Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
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.
|
Most of us aren't experts. I happen to be (thanks to a great deal of research brought on by this very question). I've explained several times why it was not a collapse due to the extreme structural damage and fire.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
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.
|
Fire is an amazing thing. It's a chemical reaction that has a specific set of behaviors that it follows in a specific situation. In this situation, we have a gaping hole in the side of a building, and a great deal of jet fuel burning quite hot. Now the ways for the heat from the fire to escape are:
1. The elevator shafts. These were the only possible exhausts on the inside of the building, but there is no evidence that they were channeling any amount of heat or smoke.
2. The gaping hole caused by the impact of a plane. This is by far the single largest exhaust for the heat and smoke from the fire.
3. Broken windows and holes in the walls caused by debris.
The main escape routes are visible from the outside of the building. Each of the buildings werre photographed and videotaped a great deal between the initial strikes and the eventual collapses. Of those many, many visual pieces of evidence, do you remember any warping of the aluminum on the outside of the building? Do you remember seeing the fire that was (supposedly) able to easily melt steel, warping the aluminum at all? I'll answer that question for you with said evidence.
This person would not be able to stand here if the fire was burning hot.
Look very carefully at the first picture. What you are looking at is the aluminum exterior of the WTC bent in by the initial strike of the plane. Why is it that a fire able to do so much damage to one of the best steel reinforments in history that it would collapse straight down has no visable effect on the aluminum? It should be glowing red. The heat from the fire being able to warp the reinforcment so that it would cave all at once straight down is one of the least likely scenereos. They are counting on people being distraced by wars and propoganda so that this becomes hard to see.
I have a question for you. This is the only "conspiracy theory" I've ever bought into, mainly because I am very skeptical by nature. I've debunked several conspiracy theories including the moon landing, Hitler's death, and the attempted assasination of Regan. Am I a conspiracy theorist? Am I a credible source? Do you automatically not believe me because you assume I am proned to believe that a conspiracy is involved, and therefore are paranoid?