Nickbat wrote on 13. Sep 2010 at 11:06:


I have avoided this thread for several days and just watched the back and forth arguments.

Nick. Are you actually comparing a plane made from aluminium and with 10,000 gallons of aviatioon fuel hitting a steel framed building, with someone not wearing a seatbelt?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. I simply go on the facts.

1. It is impossible that a commercial aircraft the size of the ones that struck the WTC buildings 1 & 2, to collapse the buildings. It is not debateable at all. The structure of the lower 75 floors which were not in anyway effectived by fire or structural damage would prevent it.

2. As mentioned many times, WTC building 7 was only very slightly damaged, yet the entire 40+ storey building fell down into a perfect heap, in its own foundations. Yet buildiungs 5&6 which were much more seriouslay damaged, remained standing.

3. No plane hit the penatgon at all. Comparing the destruction of a Small Phatom F4 aircraft hitting 30 ft thick concrete at 600mph with the possibility of a commercial airliner hitting 6" thick walls of a building at 300mph, is nonsense.

If you are blind to the facts, that is fine. I do not know or frankly care why the demolitions took place. But demolitions they were.

IF a 767 hit the penatgon at the angle they claim, how come it wasn't seen by anyone on approach at all. Not a single witness saw it? How come it managed to miss all the 60ft high floodlights surrounding the penatgon? How come the wings caused no damage at all to the pentagon, yet they sliced through solid steel 4" thick at the WTC?

The only mystery here for me is Why? I have absoluitely no doubt whatsoever as to the fact that the WTC was indeed hit by two commercial type aircraft. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there was an initial fireball, followed by relatively serious fires on 3-5 floors. But I also have absolutely no doubt whatsoever from an ex RAF engineers perspective, that you could slice out 6 floors of the WTC and drop the upper 30 floors directly down on to the remaining 65 floors and the WTC would still not collapse.

I am frankly amazed at the sheer stubborn viewpoint that some of you have when viewing the footage of the alleged collapse. Do you really believe it even possible for every single steel beam to give way at exactly the same time, without explosives?

How does ANYONE here explain the steel beams, which were clearly cut at 45 degrees, excatly as they would be in demolition? Anyone at all?

What angers me and baffles me, is IF this was a demolition (which I absolutely believe) and someone was trying to hide it, why not evactuate the buildings first? You could still fly two planes into it and still demolish it, but why kill 3000+ people for nothing?

As said already, how come build 7 was decalred to collapse before it actually did. Look at the building. It had no reason to collapse, except that it was menat to come down when flioght 93 hit it. Only problem? flight 93 never hit it.   they could hardly lkeave it standing filled with exlosives for people to see afterwards could they? So, bring it the hell down anyway. Why not!

I do not know the motives. I have suspicions, but nothing more. I do know a demolition when I see it though. And that was a demolition.

Quote:


Mr RonaldMcBurger, thanks for those logical , definitive brief statements and questions 

cem wrote on 13. Sep 2010 at 12:19:


Sorry Cem, but I have to completely disagree with you on this occassion. Apart from the reasons I've already stated (and a few from pevious replies) I simply refuse to believe that fiercely patriotic Americans would contemplate such a thing to their own people and for what real useful purpose? I'm sorry but this conspiracy theory really is from the land of make believe!

bobdent wrote on 13. Sep 2010 at 12:32:


yes..There are many patriotic Americans that I know well.. And so is here.. But there are people in every country that can do anything for money

and I think capturing a country full of oil reserves is more than enough reason..

and about conspiracy,

if an event happens and there are logical explanations for some parts of event scienfitically but cant fill all the blanks doesnt mean or make this theory/explanation a conspiracy even if its different than the official one..

Seems to be getting a bit silly Guys, please calm it down.
Cheers

Whilst I don't fully subscribe to the conspiracy theory, there is one thing that's always troubled me from a structural engineering perspective..........

forget the twin towers collapsing, forget the pentagon being hit by something - a plane, a missile, whatever - forget all that: i'll buy it.

but a tall steel building collapsing due to fire? doesn't happen, never has, never will, with one exception: WTC 7, and this is a building designed and planned from the start to be much larger, with more floors than it eventually finished with - it was probably the most structurally sound, overdesigned building in New York! I reckon the USAF could attack that building all day long and it wouldn't come down, yet a paper fire melted the steel? 

Quote:







I thought Marks MDT had removed all the inappropriate posts?^^^^