Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
The problem is with 9/11 is that it was a huge event in multiple states, witnessed first hand by tens of thousands, millions on live TV, and everyone else since. It's been over analyzed.
It's simple. If you have a three car accident witnessed by ten people, you'll get five different stories about what happened because they all saw it from different angles.
|
The multiple misperceptions (such as the case of the Pentagon) aren't the issue.
Me and you can look at three similar symmetrical building "collapses" and come away with different conclusions somehow (you think the coincidence is possible, I don't) but you can't in a nut dismiss all the other "coinkydinks" of that day and those events, collectively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
You can take one aspect of 9/11 and try to poke holes in it. "Steel doesn't melt at 600 degrees". But there's some problems with that. We've never build a 100 story building and rammed a huge jet plane full of jet fuel into it. Is the temperature that steel melts at even relevant? The steel got rammed by a fucking huge air plane, didn't need to melt but just bend a little, and failed to support the floors above it.
|
The temperature at which steel melts is a constant, as is the temperature at which steel begins to soften; as is the construction of the buildings taking into account these factors to allow distribution of the building load in the event of steel "softening" in the event of a catastrophic fire.
Multiple airliner impacts were taken into consideration, using older airframes which were heavier due to the fact that they were more steel based versus modern planes which had a lot more aluminum used in their build.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Buildings don't fall straight down when they collapse? Does that mean they tip over? I mean, when one floor falls on another floor, it's not going to tip over, it's going to collapse.
|
Yes, they should tip. Pancaking was ruled out of the equation very early - NIST was challenged on their science and changed their "theory".
And heat dispersion being what it is, several impacted and burning floors could not have heated and softened every truss, every beam, every support column and joint simultaneously so that spontaneously they surrendered to gravity.
Gravity would also not explain how 20 ton pieces flew 300 to 600 feet away from the event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
The little puffs that look like smoke from bombs? This was a pressurized building with hundreds of pressurized lines - everything from air to steam to oil to hydraulic fluid to window washing fluid was carried to the top of the building in pressurized lines. It might have been those lines. Or maybe it was just the fact it was a pressurized building - meaning, the only way air could escape was through the bottom (not likely) or through the hole the airplane punched... But when the floors fell, that air had to go someplace. If you've never been to the WTC when it was standing or a similar building that is pressurized, you understand this.
|
The pressurization argument is a fallacy because any hermetic condition in the building was compromized by the impact.
Besides if you look at the videos you see the building corners blasting out - not windows, not squibs, but structural supports blowing out in clouds of destructive energy - I doubt the fax machines or overheated water coolers did this.
[QUOTE=Rochard;18413708]I also love the argument that "1000 scientists say it can't happen" a certain. Well, I have a degree in electrical engineering but that doesn't really qualify me to wire up a light switch. You have a huge degree but if you believe so firmly that the government did this, that's what your gonna say.[/quote[
I don't know about the qualifications of those scientists, but a lot of them are structural engineers, physicists, architects, etc... and their petitiion is signed by more than 15,000 people, they're not the only ones involved - and they don't make any claims other than their evidence points to, and only demand an actual investigation, rather than the 9/11 commission whitewash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
And finally is the lack of a smoking gun. If it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the people on it? Did they just take them out back and shoot them? How much explosives would have been required to take down those buildings, and how did they get planted without anyone seeing?
|
I don't think or talk about the Pentagon. What's unique is that the FBI have all the videos concerning this. I don't point or signify anything about that particular event.
Apparently, the amount of "explosives" if you take the evidence of nano-thermite already pointed to, isn't as tremendous as with a traditional demolition, if that's what they were. And there were reportedly enough blank spots in recent WTC history pre-destruction for strategic destructive agents to be implanted.
I dunno but seems the questions outnumber the "answers" when it comes to this... and that a real investigation is required, with what evidence we have remaining...
:D