Cho Iran nabashad, tan-e-man mabad.

More later . . .

I can say that we are able to talk about this subject more now than before without getting ‘waterboarded.”  Many of the evidences are in the links that I provided (no need to repeat them.)

P.S.: when I lived in the USA, several American associates suggested not to publish my findings for the fear that I will be waterboarded. 

Skulldugery

  I am still curious to read of your evidences even though you have titled your blog as such.I doubt any reasonable evidence is considerable by you unless it applies to your incorrect opinion.Which is why you have none.They have a name for this tactic,it's called skulldugery.It means you won't believe anything until you dig the skull up and hold it in your own hands..

No I didn't see the plane in Penn.I do know a friend from Laurel who's Mother worked in the Pentagon when it was hit.She personally saw a man fried in his chair,cooked instantly like roast beef.

Too many 'evidences' point to Osama Bin Laden's organization committing 9-11.
But the NUMBER ONE is his own admittance and 'gloating' over his responsibility for 9-11 himself.
How did Al Qeada manage to plant undercover pilots in the USA?
IRAQI PASSPORTS..
Saddam ran airplane hijacking training camps in Salaman Pak,IRAQ.
//husseinandterror.com/

Please DO investigate 9/11, and open Iran to international

observers of its elections, and human rights issues. How about a new TV show : "CSI in Iran" to work on the IRI's many "unsolved" murders.

LOF jan,

Couple of things:
1- His speech wasn't on Larry King. He was on the UN podium.
2- I bet he had many speeches ready but he chose to give that particular one that day.
3- He was here in the US several days before the speech. I guess he was already signaled that he wasn't being taken seriously anyway. (The TV shows are not counted in as a substitute for Obama's promise to negotiate with Iran)
4- The impact of his lightly taken speeches has more cumulative results than having significant instantaneous ones.
Which it brings to mind, whether US foreign policy has lost its edge to detect these subtle interactions or it has taken these matters way too lightly.

The fact of the matter is,...

The fact of the matter is, as Thomas Eagar (a professor at MIT) has stated:

"These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

The so-called "9/11 truth movement" simply isn't about determining the truth.  They only seek to find whatever evidence can support a pre-conceived belief, and nothing more.

Midwesty,

Yeah, the root cause for the collapse of those three buildings is rather clear to me as well.

(Although I would add that actual "melting" of columns or floor joists is not likely to have occured.  Rather, the steel that comprised those structural components was "weakened," instead, by the heat of the fires.)

Moreover, here is a study that suggests that the fires alone that took place in those buildings, even without the structural damage that occurred from the plane impacts, could have caused those building to collapse.:

//www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/1216/1/WTCpaper.pdf

Of course, if AN wants to be taken seriously, I would suggest to him that he should be as objective as possible...something which, apparently, he has chosen not to be.

LoveofLiberty,

I'm not a civil or mechanical engineer but in my college days I had a presentation on this subject.

The WTC buildings had a revolutionary design. In order to save space and also to generate more money per square footage they moved the load bearing columns from traditionally interior of the building to the exterior.

The first impact by the plane to the buildings caused two things:

1- It took away a bunch of exterior load bearing columns.

2- The initial impact also blown away the fire retardant material off the horizontal beams.

The fire melted the columns and the floor joins then the floors were stacked one on top of another.

Simple stuff! It doesn't need a whole lot of engineering to figure that one out. So is AN's speech.

AN is meddling with the US internal affair perhaps giving the US the taste of her own medicine!

Javadagha,

Javadagha:  "A steel frame building comes down due to fire, not once or twice but three times at the same place, what are the odds on something like this to happen?"

So, why don't you please explain to the audience, of course using objective evidence, why fire CANNOT be the primary reason why the Twin Towers and building #7 collapsed?

And please, since I am a mechanical engineer by profession with a educational background, also, in civil engineering, do not hold back on presenting ALL of the objective evidence, whether it is calculated or empirically-derived, that supports your...ummm...implied hypothesis.

And thanks, in advance.

Why are people so afraid to investigate 9/11??

Maybe because they are afraid the truth to come out.

A loony political terrorist group, like algada, which live in caves or similar places and have minimum fighting equipments HOW ON EARTH DID THEY MANAGE TO PLANT UNDERCOVER PILOTS IN USA?