Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hanabal
See thats the thing, there are a lot of very reasonable explanations possible. but when the govt chooses to go with an entirely unlikely one, or at least porely explained, thats when the theories come out.
|
I beg to differ, actually. The government has put out an entirely reasonable theory. Those who claim it is poorly reasoned seem primarily to point to two specific factors:
1) To them, it sure looks like a controlled collapse (and some claim to see evidence of detonation charges in the smoke coming out during the collapse, but that seems thin), so they don't buy the "it collapsed on its own" theory.
2) They look at pictures and don't seen much - if any - structural damage before the collapse, and the fires don't seem all that major. But the government's explanation for the collapse, as I understand it, is that the building suffered structural damage on the south facade after the towers collapsed, and it was that damage plus the fires that burned for a very long time (fed by deisel fuel stored - ironically - for the city's emergency command center).
Everything else is circumstantial:
Silverstein makes a reference to telling the fire department to "pull it" before it came down, which I think can be interpreted both as an order to demolish, and an order to pull efforts to save the building.
People make spooky references to a secret CIA installation in WTC7, and suggest that somehow the CIA wanted to demolish it, but that just doesn't make sense (why would they demolish an entire building when they could presumably simply take whatever they wanted to hide out of the building?)
So those seem to be the 2 key factual issues, unless I am mistaken.
On the first ("it sure looks like a controlled collapse"), I submit that most of us are not experts in building demolition and/or collapse, so we are arguing based on uneducated guesswork or are pointing to the opinion of someone else who claims to be an expert. Some experts are saying it was a structural collapse and not a demolition. Does any of us have the expertise to determine which is right? Do we have a bias one way or the other that leads you to find one expert credible and the other not? Probably so. My bias is to think it's not a conspiracy, so I tend to believe the experts that agree with me. Others have a bias towards thinking it was a conspiracy, so they tend to believe the experts who support that idea. Point? It's a wash.
On the second ("I don't see all that much damage, so it can't have been a structural failure"), all the photos I've seen of the building after the towers collapsed have been of the north side. Obviously, since the towers fell on the south side, that's where the damage would be. Concluding that the damage was not that extensive based on a review of only one side of the building is like concluding that a car can still drive after a head on collision by looking only at the rear end. To quote South Park's parody of Johnnie Cochran (and thus destroy my own credibility) "It does not make sense."
Obviously, if you have pictures of the south facade after the towers collapsed that show very little damage, please share.