Forum > General discussions > Non mobile discussion > Please Lock

Posted: 2005-08-15 17:23

• Right after one of the WTC towers started to collapse explosions are seen a various levels below the collapsing tower.
  
  Why would anyone need to detonate explosions to demolish a tower if the tower was in the midst of a progressive collapse anyway?
  
  A bit like bolting the stable door after the horse had bolted wouldn't you say? And why are there no explosions shown immediately before the collapse of the other tower?
  
  The WTC Tower windows were sealed so as to control the Air Conditioning. The Collapse of one concrete floor on to another would inevitably cause a build up of pressure inside the buildings as the floors cascaded down on top of one another inside the building. Could this not be the cause of the windows 'blowing out' ?
  
  
  
• Another section of the film shows a Boeing 757 with a supposed missile/device attached to the underneath of it as if this is to make sure there is a huge explosion upon impact.
  
  Yet in another section of the film, evidence is shown of people, including news reporters, saying they thought the plane was a cargo plane and not a passenger plane. If the makers of the DVD are trying to convince us this WAS a cargo plane ,then why would a missile be strapped to the underside of plane, for all to see, when it could just as easily be carried inside, as cargo? Strange.
  
  
  
• The film makes an issue out of CNN reporter explaining how he could not see how it could be a passenger plane, as he could not make out any windows on the side of the fuselage.
  
  First of all, who would be able to clearly make out windows on a jet that came into view at 500+ mph at close range and NOT in your horizontal line of vision, and if this was a cargo jet, do you think that whoever staged this particular event would have just as easily 'painted' windows on to the side of the plane to make it look like a passenger jet!
  
  
  
• The fact that one tower fell before the other is also examined by the DVD. The North tower was hit first, much further up than the South Tower. The Narrator goes on to point out that if the North Tower was hit first then shouldn't that tower then be the first to fall.
  
  The fact that the South Tower was hit much lower down means that there was more structural weight to support above the damaged section. This would obviously contribute more to an accelerated collapse would it not? The North tower was hit 15 mins before the South but it also collapsed, from what I can remember, roughly 30 mins after.
  
  
  
• Comparing the collapse of the WTC to other Skyscrapers (40 - 70 storey) that have been on fire in North America, the Narrator goes on to say that other buildings have been on fire for much longer than the WTC and had not collapsed.
  
  The construction of the WTC was radically different from that of other skyscrapers. With the WTC you had a central steel column of girders placed relatively close together and a supporting outer wall (rim) of steel. This was a new method of construction.
  
  
  
  The usual method used, even today is to have vertical steel columns spaced evenly thoughout the building. The Empire State was constructed in this manner.
  
  So comparing the collapse of the WTC to other buildings that have caught fire is a non-starter. The structures would behave differently when exposed to intense heat.
  
  Also, the other buildings shown had not been targeted by jets weighing 110 tons, carrying 40,000 litres of high octane fuel, at 500+ mph. Lets just think about that for a second.
  
  

Posted: 2005-08-18 01:39

This message was posted from a T610