Afghanistan against the Soviets. His number 2 man, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri was recruited in order to merge al-Qaeda with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.
As a side note, the CIA did not fund bin Laden, although they knew of him and knew that some fighters they did fund were also working with him. The CIA's main group in Afghanistan throughout the 1990s was led by a man named Ahmad Shah Masood. Masood was assassinated by bin Laden on September 9, 2001 as a symbol of al-Qaeda's commitment to protecting the Taliban. The group that Masood founded was the Northern Alliance - the same fighters who fought with the CIA in 2001 against the Taliban.
Al-Qaeda has existed as a terrorist organization since at least 1998, and probably earlier. It was 1998 when al-Qaeda launched the attacks against the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and bin Laden declared his fatwa against the presence of American troops on the Arabian peninsula.
So, no, you are not correct. Al-Qaeda has root well before 9/11, and to insinuate that it was invented afterwards is simply not correct.
Re:Bin Laden and the CIA (Score:5, Informative)
The short answer is we didn't.
Bin Laden wasn't funded by the CIA. He wouldn't have taken American money anyway, and didn't need it besides. We did fund some groups that were associated with his Arab mujihadeen, but not his group directly.
The person you're thinking of was Ahmad Shah Masood [wikipedia.org], who was one of the more successful Afghan fighters during the war. Masood was an enemy of the Taliban, and was assassinated by al-Qaeda shortly before 9/11 to help reassure the Taliban that al-Qaeda would protect them from American reprisals. (Bloody lot of good that did!)
Ahmad Shah Masood was the founder of the anti-Taliban resistance called The Northern Alliance - and that's one of the reasons that the CIA had such good luck in Afghanistan - we were working with the same fighters we had a decade before in fighting the Russians.
Re:The Origins Of al-Qaeda (Score:5, Informative)
The BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares", expounds on this theory. You may have seen it already, but I might as well recommend it for other slashdotters:
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmar
Re:The Origins Of al-Qaeda (Score:3, Informative)
Except that is also not quite accurate. Al-Qaeda basically operated like a "franchise" - operatives were trained in Afghanistan, but then scattered across the globe. It didn't become nearly as decentralized until after September 11, 2001 when such centralization became too dangerous. For instance, the 9/11 plot was planned in Kuala Lumpur, and executed by a cell originating in Hamburg, Germany that later moved to Florida.
There may be three different McDonald's in a town, owned and operated by different people, but they were still McDonald's. Al-Qaeda's real genius was in taking that kind of model and applying it to terrorism.
Re:You can't stop the paranoia. (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with most of your post, but let me state once and for all: the fire did not have to melt steel. It only had to weaken it. Steel gradually loses its tensile strength with temperature. It is a known fact and a pretty well researched one, since it is very important in warehouses containing flammable materials—they can easily collapse during a fire. As you could guess, the steel of an extreme building as the WTC is strained to the limit. Since the second tower to be hit was hit at a lower level (more strain because of the weight), it collapsed first (Ok, sorta simplistic).
Re:It certainly does tell something (Score:3, Informative)
It has certain antifungal and other additives in small concentrations, and the solid crap has been filtered out of it, but other than that it's your grandfather's coal oil.
rj
Re:A fallacy of your own (Score:2, Informative)
"[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq."
Condoleeza Rice, July 2001:
"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
The Downing Street Memo, July 2002:
There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
George W. Bush Speech to UN General Assembly September 12, 2002:
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
Ari Fleischer Press Briefing January 9, 2003:
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
George W. Bush Address to the Nation March 17, 2003:
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview March 30, 2003:
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview May 28, 2003:
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
There are more.. blatenly taken from this site.. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WMDlies.html [whatreallyhappened.com]
Re:The official story is a conspiracy theory. (Score:1, Informative)
Well, don't call it conspiracy theory then if that trips you up. Ask the simple question: How did the Towers collapse? Do the research. In the links below, Jones points out that in science, one starts from the facts, from the evidence, then you build your theory. But the main stream media has fed you the theory "19 crazy arab hijackers + jet fuel" (the conclusion we are to draw), from which you build your facts. Any facts that don't fit in, are thrown away. That's bad science. No wonder people are confused. One simple example: take the 911 Report. Didn't even cover the collapse of WTC 7. Why? Because it doesn't make sense, doesn't fit in with their "theory".
The chain of events leading up to them is always clear in retrospect, but another flaw in conspiracy theory is that it attributes such masterful vision and control to the conspiracists leading into the event, and then presumes such incompetence in handling and covering it up. In reality, no one has such complete control nor such prescience.
What incompetence? If "conspiracy" theorists are still relegated to the back pages, if at all, and dismissed as theorists, well they did a very good job. One flaw in the "19 Arab taking out the towers" theory is the military precision required for an effort like this. Moussawi? C'mon.
