Epos Nix on 15/3/2006 at 05:02
While certainly not everything in that video added up the way I'm sure the producers would have wanted, enough weird crap occured on that day that doesn't add up to outright dismiss it as simple, yet well organized, acts of terrorism. And while discussions as to whether this is conspiracy or not abound on the internet, I've yet to see a real discussion questioning what should be done to those responsible if these events were infact organized and carried out on US soil by US officials. What can you do?
The average US citizen really is utterly powerless in this scenario. How does one put pressure on not only all our top government officials but the FBI and Secret Service as well in trying to investigate these matters when they openly refuse to do so? That said, I highly doubt anything will get done in this regard till at least November 2008, should we elect an anti-Bush president. Another question then arises: if these people were responsible for 9/11 in an attempt to gain power, to what extent will they go to retain that power through to the next administration?
Aerothorn on 15/3/2006 at 05:18
When secrets are kept, theories abound as to what those secrets are.
Now, I haven't watch the video, I have no opinion on it or the conspiracy theory. I'm just saying that when the government keeps secrets, refuses to answers questions or let anyone look at various evidence/files (which this administration does even more than most governments) people will ask: WHY are these being kept secret? Now, the answer (from the government) is always "national security", and that is sometimes a valid answer, but I have trouble believing that covers every little file pulled (in fact, reading what some of those files were, I KNOW it doesn't cover that). So people will ask again: why the secrets? So you can't really just throw stones at the conspiracy theorists. It may be far-fetched, but they're just trying to figure out why the secerts. And I don't hear many people asking - if people got better ideas (and I'm sure many people do) they should go and make a goddamned documentary about it too, to enlighten us.
Ko0K on 15/3/2006 at 05:56
I wonder what international communities of structural engineers think of all this. I did see the 'secondary explosions' part, and that is rather interesting. A potential impact from aircraft collision must have been considered during the structural design of the buildings. :confused:
Tony on 15/3/2006 at 06:31
It's all about gun control! Keep mommy scared for her babies, and she won't complain when you take away daddy's guns. We never should have let women vote.
Commies! It's commies, I'm telling you. They weren't on our side in World War Two, no matter what the history books say.
Jonesy on 15/3/2006 at 06:31
It was considered as a 707-320 flying at low speeds lost in the fog over New York City, probably low on fuel. It wasn't considered as an almost fully fueled 767 flying at speeds reaching 460+ MPH. The World Trade Center had the world's highest load bearing walls of any building, so due to 4 or so floors being taken out and the fuel causing the steel trusses to decouple from the outer walls. The building design put a premium on office space above most other things, so elements that would have kept the towers standing (like the traditional steel skeleton in regular skyscapers) weren't in the building to begin with. The design was basically a hollow tube.
Ko0K on 15/3/2006 at 06:39
What about debris shooting out of windows in a sequential manner, then? That looked suspiciously like controlled explosions, as you could see in the video. What would cause something like that to happen, other than what they're insinuating?
Jonesy on 15/3/2006 at 07:17
Quote Posted by Ko0K
What about debris shooting out of windows in a sequential manner, then? That looked suspiciously like controlled explosions, as you could see in the video. What would cause something like that to happen, other than what they're insinuating?
You just saw one floor level go pancaking onto the one below as the trusses gave way. Of course things are going to go flying out of the now open windows. You ever stack pieces of plywood? Pick one up. Drop it. See what happens to the things that were on the piece of plywood below. They go flying out the sides.
It's not brain surgery, people!
Ko0K on 15/3/2006 at 07:37
That makes sense, too, but I personally think the alternative theory is a feasible explanation, also. It is true that the buildings were most likely designed for a calculated factor of safety, and that the impact was more than the buildings could handle. I'm just saying that alone does not completely rule out other possibilities.
Ko0K on 15/3/2006 at 07:49
Then again, placing explosives in the buildings and rigging them without being noticed by looky-loos would be pretty challenging.
Epos Nix on 15/3/2006 at 07:59
There was clearly an explosion of some type near the base of both towers, as evidenced by people running from the subway covered in blood moments after the first plane made impact. My question is why exactly that happened. It's very possible that the terrorists planted explosives near and around the building's main supports, but why haven't we heard of any information about this from the government? Actually, one would think we'd have mountains of data produced by FEMA, among other official agencies, pertaining to what information was gleaned from their inspection of Ground Zero after all was said and done, but we don't.
