Originally Posted by Mutton-Head
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head
What do you mean by "collapse symmetrically?"
Also, the "contents" were not all pulverized. Of course, our definitions of that word could differ.
I take issue when you write a leading phrase like: "You seem to think it is normal." It's also imprecise.
If there's one consistent bit I've seen in my time perusing the on-line thoughts of 9/11 conventional wisdom doubters, it's the repeated use of some variation of it doesn't seem like
It doesn't seem like...
- the towers should have fallen the way they did
- fire should've brought down the towers
- terrorists could've pulled this off
- the hole in the Pentagon is the right size for the airplane
And on and on.
I want to say this as clearly as I can. Stop. If you, or anyone, thinks something sinister was afoot with 9/11, you need to present proof
. Not conjecture. Not guesswork. Not "holes in the NIST report." Proof that what you, or anyone, say happened, happened. I can easily provide a list of items that would do, if you like.
Yes, "the specifics...have different details." So set your wish to construct a fantasy that allows for "the specifics" aside and provide some proof. As I've said on numerous occasions, such a conspiracy would by necessity be the most complex and largest undertaking of its kind in history. So, if that's what happened, finding some proof should be a cakewalk.
I am not a demolition expert, but I don't need to be to find the flaw above: it is a leading question. Whether or not the way the twins fell resembles in part or in total the way other buildings fall when intentionally or unintentionally demolished is not proof
that they did for the reason(s) being suggested.
Let's say you walk into your kitchen and see a broken egg on the floor, its insides splattered. Nearby is a child. Solve the mystery.
I tend to get the suspicion now and again that there are those who fail to understand how extraordinarily large each of the Twin Towers were. Plus, there's that ol' debbil gravity, a relentless force if ever there was one.
In relation to this -- and I'm guessing here -- I wonder if there's a prevailing sentiment that considers a building to be some benign object, calmly sitting at rest. If so, that would be wrong. Because of gravity there is a constant, relentless force that a building is, at any moment, dynamically working against in order to stay erect. (Indeed, our physical bodies are engaged in the same process.) Such an event as what initially transpired on 9/11 (extra-violent impact of each airplane) was enough to begin the process whereupon each building could not, due to its design, remain standing.
What is your point?
Recently, the Navy intentionally sunk an old battleship off the coast of Florida, in part to create a man-made reef. The process involved detonating demolition charges on board the ship. In a ceremony witnessed by many veterans who served on or were once aboard the craft, including Senator John McCain, the ship went under. Say, maybe it wasn't an iceberg that sank the Titanic after all...
I hate to be a bother about all this, but "sounding right" to us laymen is entirely without merit as a rationale for suggesting alternate and nefarious schemes. The laws of physics are not here to please us.
You know, there was a time when to many people the very idea that the world was round "sounded" preposterous. Why, anyone with eyes could see that it was flat, flat, flat. Many people, amazingly, still hold to this belief. But they don't offer proof.
Forgive me, but your analysis has been quite flawed. And your conclusion is hardly "inescapeable."
Also, try as I might, I still can't make out what you mean by the original: "And more importantly, does anybody care?"
Good luck with the Internet as far as this topic is concerned; the signal-to-noise ratio is so out of kilter as to be near debilitating.
Oh, and regarding your final line above: there is no "whether or not it was a controlled demolition." It remains "not"...unless proof can be provided to the contrary.