If you follow the "theory" as trotted out by the Main Stream Media, there was incredible *incompetence* that allowed this to happen. The incompetence of our CIA, such that every other spy agency in the world was warning American officials, yet they were ignored. The incompetence that low-level underlings at the FBI tried to report [newsday.com] to their superiors that foreigners trying to learn how to fly, but were stonewalled in their request to investigate - not once, but 70 times! Criminal negligence, or just following orders?
Condi, or maybe Bush said, "Who could've imagined this would happen?". Well, just the military [scholarsfor911truth.org], because that is apparently the reason NORAD was mysteriously shut down, and no jets were scrambled, because the flight control folks were told this was a "training exercise" - involving hijacked jets hitting the towers. So they just happened to be training for an attack that no one could've imagined.
One of the best sources for technical details is the WTC 7 Research [wtc7.net] site, which is apparently down. Odd. This one [wtc7.net] is similar, not sure if it's just down or >>> the descent [wikipedia.org] is beginning!
Re:Bin Laden and the CIA (Score:3, Informative)
The long anwswer is, yes we did.
Bin Laden wasn't funded by the CIA. He wouldn't have taken American money anyway, and didn't need it besides. We did fund some groups that were associated with his Arab mujihadeen, but not his group directly.
Source, please? You're incorrect; Bin Laden was funded by the CIA. [msnbc.com] Even the Identifying Misinformation [state.gov] page, so helpfully and ironically supplied by the government, admits that:
I love how he tells us that the CIA was engaged in a coverup and then expects us to believe everything that comes after that. The CIA was aiming for that deniability for a reason. There wouldn't've been anything to deny unless they were also directly funding the Afghan Arabs, along with funneling funds through ISI. The CIA is the one with the cash after all. You think just because Bin Laden's daddy was rich that he didn't need money? War is expensive, and rich people need money more than the rest of us because they're used to buying their way through life.
Even the Wikipedia article on OBL [wikipedia.org] mentions the CIA connection. It's a widely known [time.com] fact, but not one that you're supposed to bring up in public because, just like NSA spying, we don't officially acknowledge that it happened, even though everyone knows it has. That's government for you.
Re:The official story is a conspiracy theory. (Score:3, Informative)
* Rumsfled making a lapsus about "these terrorists who pilot a plane into the WTC and a missile into this very building" while at the Pentagon
* half of the presumed "hijackers" still alive in Saudi Arabia or Qatar
Re:damn you, Scuttlemonkey!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bin Laden and the CIA (Score:3, Informative)
*Cough*. Please get our sources straight. The BBC [bbc.co.uk] thinks you're wrong, too.
Re:damn you, Scuttlemonkey!!!! (Score:1, Informative)
Your post is the one containing lies, deception, manipulation and general nonsense and unfounded claims, hkmwbz.
Let's go over them one at a time, shall we?
No steel/concrete skyscraper has ever had huge planes smash into them.
Ignoring for just a moment that that statement is patently untrue [about.com], the fact is that the WTC towers were specifically designed to be able to withstand a strike from an airliner. The airliner cited is a 707, the largest airliner of the day, and only slightly smaller than the 757s that did strike. At any rate, the towers did in fact weather the strike just fine, only swaying back and forth a few feet.
Straw man. The steel didn't melt. It was hot enough to significantly weaken it (ask a blacksmith), but not to melt it.
Wrong. The steel in question was rated ASTM E119 [rense.com]. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F (1100C) for several hours. There is simply no way that a kerosene fire could raise the temperature of the steel that high. And yet, WTC1 collapsed in only 102 minutes, while WTC 2 collapsed in only 56 minutes.
No steel/concrete building has had the top part partly separated from the rest of the building, only to give in and fall down on the floors below.
Wrong again. During the Madrid skyscraper fire [whatreallyhappened.com] (which burned far hotter and far longer than the either WTC tower), the steel warped enough to send the top ten floors crashing down upon the rest of the structure. However, the building did not collapse, and even managed to continue supporting a massive construction crane on the roof.
Yes. It was severely damaged by falling debris from the other buildings.
Wrong a third time. Check this map [wirednewyork.com] to see the relative placement of the buildings. Building 7 was never hit with more than incidental debris, yet, it collapsed sudddenly and completely into its own footprint, precisely like the twin towers. Perhaps you're thinking of WTC 6, which stood right next to the north tower, and was severely damaged by falling debris (two gigantic holes punched down enitrely through the structure). Problem is...despite this horrrendous damage, WTC 6 continued to stand until it was demolished during the cleanup.
If you are implying that "explosions" == "bombs", then you are, frankly, a fucking moron. Many things can cause explosions.
