Amanda Angelika wrote:

In news:1150455323.878774.201210@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
ianparker2@gmail.com <ianparker2@gmail.com> typed:

Yes and no. I think it is clear that aircraft brought down the twin
towers. However.

Aeroplanes are generally made of aluminium which melts at a fairly low
temperature. Yet usually manage to fly without melting using jet engines
that run on the very same aviation fuel that was supposedly able to melt and
entirely disintegrate columns made of 16" thick high tensile steel, and not
simply at the point of impact but the whole height of the towers.

Strawman. No one is asserting any steel beams were "melted". Steel doesn't need to melt to lose its strength and fail.

Any alleged molten metal was probably a slag consisting of aluminium, lead and other metals that have a low melting point.

News
videos shot at the time show the buildings fell at around 9.4 seconds which
is more or less free fall.

Bullshit. Stills from the collapse quite obviously show ejecta falling faster than the structure itself. How does it do that?

For example:

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

If everything is in freefall ejecta shouldn't be leaving a nice little arc when it bursts out and then begins to accelerate downwards at a rate faster than the building.

Even if you accept that the additional weight of
collapsing floors might stress a steel support so that it can snap, this
shaping would have slowed the rate of collapse. Amazingly there also seems
to be little visual evidence in footage of the wreckage that these steel
supports existed at all.

It did slow the rate of collapse.

I used to very sceptical about the conspiracy theories relating to 9/11 but
when you look at the evidence it doesn't look like planes and aviation fuel
would have been capable of collapsing the WTCs.

Actually, it is more than capable. It happened twice.

The only thing I can think of that might have been capable of disintegrating
solid high tensile fire resistant steel that the WTCs were constructed of
would have been anti-matter devices. IMO it's the only explanation that
makes any sense.

Steel wasn't disintegrated. That's a strawman. It heated, sagged, warped, bent, rivets popped and down it came. Once one floor went, the rest followed.

As for antimatter devices - utterly ludicrous.

Of course there is one way to find out there should be records of a Gamma
Ray burst concurrent with the events of 911. and people who were in the
vicinity should have experienced radiation sickness of one sort or another.
There is some evidence to suggest there were high levels of Gamma radiation
concurrent with the collapse of the WTCs a conventional fire would not have
caused that.

What evidence?

If true this was probably the worst crime a government has perpetrated
against it's own people since Hitler and the Nazis, yet the culprits are
still running the US. I think the events of 9/11 were so extraordinary, and
the implications so far reaching on a global scale that there should not
simply be a public investigation but a full investigation under the auspices
of the United Nations.

The problem here is you conclude it is the "worst crime a government has perpetrated" but even your fundamental assertion that steel was melted is entirely wrong.

If the government were stupid enough to hatch a plot to inflict trillions of dollars of economic damage to themselves, there are far easier ways which don't require the absurd Rube Goldberg contrivances demanded by conspiracists to weasel around the more obvious explanation.