I agree with SOME of the deleted parts, so I just kindof left those out. For instance, one of the things I dislike about our current gov'mnt is how Obama was done a 180 on his transparency stuff, one good example being the White House visitor lists.
As for 9/11
i honestly belive that elements of the government blew it up with nasa grade nano thermite designed to break away rockets on the spaceships. there is a phisicist named steven jones who was canned for his views on 911. he has samples of these nanothermites that were not "cooked" yet. orange on one side black on the other. more info on his studys on that can be found here
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
inside the towers were something like 47 steel columns 4 feet thick. that's just for the core that melted from jet fuel. so here is my problem with that story. you cant melt steel with jet fuel.. it can only be done in a blast furnace. you can cut it.. but cutting and melting are 2 entirely different stories. all 3 towers that fell on 9/11 fell in free fall speed. ( if you didn't know there were 3 that fell.... look it up) *WTC7 was not hit by a plane yet it fell strait down and turned into dust. when have we ever seen buildings turn into dust? well watch a controlled demolition.. looks like 9/11 buildings dont just fall like that. I have over 8000 pix of 911 in a lot of the photos you can see that steel was cut with some kind of explosive. will post pix for those who /r/ them.
I weld for a living.. so im always around architects and engineers. i have shown them pictrues and films. when i ask them what they think about 9/11. most of them say there is no way jet fuel could have done it, and say inside job. not everyone works around metal and steel.. but those who do see the obvious.
is it just me or does anyone else see that 100+ story buildings turning into dust while falling at free fall speed isn't right.. didn't they "collapse".. dust isn't enough to drop a building like that. Also what about the liquid steel flowing like a river moments before it his the ground in 9 seconds. we are talking about fire rated structural steel. i have never even been able to melt a nail.. just an average nail.. with just fire. even gasoline fires.
steel doesn't just melt. if you believe it does your batsh*t crazy and don't ever use your BBQ cuz it will melt and that's just metal. not steel
the government still wont show us the footage of a plane hitting the pentagon. they will show 6 stills from a security cam that has no plane. but that's national security so i understand.
do we really believe that desert dwellers from Afghanistan did it.. with no assistance from the US. its a bit hard for me to believe that. what about the "airlift of evil" somebody please explain that to me.. no wait.. that's just a conspiracy. the government would never fly members of the bin laden family out of the US days after 911. im sorry but there are way too many unanswered questions for me to just simply dismiss "conspiracy's".
Just for my background, I have a degree that may as well be titled "how metal breaks". Literally entire semesters of classes on the physical properties, mostly the structural/mechanical/failure properties, of metals. Literally weeks of study of steel alone: atomic structure, microstructure, and their effects on macro properties of metal parts. No doubt, steel is both complicated and extremely important, so it is looked at heavily in materials science classes.
Now, that said, you're right, burning fuel wouldn't melt steel. But here's the kicker: YOU DON'T NEED TO MELT IT. Steel can easily lose a massive amount of it's strength without ever getting near its melting temperature. Look at a phase diagram for steel (attaching one, for your convenience). Steel's melting temperature is generally given as the top line, which is really high. But look lower in temperature, there are other phase transformations there! The steel can change it's atomic structure to a different structure without ever melting! And the new structure is VERY likely to not be as strong as the original alloy.
On top of atomic structure changing in a phase transformation, steel also has a very complicated microstructure that can be very easily changed at even lower temperatures than the atomic structures changes you see in the phase diagram. I would post a TTT diagram for a generic steel, but I doubt you would understand how to read it anyway. Suffice to say: Atomic structure changes at lower temperatures than melting temperature, and microstructure changes at even lower temperatures than that, and both atomic and microstructural changes weaken can easily weaken steel significantly.
And even if you don't change the microstructure OR the atomic structure of the steel, higher temperature changes the behavior of the steel. As steel deforms, it hardens and strengthens. The more you bend it, the harder it gets to bend it further (this matches most all metals, try it with a paperclip). But at high temperatures, that effect is lessened. It can easily be just as easy to bend the steel the second inch as it was to bend it the first inch, even if you haven't hit a phase transformation at higher temperature. This is the difference between hot-working and cold-working. And to hot-work a metal instead of cold-working it, you may only need to be at half of the melting temperature, or maybe not even that high.
So the moral of that story is that you DON'T need to melt steel to bring a building down, you just need to WEAKEN it, which is easy to do without ever getting anywhere near melting temperature.
Molten steel was running out of the building you say? How do you know it was steel? Why couldn't it have been molten aluminum running out of the building? Or molten any-other-metal-that-could-have-been-in-the-building?
On the topic of the buildings themselves, none of them fell straight down. There are no good viewing angles, but none of them fell perfectly into their own footprints, and ESPECIALLY not WTC7. It did fall over sideways, but you can't see it because of the perspective. And why did it fall when no plane hit it? Because a BUILDING FELL ON IT, and it burned for pretty much the entire day. Look at photos of other buildings around the site, there were giant gashes in a lot of them. There was also a giant gash in the back of WTC7 that wasn't visible from the available video angles.
The "free fall speed" thing is one that I just don't get...it fell, yeah, but you can't see the building for all the smoke and dust around it, so how the heck do you know how fast it fell? That one is just kind of silly to me. And even if it did fall fast, that makes sense too. That is a GIANT dynamic load, none of the steel in the building was ever designed to stand up to anything even on the same order of magnitude. Once it was falling, it was falling FAST, because such a load would require full orders or magnitude more strength in the building to even begin to slow it down.