I call bullshit. List your candidates.
If you think that "looks like" == "actually is", then you are, frankly, a fucking moron.
Perhaps you'd like to give your explanation of what the firefighters witnessed, then.
When a building collapses, there is lots of air which suddenly finds itself in a lot less space, so it finds its ways out, resulting in what people observed - puffs of smoke, or puffs of dust, debris, etc.
First of all, you're talking about a different point than the parent. Since both points are important, I'll address them both (yours first).
I assume you're referring to the jets of gas and dust that were observed appearing at regular locations down the side of the building during the collapse. Here's where your explanation falls flat:
Re:damn you, Scuttlemonkey!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, WT7 DID NOT have a plane crash into it, and yet still fell (symetrically and into its own footprint), next:
the empire state building had a plane crash into it: At 9:49 a.m. on Saturday July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber accidentally crashed into the north side between the 79th and 80th floors, where the offices of the National Catholic Welfare Council were located. The fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. 14 people were killed in the accident[3].(wikipedia)
Regardless of this, the building was designed to withstand impacts by aircraft of this size, so it shouldn't (and indeed thats not the official explanation) have been the impact that caused the problem. if you think it was the fire, then compare this picture of the WTC fire towers [wtc7.net] where you can see a small area on one tower and a larger but still relatively small section on the other smoking (black indicating low oxygen therefore cooler fires) with a few visible flames, with this [concretecentre.com] and this [photobucket.com]image of the windsor building in madrid, that was totally engulfed in flames from about halfway up the building to the top, and burned for 10 hours, yet didn't collapse, with only parts not including the inner support section collapsing after burning for hours, as you might expect. Note that the tower, while smaller, had a similar construction to the wtc, being a central support column and perimeter supports, and that the tower was "built using normal strength concrete and before modern fire proofing standards, without any sprinkler system. It was undergoing a complete refurbishment, including the installation of various active fire prevention and resistance measures, when the fire began at around 11pm on 14 February 2005." (see here and here [infowars.com] for more pictures and (you may say biased) info and here for a case study [concretecentre.com] of the construction and result of the huge fire. Many other buildings have burned for similar or longer, and not collapsed. If you still think it's reasonable to accept three world first events on the same day at face value, in your words "then you are, frankly, a fucking moron.""(in a less offensive way, if it was conspiracy theorists saying that al queda did it with planes, and the government saying that they demolished it to make room for new towers or something, then would you still think it was rediculous?)
also if you think it was "not an ordinary fire" and that the addition of the jet fuel caused the extra heat that differentiated them from every other fire in history, then, from the debunking 911 myths on popular mechanics:
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsiblefor the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." [popularmechanics.com]
therefore apart from a hot start and some mild damage to the outer structure (which was not intended for holding up the bulk of the weight of the building but rather to resist torsional forces from wind etc, and therfore if that had failed would be much more likely to have caused an assymetrical toppling, rather than a symetrical fall), it was no different to any other fire in the history of steel/concrete buildings. So I ask again, why did three buildings fall on the same day from fire, and never before or since in history?
straw man. The steel didn't melt. It was hot enough to significantly weaken it (ask a blacksmith), but not to melt it.
"Peter Tully, presid
Re:The official story is a conspiracy theory. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t1118
I cannot find a
Re:damn you, Scuttlemonkey!!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Look, the crap you are spewing out has been answered a million times.
Odd, then, that you failed to sufficiently answer them in your response. All we get from you is more distortions and evasions.
Repeating lies won't make them true.
Then why do you persist?
This is really a waste of time, except that you may convince some gullible idiot that you are telling the truth.
Exactly why I'm taking the time to debunk your nonsense now.
As you point out, they were built to withstand smaller planes.
The 707 and 757 are virtually identical in weight, and actually have the same fuselage diameter.
Meanwhile, the WTCs were overdesigned by 600%
Still want to argue that the 757 is sufficiently different from the 707 to invalidate my point?
And then the top part fell down on the floors below because of the plane, and the building went to the ground.
Setting aside for just a moment that you're presenting the conclusion of your argument as if it was a defense, if the collapse had occured as you suggest, then there would have been a necessary slowdown as the 'top part' impacted the rest of the building, overcame the resistance of the steel structure, and caused the collapse. Video evidence contradicts this, however, instead showing the towers collapsing at free-fall speeds. No stutters or pauses of any type, just a smooth acceleration all the way down.
Again, it doesn't have to melt. It weakens at significantly lower temperatures.
Again, the temperatures of the kerosene fires were far too low to cause the weakening you speak of. Again, the steel in question is ASTM E119 certified. Apparently, you didn't check the link [rense.com] I provided, in which Kevin R. Ryan,
Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories, South Bend, Indiana (A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.), states: