Sigh. I've read your links. Have you read mine? I'm getting sick of how much of a tool you are. Did you hear the architect (who is a real scientist you strawhat forming tool!) in the link I provided you in two separate threads explain the difference between nano thermite and the kind discussed in National Geographic? Did you listen to how much material they got from him in interviews but how they edited selectively according to a particular bias of theirs? If you're not open to examining these issues, and you're just going to assume these popular publications - and by the way, I find it highly questionable that you would ever research any of their funding sources, or even consider that of importance because of the amount of faith you place into them - then you're simply not open minded enough to make any of the seemingly "counter" claims you're making. You're providing links to "debunk" sites, then claiming that what they're debunking has "no case," that there "never has been." You're so vague and lack specifics that I'm beginning to doubt that you have looked at what debates there actually are, the nature of them, why they may be of importance, the details and the big picture. It seems to me that with your link giving dismissive, and corrective style, rather than asking questions as people open to research which may contradict their assumptions do, that you place the same kind of religious faith in your sources as ignorant "truthers" do in "the truth movement." Your arguments, if they can even be called that, are unsophisticated and pathetic. Like I said, did you even watch the videos that countered the National Geographic piece? If so, why didn't you respond to me in the two threads where I linked to them, then continued to go debate people who made stupid, general and weak claims elsewhere on the forum? Let me guess, because you're scared. You're scared of facing your own assumptions. You don't even know what they are.willy279
The only "tools" here are the ones that are unwilling to question even their greatest allies. If you don't question everyone, not just the government and not just the conspiracy theorists, you're nothing more than a pawn for your particular side.
Now, to debunk a few of the most widely spread rumors.
There is a theory that the towers collapsed because of explosives, not due to the planes weakening the structure in a multitude of ways. That, and because the South Tower, hit second yet first to collapse, proves that the buildings were destroyed by means other than the laws of physics.
First of all, the South Tower was hit lower down than the North Tower, thus more weight was focused on the already severely damaged superstructure. This caused the South Tower to collapse first.
There is also a theory that the towers collapsed due to explosives because the metal skeleton of the structure didn't melt, thus it wouldn't have collapsed. Metal doesn't need to be melted in order for it to lose structural integrity. Indeed, five thousand years of metallurgy and metal working proves this. For metal to lose structural integrity, it need only be heated to the point where the bonds between the molecules in the steel weaken, not break to the point where it becomes liquid. Basically, it needs to be heated so that it glows red-hot. Something that the burning kerosene and, once that was exhausted, the burning office furniture and paper could easily do.
Once more, there is a theory that the puffs of smoke one sees just below the collapse line when both towers collapse are detonations. The problem with it being that, as the floors above collapse the local atmosphere within those floors becomes compressed to the point where they can shatter glass. Indeed, a similar thing happens when you melt dry ice in a soda bottle and let the CO2 gas blow the bottle up. Once the pressure becomes so great, air itself can shatter glass.
There is also a theory surrounding the Pentagon that it was a missile, rather than an airliner, that destroyed part of it. Although there is no footage of the impact save a grainy few seconds from a security camera, one can clearly see that the object that crashed into it was larger than any cruise, or other sort of, missile. Beyond that, there's also a theory that the plane or missile would have destroyed the entire building, rather than just one section. The fact of the matter is that the Pentagon was designed and built as a hardened structure, capable of withstanding a conventional missile strike. The fact that only a part of the building collapsed is a testament to the farthinking men that designed it.
Log in to comment