I can't help but inquire why people only choose to look at the established theory with such a critical eye. Why do you not look at the inane theory which you have chosen to embrace with the same critical eye? Why do people like you clutch to every last strand of an abject theory thrown out at them as long as it is not the accepted one? The best retort to some of these "facts" you have presented is to simply point out the vacuity of your theory.
It is a simple fact of conspiracies that the chance that they will leak correlates directly with their size. The bigger the conspiracy, the more people involved, the more chance it would leak. Through your theory 9/11 would have had to have been a massive conspiracy. There have been no leaks. Your theory exists through curbing the facts in its favor, not because due to a leak.
Real conspiracies are small. And they are still often exposed.
And of course we could then question motive behind the attacks. Why would out government want to bring down some of our most important and symbolic buildings? It's all hazy.
There have been peer-reviewed papers on the collapses. I suggest you look them up.
The1 said:
|
Can anyone explain how the hijackers got into the cockpits ?? I heard from many airplane facilitys that they dont allow anyone in.. and they carry a gun in the compartment.. So explain how the fuck did lil towel heads take over ???
|
This is largely irrelevant unless you believe that no hijacking has ever been done in history. The 9/11 hijackers got into the cockpits the same way any other hijacker would have. Hijackers do one hell of a job manipulating people. Even with the tightened security they have today it would not be impossible to commandeer the cockpit of a plane. Plus, security was not tightened until 9/11. Before that the cockpit was easily accessible.
If you don't believe that cockpit security was lax before 9/11 look it up. But I have anecdotal evidence to back it up as well. When I was a kid I used to be fascinated by planes. I used to go and see the cockpit of the plane every time I rode. It was as simple as requesting the flight attendant.
Lets look at the alternative theory now. We know that two planes hit the towers. We know that a plane hit the pentagon. And we know that a fourth plane crashed on 9/11. We assume this was a foiled attack on the white house. What would the plausible explanation from your theory be? Why did these happen?
If the Taliban didn't hijack the planes then the pilots of those planes
intentionally flew them into the towers, pentagon, and ground. The only way to force-fit this idea to your theory is to assume that these pilots would have been implanted in the cockpit by the government. In order for this to happen, the airlines, security workers at the airport, government officials and many more would have been involved. Not only that, but the pilots would have had to be convinced that what they were doing is
right. Patriotism is a driving force, but it isn't that powerful. That sort of power is reserved for religion. Manipulated patriotism is not powerful enough to make people turn on their own country. It is not powerful enough to make people run their plane into the ground. End their life for no reason.
Quote:
|
How were the laws of physics changed to permit the heat from the burning jet fuel to fatally weaken buildings constructed of 150,000-200,000 tons of steel?
|
Quote:
|
Why did the South tower collapse, since most of the jet fuel apparently was ignited in the fireball accompanying Flight 175s crash?
|
They weren't. They would be, however, if that building collapsed in 8.4 seconds.
Jet fuel can easily corrode steal. It's possible for buildings with bad architectural structure to collapse for no reason at all. It happens all the time. Now, obviously the World Trade Center's structure wasn't that bad, but it's architectural design had been brought into question way before 9/11 happened. And if buildings can collapse for no reason at all, what makes you think a gashing hole from a plane wouldn't do the trick? If you can't answer that question on your own, let me explain it to you.
I did a little research on the planes, and found out some interesting facts. These facts are essential for you to to know before you go about making claims that the planes couldn't have toppled the buildings. They were Boeing 767s. A Boeing 767 has a fuel capacity 23,980 gallons (Jesus, imagine the cost of upkeep on that thing). It has two engines. It has a PW 4062 and a GECF6-80C2B8F, both with an approximate thrust of 63,000 pounds. It cruises at about 35,000 feet. It has a cruise speed of 530 miles per hour, and a take-off weight to 450,000 pounds. It flies on Kerosene for fuel.
The amount of energy needed to get the airplane to it's cruising altitude is approximately 35.6 Megawatts. This is about the same as the power-output of a small-scale power-plant. The kinetic energy of the airplane at impact would have been 40 Megajoules. The calculation to figure that out is quite simple. Kinetic energy equals 1/2 mass times velocity squared. Plug in the numbers. That's pretty considerable. Now, this should have been enough to make the tower fall. Even though it did not cause the tower to fall, it surely did damage it.
So what did make it fall? The energy from the fuel, of course. After looking up the energy content of fuel, you find it is 1.32*10^8 joules per gallon. Multiply that by 20,000. That number is well over the energy that two million sticks of dynamite would produce. The temperature that Kerosene can burn at is 1727 degrees Celsius, which would have easily melted steel, which burns at about 1570 degrees Celsius.
The impact would cause everything above that point on the building to collapse. The impact force on the part of the building still standing would be about 30 times that of the weight above. No building could withstand that. That would cause the entire tower to collapse.
Quote:
|
Why did the sections of both towers that were above the fires disintegrate as soon as they collapsed rather than landing as large blocks? (Both buildings collapse from top to bottom very similarly to what demolition experts call a “smooth wave.”)
|
/sigh.
I hate these copy and paste posts. I'm not even replying to any of your original thoughts. I'm not even replying to other people's thoughts paraphrased as your own. I'm simply debunking their's. Of course, this may be due to the fact that you don't have the
capacity for original thoughts, so I may have to excuse you on this one.
It did collapse with huge chunks of metal. The debris cloud around it make this difficult to see.
And now lets examine your theory. If the idea posted above is not fabricated, how does your theory of a controlled demolition explain it? I would
love to here this one. You present these "facts" like they help your theory. In reality, if what you posted above was true, it is equally inexplicable by both theories, and therefore should not be considered when deducing which theory is the more logical and likely.
Quote:
|
Why did World Trade Center 7, which wasnt hit by an aircraft or falling debris, collapse at all? Apparently it is the first large building in history that completely disintegrated from a fire.
|
Wow. Wow. That's all I can say. Wow. This is such a gross misrepresentation of the facts that it makes me want to vomit.
Tower 7 was 400 feet away from the towers. The towers were 1300 feet tall. Tower 7 was hit by the
falling towers. The base of tower 7 got hit by the force of a small volcano eruption. Get your facts straight.
Again, lets examine your theory.
Do you honestly believe that if the government ran planes into the towers and then demolished them with an explosion that they would need to do it to tower 7 too? You don't think that they would have thought, "Hmm...if we demolish a random building it might look suspicious." They would have known that hitting the pentagon and towers would have been convincing enough. There was absolutely no reason to destroy tower 7.
More to come later.
Hybrid Mode
