Wow, that video was unbelievably hard to watch. Thanks for the link, OP.
One might claim that the fuel from the 2nd plane mostly exploded outside the building’s structure, yet that was the first tower to fall. Why would the building with the least fire damage, and that was the least symmetrically damaged, collapse first?
If, once the structure was damaged by the planes, all it took was heat and the weight above to cause the collapses, regardless of wherever the planes might have hit, why wasn’t the first tower to be hit the first to crumble?
The planes hit the two buildings in different places. There, that was easy. Now I have a better question: if for some ridiculous reason you decided that destroying a building with a plane was not good enough and you decided to overcomplicate your plan by using explosives, why would you detonate the second building first?
That part that amazes me, is 911 was a conspiracy. Foreign agents funded by a group of secretive paramilitary puppetmasters assumed the roles of normal citizens while undergoing the training necessary to pull off a coordinated suicide plot aimed right at the heart of the American financial system.
What about that conspiracy isn’t good enough for them?
Instead we get morons suggesting that groups of government men wired a working building full of explosives, so they could fly a jet into it… and because… well the jet you see was a missile… but the people inside… never found the bodies… gravity shows it…
The actual story is more interesting! If you’re gonna make up a bullshit lie about a conspiracy, make it make more compelling than the actual facts! :smack:
The first plane impacted between the 93rd and 99th floors. The second plane impacted the 77th and 85th floors.
There was more mass to cause the second tower to fall sooner.
Your point of the controlled explosions is then contradictory, why wait to detonate the charges out of sequence? If the controlled explosion was true then it makes no sense to detonate the second building first.
That was hard to watch.
Anyway, since we are now in debates, can anyone explain to me the “truther” “argument” that the towers were in fact brought down by controlled demolition? I mean, we know explosives can bring down buildings, that’s what we usually use to demolish buildings. But what are the damn planes for then?
I think it’d be great. Bush and Cheney are scum, it would be wonderful to watch them stand trial for the murder of 3000 people, not to mention all the damage they caused using their sabotage of the WTC as an excuse.
That doesn’t mean I pretend the conspiracy theorists have anything to say worth hearing, though.
A good review of the insane theories and the good science can be found here:
Also, there’s a certain amount of unpredictability in these things. Although damaging the towers was the intention, and destroying the towers was “hoped for” by the bad guys, the actual collisions were essentially giant industrial accidents. Massive amounts of materials and thousands of interactions of combustibles, furniture placement, and other variables made the towers slightly different. Sometimes we’ll never know why any one accident behaved slightly differently than another.
It’s perfectly normal for small differences to add up to big changes when dealing with large-scale events. It’s also fairly easy to understand, if you want to.
That’s what drives me nuts about the Truthers - take, for example, the argument that a plane couldn’t have hit the Pentagon because, sigh, there isn’t a plane-shaped hole. If I were faking it, I’d have made that thing look like Bugs Bunny’s plane ran through it. It would look EXACTLY like you’d expect, if you didn’t know any better, because that’s why I’d be doing it, right? Right.
So, some enterprising government saboteur saw that the buildings were going to collapse, and grabbed the chance to run in, plant some explosives, and run back to the bar wearing a shit eating grin to tell his black-op mates, “This’ll really fuck with their heads”?
Erm… how about because the fires weren’t as damaging in that case because the plane didn’t hit dead centre and most of the fuel went outside the building?
The planes were heading to the towers, even without facilitation from outside the terrorist’s group. Prior to 9/11, it was believed that either tower would withstand the impact of an off-course jet, so if anyone wanted to use the terrorist’s plans to pilot planes into the towers to gain maximum impact, collapsing towers are far more effective than flaming ones.
Don’t be silly; they’d have been planted well in advance. Probably not long after the plans to attack the towers had first been suspected.
No. In fact this description fails to clarify your position. Are you surprised there was a pipe of debris? Are you surprised there was a small chunk still sticking up? You are not clear.
As I pointed out in the other post the ability for someone to place any explosives in a manner where they would have been useful for the collapse will stretch the imagination well beyond credulity.
Demolition charges? Yes. They are very sharp and would be heard above the rumble. The only way one could ‘hide’ such a sound behind the rumble of the collapse (which, BTW, is a sound I doubt anyone has ever heard before and any demolitionist would only be guess about what would be covered) would be to use such small charges that they would have no effect.
Because explosive charges are very, very loud by comparison to the sounds of explosions one would expect in a fire.
You will need to support this with a lot more than supposition if you expect it to get above the ‘laughable’ stage.
This is the part I don’t get. If reliable evidence came out that showed something different than the “official story”, I wouldn’t have any problem changing my position - just like most Dopers, I imagine. All of us ‘deniers’ are just drawing the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence offered. If new evidence is unearthed that can hold up to scrutiny, why wouldn’t we change our minds?
That did not answer my question: if you can bring the towers down with explosives, why the hell do you need to also fly 2 (two!!) planes into them?
There was more than enough fuel remaining to ignite the combustables in the building that did the actual damage. There was even enough fuel for a fireball to go down the elevator shafts. Furthermore the impact of the fuel knocked off much of the fireproofing on the steel.
This doesn’t make a lot of sense., but I will try to reply: The ‘belief’ in the Tower’s immunity to impact was based on much smaller jets hitting by accident, much like what happened to the Empire State Building.
The idea of getting any explosives into the towers - let alone enough to do anything worthwhile, is ludicrous, as I noted previously.
Most of you seem to be using the same arguments from incredulity that you are so fond of accusing “truthers” of using.
Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the towers were brought down by anything other than the jet airliners that actually did hit them and explode and cause raging infernos inside them?
Evidence, please.
No, this claim makes no sense. Perhaps you could come up with a more logical objection?
Well for the cover story obviously, to prevent anyone from investigating the explosives angle.
(not a truther)
But then you’d have people asking how a not-so-damaging fire knocked the building down. There’s no way to make this idiotic theory sound more plausible than the truth. It’s more Wile E. Coyote than New World Order.