I take your point, do you take the one where the designers/architects of the Titanic claimed it to be "Mans final victory against the sea"?
And that is a good point. Ive also read up on the subject and there isn't a single thing that you can call the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The official report doesn't convince me or thousands of people who lost loved ones 100%, the conspiracy theory doesn't convince 100% There seems more logic in the conspiracy than the official report, that's my own view
I take your point ,do you take the one where Dr David Kelly said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Do we blindly believe what people tell us or do we form our own opinions ?
please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image Bit more than 1 degree,and thats from just 1 angle, which may not prove to be the right view to see a proper angle, but that alone is 7 degrees. Which when you consider the sheer size of that top half, is a huge deviation for those claiming it was done by "thermite" or "explosives"
Sorry, NJ: My complete post from earlier (you might still think it's crap) The last para needs answering imo. "Overhelming evidence it wasn't a terrorist attack" No. Just evidence that either doesn't exist at all and is made up by the conspiracy theorists or evidence that has more than one explanation. If you read books on the subject you're wasting your time reading any that set out trying to prove one theory or another because it's completely the wrong approach. I've read a number of pieces by objective authors (not those trying to postulate one view or another), some of which were investigative journalists and all of them conclude the same - the U.S intelligence community failed miserably in preventing the attack, and because people have a hard time accepting that the CIA doesn't in fact know everything about everyone rumours of conspiracies sprung up everywhere. However, the U.S Administration (specifically Bush) took advantage of the aftermath by engaging in a fake war against the wrong opponent who in fact had nothing to do with the attacks in the first place. I've seen nothing that convinces me otherwise. The steel girders should have been protected by material that could withstand fire. That's why the designers said they were nonplussed when the towers came down. In fact that material head degraded over time but wasn't picked up on engineering checks. See? There's always an explanation. One final thought. In order to make the U.S go to war you'd only need a series of coordinated carbombs across the U.S. killing a hundred people or so, preferably with an Al Qaeda cell based in Iraq 'claiming responsibility'. You wouldn't have to bring down two iconic towers killing 3,000, or smash a plane into the heart of the American Defence Department, killing more. If there was a conspiracy that would have been much easier to plan and execute. Food for thought.
Fire was the official cause, it weakened the steel, which lead to the collapse. My point being that although the designers may have designed it to be safe from an aerial attack, quality of building materials could have been a factor as to why it didn't work, that doesn't say I am saying the building material is the cause for the collapse, your going to have to try harder than that mate
I do indeed. boththe events are world's apart, ie no gain in sinking the ship.... much gain in creating a war on terror.
.... What the heck is that Swans ? all I see there are imaginary red lines where your hoping the building should be !! Your looking at the ariel on the top of the building but not the building
I'm waiting for someone to say the planes were never flown into the Towers. Seems that plenty think one wasn't flown into the Pentagon.
That's easy Swanselona, you say building matierials could have been a factor, but at the same time they might not have been a factor! check mate !..
And don't forget the official report didn't blame building materials as a factor in the collapse so the point is moot
Do you think one was flown into the pentagon ? kind of a small hole it made don't you think ? strange how there was only a 1970's style tv camara surveying the most important building in America,all that technology and they buy a tv camara from maplins that kind of show something a bit hazy that looks nothing like a jet liner
Define Might In reported speech, expressing possibility or permission. Define Could. Used to indicate possibility: It may or may not have been a possibility, but it doesn't mean it isn't a possible factor. So I fail to see your point. And yes NJ you would be right about the lines, however as the destruction was not on the roof, the mast would be in the same angle based on the roof itself, it wouldn't have magically topled over to suit your argument not to use the mast as a point of reference based on its original position.
No it wouldn't . and if you watch the towers collapse they are coming straight down, if the building carries on the ark of that angle then it means the building fell onto its side !! which of course it didn't ! there were plenty of bits that fell outwards and at an angle doesn't mean the whole thing fell at an angle though,does the cherry on the top define the cake ? You still didn't answer me on WT7 either, why did that fall the way it did with out a plane strike and liited damage ? You think the towers didn't fall straight down but most people think they did,the videos are there for everyone to see, maybe you should consider your own conspiracy theory on why nobody believes the tower fell on its side at an amazing angle of 7 degrees but didn't form an arc therefore defying the laws of physics . Because if your maintaining it fell at an angle that angle would continue and become greater,if it didn't continue then it means it fell straight down
Are you serious? That my images suggest that the building should have fell on its side.....sorry, but can't help but laugh at that. That really is clutching at straws, the building was in two sections, not one. The building collapsed at the point of impact where the plane had hit, weakening the floors of that area, so then look at the tower in 2 pieces 1) below the impact of the plane 2) above the impact of the plane When the steel of the area around where the plane impacts gets weaker due to the fire (fire primary cause remember as you pointed out) it can no longer hold the weight of th structure above. Thus resulting in the top part (structure 2) coming down on the main structure (structure 1) Watch this video from 3:35 and watch the angle of collapse of structure 2 (the top half) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHHghW4Pg5k This then causes a chain reaction of floors just collapsing beneath it due to the weight hence why the rest of the building collapses straight down (gravity) The reason why something tends to collapse is due to a waeak point. In demolition they blow the steel supports and what not, creating a weakness that the structure above can no longer be supported. Thats basically the same that happens here but on a larger scale. The area that the plane hit can no longer support the weight of the structure above, the structure above comes down in the "north-west" corner (cant remember exactly, think it was north west) where they believe the majority of the heat was located from the fire. They even have images of the building bending in on itself on those few floors due to the weakening and bending of the steel.
one side was always going to be weaker than the other though so one half would have buckled first not all together,it was reported that only 50% of the core was damaged so for everything to collapse at the same time temperatures and fires would have needed to have been constant. The weight above would have compressed the weakest points first not all at the same time ,the fire progressed it wasn't instant and constant to all the supporting structures.
Hence the top half coming down at an angle, thanks for proving my point kind sir Something you claimed didn't happen when you claimed it came down at 1 degree at most.
The hole in question is that of an inside wall, so a small hole could indeed been possible as the full plane wouldn't have made it that far.
