Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Bennett
Interesting ... but how come these modern "more aluminum, less steel" airliners were able to penetrate the heavy exterior, structural steel skeleton of the towers? Based on your logic that shouldn't be possible?... Right?
|
Actually my "logic" would tend to support the new theory's implication that a somehow unified dissemination of equally molten aluminum coming into contact with water in a "natural" uncontrolled environment caused the explosions (which government statements denied occurring) in an even, steady progression downward as well as somehow upwards, into the levels above the crash points. An unlikely theory.
I've always wondered at the smooth-as-butter penetration of all parts of the airplanes into the buildings. Is it accountable by their velocity and mass? Is there something to the construction of the external supports that should have been investigated? But then, all the evidence was removed before there could be an investigation, and it seems to be a completely ignored point.
The engines were the only parts of the aircraft that could have seriously damaged or cut through the inner structural supports, though the remaining steel of the planes should have done some damage - what I'm saying is when they built the WTC, they took into account planes which were heavier than those that exist today and claimed that the buildings could withstand more than one impact each. Logically, single impacts from modern airframes should not have taken them down completely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Bennett
You say in a previous reply "I'm not repeating anything without having first confirmed it for myself. I have researched this, as well as simply using common sense looking at the videos..."
How did you confirm the steel didn't melt? You took some samples of the steel, right? Or no?
|
Of course not, the NIST report confirmed the steel didn't melt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Bennett
How did you confirm there were planted explosives? You interviewed people who were there? ...and did chemical and other physical analysis of the debris, right? Or no?
|
Of course not. Subsequent analyses of debris by independent bodies confirmed the presence of explosive substances, explosive residues and incendiary effects on debris recovered before the majority was removied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Bennett
How did you confirm WTC7 wasn't badly damaged due to the falling debris?
|
Because the NIST report says the building wasn't badly damaged due to falling debris, as do witnesses and visual records.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Bennett
How you know for sure that WTC7 was intentionally brought down? Surely, not from the videos, because in all of them (at least all I've seen) WTC7's collapse is somewhat obscured. Do you have hi-res, unobstructed, clear video of WTC7 collapsing? Or no?
|
There are at least a couple videos taken from higher above street level that show the building coming down straight. There's also the aerial photo evidence of the pile cleanly having avoided any surrounding structures, which would be expected in an asymmetrical , "natural" gravity-collapse.
There's the length of time it took to come down. There's the fact that somehow all three buildings fit much of their mass into their (multiple) basements, leaving relatively low rubble piles considering these shouldn't have been removed/blown out of the way by a top-down gravity collapse.
There are many other occurrences and details that can't be explained by the government theory. One of the most telling "details" to me though is, to paraphrase Norman Mineta's (suppressed) 9/11 Commission testimony, that if something happens one time, it's an accident; twice, and it's a pattern, but three times means it's a program.
Three buildings collapse in a historically unprecedented, similar and smooth manner in an average ten seconds time frame each all on the same day. Coincidence and happenstance??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Bennett
On an aside, are you familiar with Occam's Razor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
... just the sight of airliners crashing into them would be enough justification for the Iraq war, the PATRIOT Act, creation of Homeland Security, etc.
In summery, often the truth is the middle - did the U.S. government allow the attacks to happen, very possibly ... but were towers 1, 2, and 7 intentionally demolished, most likely not. Again, Occam's Razor comes to mind.
Ron |
Occam's (Ockam's?) razor becomes more of a litmus test here. The government theory can be accepted if you refuse to acknowledge or consider any of the dozens or more questions it raises, and finally resign yourself to the uncritical "failure of imagination" theory. But there's just too many dots not connected for Occam's to slice any other way than that this was an engineered event, in my opinion.