The WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a similar sized plane to those which hit them. Fully laden with fuel. The planes that did hit them were not – so I have read – fully laden as they were on shorter domestic journeys. I have read this from what appear to be genuine and professional sources on line. I accept that these sources may not be accurate, however, assuming they are, then the towers were designed to survive the impact. Of course, it could be possible the design calculations were flawed – devil’s advocate here – and there are equally professional and expert appearing resources which claim the towers were not designed to withstand the impact. Someone is right and someone is wrong.
However, a catastrophic failure of the steel leading to collapse doesn’t really explain to a layman (i.e. me!) why all the concrete in the building turned to dust.
Of course, we are used to seeing video of controlled demolition of no more than 20 or so storeys in this country of buildings which have been stripped bare over weeks or even months so I appreciate a 110 storey tower falling which has not been prepared for demolition may not display the same characteristics we are used to seeing in terms of the resulting rubble, etc. however it looks suspicious to so many people IMHO because they both fall in such a regular and virtually identical way to each other.
The planes hit at different heights, different angles, and at different points on the building and yet the structures both proceeded to fall down in almost the exact same way. The fires would have been decreasing in intensity as they spread because all the fuel would have been burnt off. If they burned at over 700 or 800 degrees C or whatever was required to melt the steel then how come people one or two floors above could be seen waving for help right up until the collapses? If the fires were that intense as we are lead to believe then they would have spread rapidly and you would have seen flames licking out the building. The link I posted shows examples of other far more severe high rise fires and the entire buildings are engulfed within minutes.
Watching newsreel footage of war zones from WWII to the present day, you can see how buildings are destroyed by high speed impacts from missiles and subsequent fires – there is always some part of the building left behind due to irregular collapse i.e. the collapse emanates from the impact zone. The footage you can see on you tube makes it look like the twin towers collapses started much higher above the impact areas.
I also find it unusual that there is such limited footage of the strike at the Pentagon. Wouldn’t that area of the city be full of people and tourists at that time of day? Granted, not quite a lower Manhattan but I would have expected someone to have captured footage of a jet approaching the area on a collision course. And that’s before you get into the pilot skill involved in being able to hit that building where it was alleged.
Notwithstanding all of the above – four planes hi-jacked by stanley knife wielding nutters? come on!!! bet the PLO wish they’d come up with that one in the 70s.
But what do I know? If you think it is unbelievable that Americans would be complicit in the act of murder of their own citizens then you need to do some digging – chemical and biological warfare experiments have been conducted on numerous occasions post WWII on whole towns.
Incidentally, those of you getting ripped into the guy for not swallowing the official line – what do you think about the follow-up Anthrax attacks?
