| | Two facts evade the 9/11 claims of a setup.
1) The claim of the use of explosives do not match the actual footprint of the collaspe of the buildings.
This is evidenced in the fact that the NYC WTC is one of the few buildings of its day to start utilizing the central 'hollow' column/skeleton structure, where the weight of the building and its floors are flowing from not a central solid structure (Empire State Building), but rather along the edge of a skeleton steel structure. The fact that the main supports for the floors, as well, were on both the skeletal and 'hollow' support column (for utilities and elevators), makes it clear that when fuel weakens steel those support points will fail (and they did). Btw, here's the kick in the arse for your theory: steel doesn't have to melt to be weakened or to lose most of its rigor. 1000 to 2000 F is sufficient to make most formulated steel forms lose about 50 to 80% strength (9/11 commission reports reference this, btw). So, it wasn't much of a wonder that the floors gave way first before the skeletal structure, since the support points themselves were made of less steel thus have less chance of conducting heat away (btw, this referenced by me directly since I know a bit about heatsinks and what not for PCs, basically less material means more heat build up and less area for heat to 'wick' away).
2) The claim that a missile hit the Pentagon doesn't fit the facts.
First, understand that the Pentagon's own structure over the last decade of renovations (partly due to the foundation resettling in a tilted fashion [See CSPAN videos covering the revonation of the Pentagon, I believe circa 96 or 97]) has been hardened for potential attacks. That means, the glass in the windows are designed not to shatter into a million pieces, rather they break within a film structure and even those pieces that do break, break in such a manner that makes them more akin to gravel and not sharp shards (we use these in school buses and other commercial vehicles).
Second, a missile is specifically designed to destroy smaller objects in most cases, especially if we're talking about non-nuclear ordinance here. So, assuming this was a missile of a larger class than stinger (a tiny little shoulder launchable missile for surface to air or basically anti-aircraft deployment), it would need a platform to be launched from. In this case, you either have a big flatbed about 5km away or an aircraft in the air. Can you prove there were either at that time? Btw, for the aircraft part, I can refute you at all points, according to Airforce records (btw, Alex Jones references this on his radio show) they were doing mock air exercises at that time some many miles away. So, that means no aircraft of military kind were within range or utilizable by any conspirators to launch the missile at the Pentagon.
Conclusion: A conspiracy seems likely when one doesn't look at the facts, especially when one has little or no experience in the design or make of the NYC WTC nor the Pentagon. Nor any experience nor research material to backup the use of a missile or missiles (barrage). Ignorance, in this case, is no excuse for sloppy conclusions.
-- Brede
|
|
