Durruck
Pirate!
Much more damage? The Pentagon is actually a series of buildings, one around the outside of each of the next. The plane that hit the building penetrated 3 of the reinforced structures. How is that not significant damage?
No, I addressed this. I don't know the specific laws and regulatory statutes around it, but the government has no legal right to release the videotape evidence to the general public. The gas station still techincally owns the tape, and everything on it. The tape was kept as evidence for the trials, investigations, etc. I don't know who currently owns that tape.
Yes, but those fire did not involve hundreds of gallons of jet fuel. Apples and Oranges. Class A Combustibles do not generate the same exothermic reaction on rapid oxydation as Jet Fuel. There's a reason that we don't use wadded up paper or even gasoline to make jets fly.
Two different things here. Typical construction (like houses, small office buildings, etc) are built so that the exterior wall makes up a sigificant portion of the load-bearing structure. Meaning, if you knock out a wall, the building will fall down towards the damaged side
However, the WTC Towers were built so that the strongest part of the structure were the elevator and service shafts in the core of the building. Then, the rest of the structure (office space on each floor) was built hanging off the side of that (imagine a series of giant teeter-totters perfectly balance in the middle.) Talon was right, there is a small amount of structural support that comes from the glass, but not much. When the buildings start to fall, they *should* collapse into the service shafts.... from the center outward. Then, the weight becomes too great for the glass panels to hold, and the building appears to dissolve. One of the towers didn't fall in this manner because the damage occurred lower...and the area above the damage broke free and pushed the rest of the structure down. (the top teeter-totter fell on one side, causing the rest of them to drop due to changes in the balance)
You abridged a quote to misrepresent what I said. That's not very nice at all. I'm not saying that it was impossible that bombs were used. I said I don't believe it because I've been given no proof that really supports that claim in a way that explains the events of the collapses *better* than what I've been taught in my classes. Granted I never learned the specifics of what would happen if an airplane hit a building with 200 times the kinetic force that it was designed to take, but it shouldn't be hard to figure out from there. (I can get specific data (including energy potentials) regarding the kinetic forces, if you'd like).
I also said that anyone that quotes a person that works in the water division of U.L. on his guesses to engineering practices (when he has no education in engineering) is just not bringing factual information to the table. There have been numerous investigations by engineers, architects... in short: professionals in the field that actually applies. The phrase "it sounded like a bomb went off" in no way gives any evidence at all that there was a bomb. That just means that there was a loud noise, possibly caused by an explosion. Interviewing 500 people at the towers that morning that all say "it sounded like a bomb went off" means nothing to me.
Did you not read my last post at all? I provided references to annotated investigations by professionals that said that the initial report that WTC7 collapsed due to fire was innaccurate.
Further, "no enforced steel building" (that was also hit by an jumbojet) "in history has ever fallen becaue of a fire" because there has never been a structure such as WTC1 and WTC2 struck by planes at 500+ mph. Are the people that are coming up with these theories forgetting that we watched on LIVE TELEVISION oas the 2nd plane hit the towers? That there was video evidence released to the public within weeks that showed the first plane moments before it hit the first tower?
I know that Hollywood can craft some incredible scenes that are hard to differentiate between fiction and reality, but seriously, do you think that every liberal news outlet that was broadcasting LIVE that day was feeding you what the conservatives wanted to show you so that they could justify a war? I'd sooner believe in aliens than a conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people without anyone having a single shred of proof. An email. A shreaded letter. A taped phonecall. A transcript of an instant messenger chatlog. Anything!
But so far, I've read *nothing* on the conspiracy theorist websites that gives me anything to go on. Every witness is questionable, at best. Videos showing the collapse of the towers in 10.0 seconds show angles of the towers falling that were obscured by smoke (even tho every news agency in the world had pictures from the windward side of the stuctures) The "evidence" they tote is mostly hearsay and information that was later found to be incorrect following further investigations.
I have a feeling that this thread will soon be locked. If so, please feel free to continue this discussion with me via PM. I like debate, when it's presented with actual, verifiable facts from people who would actually know what they're talking about.
