Now, I’ll agree that it’s stupid to just blindly follow what one is told and expect to always hear the truth, but none of these conspiracy theories make even an ounce of sense.
And while you might have heard firefighters who said the buildings couldn’t be brought down by the fires (Which seems absurd. No fire, much less a high-temperature jet-fueled fire, could bring down the towers? Right…), there are also plenty of firefighters (And architechts, structual annalysts, and more) who say they could. Common sense, for that matter, says they could.
vanilla, assuming that post isn’t parody, perhaps you could offer some kind of alternative explanations or ideas instead of criticizing everybody else for agreeing on what seems to be obviously true?
Why does it matter if firefighters have said the towers couldn’t have been knocked down by the fire? They weren’t anywhere near the damn fire. Comments from engineers and such would seem to carry more weight, and the current explanation seems eminently plausible to me, anyway.
Explosives that were perfectly timed so that when the planes hit (At an extremely precice location and angle) it looked convincing. Oh, and they’re special explosives that survive the impact of the planes, and for the final charges, apparantly, survived an hour or so of high-temperature fires, but are so completely destroyed in the collapse of the buildings that they leave no evidence of their presense. Oh, and they managed to wire multiple floors in each of these massive office buildings with not only specifically placed charges to take out the structual support of the building, but also some huge charges that would simulate several thousand gallons of fuel ignigting in a fireball, all without anyone else seeing anything or finding the huge amount of explosives before it was time.
Actually, some do. One of the “evidence” pages linked to earlier in this thread include a bit that jet fuel, being mostly kerosene, wouldn’t make a fireball, and used the example of pouring a bit of kerosene onto a flat surface and trying to ignite it with a match. They specifically said that it must have been a large amount of regular gasoline to make such a fireball.
The best one can reason that theory is that something was required in the building to ignite it, but that’s hardly any better.
There were many questions raised where I read, and I am open minded enough to hear better explanations, I may have missed threads that had them, I cannot read every thread at my time here at the library.
I just don’t think we should all believe the “line”, especially when questions were raised about unanswered questions, things that didn’t make sense.
Thats all.
What doesn’t make sense? That jet fuel took the buildings down? I disagree with that, and explanations as to just how it was possible have been offered. I’ve yet to see any convincing demonstration that what happened to the towers was impossible without some kind of bomb or missile. That seems to be the main objection to the “line” in this thread, and most others. That and the ‘scrambled jets’ thing. Both were answered here and elsewhere. I’d like to know what was unconvincing about those explanations.
For the north tower, the ideas on that page are simply wrong. It claims there could not still be any fires still going almost 2 hours after impact; flames were still visible coming from several windows well before the collapse, and there was a large amount of smoke coming from the tower. There were not “multiple explosions,” the huge puff of dust and debris started out as a small puff as the tower broke, which got larger and proceeded down the building with the collapse.
The south tower has a more noticeable gap between the first and “second” puffs of debris. The first comes as the tower breaks, and the upper half starts to fall, forcing the air out of the floor. At this point, the tower tilts drasticaly, enough that the side closer to the camera is much lower than the side facing away. The upper tower is also crushing and fitting into the lower portion of the tower. The angle of collapse would tend to “pinch” the trapped air, and push it away from the side viewed. It would probably look more uniform from the opposite side. It’s somewhat obscured in that video, but it appears that’s exactly what happens. As the collapse gets down further, the angle of the upper portion’s descent tears open the outer wall, resulting in the larger “second” puff of debris that continues down the entire length of the building. But there were also “puffs” coming from collapsing floors on other faces of the building durring this time, on the left corner… One for each floor “skipped.”
Then there’s other miscelaneous stuff, such as attributing the darker “dust” as being from an explosion when it looks to just be the smoke that had been pouring from the building to begin with. Or the fact that the size of “explosions” would indicate that despite being able to craft such a grand conspiracy, they were so incompetant that they had to use several tons of explosives (Hollywood-style gas-fed-fireball explosives for the north tower, no less!), instead of a professional demolitions rig that would have made hardly any visible “explosion” (Seriously, go watch some videos of buildings being demolished if you want to see controlled demolitions, because you’re not going to find any here). And I find it remarkable that nobody complained about the huge amount of explosives filling their office-space. Maybe they were in on it too? Seriously, I want to know where they hid it all…
Let us see… who to believe… a non-profit democratic collective of Vancouverite independent media makers and media outlets, or a respected and long-running science television program that examined the science behind the collapse of the World Trade Towers.
Personally, I like government cover-ups, so I’ll stick with Nova.
After all, PBS is an organ of the jackbooted thug Amerikkkan government. They just can’t be trusted.
Okay, Itfire’s link makes sense, but what of the scrambling?
Are not planes supposed to be ready to go up in case of complete loss of contact with pilots?
Were not there cameras facing outward from the pentagon which could’ve seen and recorded the plane plowing into it?
And it was said it melted on impact, why then, did it make an exit hole?
Thanks in advance for any answers.