No. Because the central column is, well... a column. Unless I'm severely misunderstanding the structure of WTC 1&2, the floors gave no strength to the column - rather, the column gave strength to the floors. I'm just not quite sure how a load-bearing column neatly collapsed on itself when faced with the uncoupled weight (with little initial momentum) of the above column which, being roughly 1/3rd of the building, would have 50% of the weight of the lower column.
In my mind, if you drop a 1kg weight on top of 20 100g weights from just a slight height so that the velocity of the 1kg weight is negligible, the 1kg weight wouldn't displace twice it's own mass.
Well, if we're talking about the possibility of just the column slowing down the falling mass of 20 stories worth of building, then you have to remember that the column is relatively small. If ANYTHING, it would likely just punch a hole through the structure, instead of slowing it down. I'll continue with the analogies by comparing it to dropping a loaf of bread onto a skewer
I do not know for certain why the center collapsed. I offered my opinion on the matter in post #333 above.
Such a question is meaningless, until you first identify WHAT would be the court case. WHO is the accused? WHAT is the accusation? WHAT is the argument and evidence, that would constitute proof that the accusation is accurate?
A court is not a forum for speculative questions, or for seeking explanations for complex events. Its function is to decide legal disputes.
Guess they were wrong. Also a 707 is not like a pencil through netting, the wingspan is almost the entire width of the building. it would be like your netting being cut in half and expecting it to survive.
I imagine that a starting point maybe to check on procedures, see if they were all followed correctly - if not why not, and who was reponsible.
Who gave the OK to remove evidence from a site for example.
All of this stock market activity just prior to the attacks, should bare some scrutiny - who had access to the buildings prior to the attacks why were explosive sniffer dogs removed at the same time as areas being shut off for maintenance etc.
These are questions off the top of my head - everyone seems to think the first enquiry was a whitewash, I agree, yet most Americans seem to be happy with the status quo.
Cmon guys, it's blatently obvious that there were alot of suspicious stuff going on there, can't believe how many people believe the official versions.. WTC7, colapsing just from the small fire?, really?? Just a 5 frame shot of the "plane" hitting the one of the most secured buliding in the world? Where are the freakin videos, what's there to hide?? and how did the freakin plane went through all that concrete and made a round hole in the other part of the building?? again, passports and documents of the "terrorists" found on the street, intact... cmon?!
The footage from all the cameras around the Pentagon is one thing that could conceivably end a lot of this speculation. It's simple, really: show unambiguous footage (ie not 5 frames of something that might be ... something) of an actual plane hitting the actual Pentagon or people will continue to invent their own reasons for the damage. They can't seriously claim "security reasons" or anything else for keeping it secret - everyone in the world knows what the Pentagon looks like from the outside. If the footage is there and clearly shows an airliner and not (as some alternative theories state) a missile, UAV or something other than a passenger aircraft, let the world see it. There's really no reason not to. Unless, of course, there is a reason not to. Which I'll leave to the theorists to discuss.
I still wonder why anyone hijacking a plane for a kamikaze mission in Washington DC would attack the Pentagon and not aim it squarely at the Whitehouse anyway. Surely the decisions made in that building are the main source of hatred of the US in the Mid East. The Pentagon's just the muscle, not the brains.
Firstly.. I agree, releasing the footage would give us a final and conclusive answer. However, NOT releasing the footage fuels the conspiracy theories - the perimeter fence, that keeps Americans talking about "IF" it happened, so they never reach the inner wall of "WHY" it happened.
In the days after the attacks, it was asked quite a few times. The consensus from the "experts" they had on the new channels actually made a fair amount of sense.. they reckoned that the Whitehouse probably was the target, but they couldn't find it. The Pentagon is a much easier target to identify from an aircraft, and ranks highly on any terrorist's list of buildings-worth-bonus-points.
The Pentagon's just a front anyway - practically an empty shell. Everyone knows it's the cap of a massive silo which contains the Presidential "In Case Of Nukular Apocamalypse" Escape Ark and all the equipment needed to start a New America on Mars (including vital brush-clearing tools, golf clubs and plenty of room for the Saud royal family and the Fox News team). Clearly the attackers meant to expose this Ark and cut off the President's last escape option before unleashing all those Iranian A-bombs. Maybe it was successful. Maybe the Escape Ark is what They don't want you to see on that videotape!
I seriously doubt if releasing the footage would defuse the conspiracy theories. The desire to believe is so strong that conspirationists will simply raise new doubts ("the footage has been edited, we have proof!"). Or they can shift focus to the many remaining issues. Or as last resort: the fact that there is no clear evidence of the conspiracy only proves how cunning "they" are.
Hmmm, interesting remark. This means that not releasing the footage serves a common interest of the conspirationists and of the government.
Thanks Polyracer, but I already knew the answer. I wanted to know if the threads resident thicko RacerX NZ could answer it on his own, or if he'd just post another 30 links to information he doesn't understand in the slightest and therefore can't determine how factually accurate it may or may not be.
The only way he knows of working out if a document is realistic in it's assertions is because it says at the bottom "This is the truth, honest".
Until RacerX NZ actually gets a brain and uses it I'm afraid we have to ignore everything he says as being total bull.
Exactly, and no one has the answer to that, the thread gone quite now.. As people keep believing the US's official versions, they will continue to bullie the entire world, this thing has to be brought to light and to the justice, it seems that they can do anything without any consequences, and do a pretty shitty job in covering it up, and people still keep believing them
I would have thought that the fact that people who put together these 'TEH TRUTH!!11eleventyone' videos are still alive would be proof that their theories are wrong - if the US Government had the wherewithall to murder 5000 people in cold blood, do you think they'd have any qualms about shutting up some 16 year old who was threatening to expose their entire operation?
