View Single Post
Old 27th May 2006, 07:58 PM   #550
Regnad Kcin
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,783
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
...And to me, most importantly, do any of you care?
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin
Again, I'm asking you to clarify what you mean by this.
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head
I guess what I mean by that is this:

I do not believe that the NIST report is an accurate assessment of how the towers collapsed. In particular, they do not at all address the topics of how the towers managed to collapse symmetrically, and how all of the contents were pulverized. To me, these are very important points. (The rest of you seem to not agree.)
What do you mean by "collapse symmetrically?"

Also, the "contents" were not all pulverized. Of course, our definitions of that word could differ.

You seem to think it is normal that the towers collapsed the way they did, because, as you say, “We’ve never seen those events happen before.”
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.

I agree partially that we’ve never seen it before. But only because we’ve never seen all of these things happen simultaneously. We have seen:
1. High-rise tower fires
2. planes hit skyscrapers (Empire State building)
3. Buildings collapse symmetrically
(Yes, I know, the specifics of these events have different details.)
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.

But let me ask the demolition experts amongst you. Wouldn’t you agree that the way WTC1 and WTC2 towers fell, would be considered a text-book example of how to bring down a high-rise, if you needed to?
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 mean if it was a condemned building, and needed to be demolished. It did come straight down.
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.

Demolition firms get paid allot of money to pull that off.
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...

According to the NIST, all that you need to do to implode a building is:
1. Cut away several steel supports in a few top floors (Simulating the plane hit)
2. Set a big fire, and keep it burning until the building falls.
Does this sound right to you?
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.

So, back to “Does anybody care?”

To me the inescapable conclusion that all of this keeps leading me, is that the buildings were demolished from within. How exactly? I don’t know. Using known explosives is my best guess. Maybe somebody has a better guess.
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?"

This is something I am currently researching. I’ve gotten allot of info off of the internet, but that’s because it’s my only real source as of now.

If anybody else wants to discuss the physical properties of how the buildings came down, for the purpose of exploring whether or not it was a controlled demolition, jump up and say “me.”
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.
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.

Last edited by Regnad Kcin; 27th May 2006 at 08:07 PM.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top