Now that wouldn't be suspicious at all...
It's not threatening to them unless someone with some power tries to investigate all that, they certainly aren't afraid of the forum geeks...
While i can't imagine in my mind that someone is capable of doing such a monstrosity and the fact that there would have to be hundreds of people involved in that is simply too unrealistic, BUT, as i said, a loooot of wierds stuff was going on there...
I think we take security for granted. To do something as elaborate as this would require major effort, but some of these facilities which may appear very secure on the outside are actually a joke if you really had intentions of doing damage.
The core success of the terrorism on 9/11 was in wholly negotiating the pre-perceived threat. Until it actually happened, a domestic imminent danger was the domain of crime novelists alone (and some notable ones at that, I must admit). The military strategists, in charge of defence, only really considered (or focused on) the rules of engagement that they would themselves follow. There is almost no relation or crossover between conventional warfare and defence against insurgency, though. For starters the military game of attack (the US military's favoured preoccupation) requires a willingness and a decision on the part of the attacker (the US) to participate.
Defence is a much more important aspect of military strategic planning because of this. The threat operates on its own terms, not on your terms. It attacks in ways that you don't perceive them, specifically BECAUSE you don't perceive them, and it moves with a timing that suits ITSELF, not YOU. From what I can see (mostly because of the US's open-ness about what it's doing in terms of defence), I suspect this is still lost on the American defence strategists.
There was a systematic failure on the part of the US military to comprehend the importance of homeland defence before 9/11. Unlike the Brits, whose MI5 and MI6's infiltration of the IRA was a phenomenal defence strategy (and more successful than most people realise), the Americans actually WOUND DOWN their covert CIA operations, and thanks to a historic pattern of distrust between administrations at change-over, missed core opportunities to perceive threats and infiltrate cells, most especially after the WTC attack in 1993.
In fencing, the most dangerous opponent is not the most skilled fencer, but the n00b that has no idea about (or care for) the rules of the game.
Security in most parts of the United States, is more for appearances, than for actual safety. That is to say, it's only to make people feel safe. My dad has, on multiple occasions, signed in to giant corporation's buildings in NYC (supposedly some of the most secure ones) using names like Osama Bin Laden, or Carlos the Jackal...
...it really is a joke. It's just a joke that fools most people. Anyone who really wanted to do something, could.
Also, lets remember, there is only one video clip of the first plane to hit the first WTC building in existence, regardless of the thousands of CCTV cameras in the city, or the many many thousands of tourists cameras that would have been rolling at the time. Just because an event hasn't been captured on tape doesn't mean it never happened. And lets not forget the over 100 eyewitness accounts of seeing a large passenger jet fly into the side of the building.
@Polyracer. The 'evidence' from the collapsed Twin Towers was moved to a secure location and was thoroughly investigated by NIST, check their website for a copy of the report. And lets be honest, they had to remove it to aid the search and rescue mission going on. Do you really expect them to section of an area to publicly display the remains so every Tom Dick and Harry can go have a look to satisfy themselves it wasn't a conspiracy ? Honestly, if your nextdoor neighbour murders his wife one night, do you think the police will leave the frontdoor wide open so anyone passing can go have a look, to make sure it wasn't some secret government plot to rid the world of nagging wives ?
The stock market activities were investigated thoroughly, and nothing unusual was found. Just because Loose Change says it was a bit iffy don't mean a thing. If it was unusual then it would have raised alarm bells at the time. The Financial Industries employ people with the sole intention of looking out for any odd behaviour within the stock market, as does the betting industry ! And besides, only a couple of million dollors made on these put options has yet to be claimed. Which on the stock market really is loose change, a trivial amount of money.
You ask about sniffer dogs being removed ? Truth is, WTC had a couple of weeks of high security after some tip-offs that something was going to happen, so extra security and extra sniffer dogs were brought in. But on the Thursday before the attacks this high security level was dropped, and the extra security was removed, leaving the normal levels of security- including the regular sniffer dogs- in place. (i.e they weren't completely removed from the site)
The question of odd maintenance ?. This has been claimed by only 2 individuals who worked in the towers. They both worked in the same tower, and unfortunately their stories actually contradict themselves. And no one, i.e not one of the other 10,000 plus employees of the towers has come forward to back up their claims. And anyway, if this was true, then that would only leave 4 whole days to rig two 1,000 foot towers for complete demolition, which would simply be an impossibly short timeframe to set it up to the levels of precision required (remember it was a top down collapse, NOT a bottom up collapse)
As far as "most Americans being content with the 'Official' whitewash". Again that's not entirely the case. A recent poll suggests that over 50% of the American population believe there was a conspiracy, and about 30% believe it was an inside job !. But, because of all the bullshit flowing around concerning the subject they simply can't get their act together and ask the right questions to the right people in the correct manner. All they can do is argue, gossip and bitch amongst themselves about the spurious if's, but's and how's of the subject, and completely avoid the WHY's (as Sam said above).
quick edit: that post must have taken 45mins to write , Sam and Stang have both posted in the meantime....
Those who are unable to think resort to abuse - right mate ?
I personally feel if the head of US Military Intelligence, Senior US Air Force Pilots, Senior CIA officials, Physic Professors, Engineers, Heads of State, Government Ministers, and many others all say that the official story is wrong then, just possibly, they may have a point.
But I understand fully that you are far better educated and knowledgeable in all these area's than any of these people so I bow to your greater knowledge and experience.
Well, I am more intelligent than your average head of state or government minister.
If you want to simply use the opinions of others without knowing how much bullshit is in each one then fine. But NEVER EVER say such stupid and ignorant things like "what about structural steel", as if there is an difference.
And don't call me mate. I wouldn't poke you with someone elses stick before calling you a mate. I only choose people with brains to be 'mates'.