TP Rich said:
Now THIS is a thread I can really get into!
As long as we manage to keep it civil, me too! Great Engineering homework.
So to start off... yes! I'm with the 54% that do not believe that 9/11 was an Al-Qaeda attack and the 15% who were blessed with "common" sense that believe the US government were responsible.
I'd like to see sources on this, please.
I'm going to be really blunt and brief about this.
THIS building "collapsed" from THIS fire:
THIS building did NOT collapse from THIS fire:
Hixee made a fair point. Materials, construction technique, age, not to mention photography technique all have very much to say. I've been looking for info on the structure of the CCTV building, but couldn't find anything. Note, however, the massive concrete "stripes" running down the side of the building. If these are of great structural importance, it would allow the building to handle the fire better. They were exposed to open air when the fire raged, and the updraft from the inferno meant that air was constantly circulating around them as well. This would have caused a cooling effect, unlike the heat that was allowed to build up inside WTC7. Which, as previously mentioned, had been pelted with concrete slabs and burning debris beforehand. Your posted picture shows the fire from the relatively unharmed back side.
This is an accurately scaled image of the "plane" which was reported as being flown into the pentagon in Washington DC.
Funny how the hole in the ground at the "crash site" of Flight 93 was there in 1994.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPSd8-P9EnE[/youtube]
What makes you think it was not a plane? Why would they be using anything
but a plane?
Of course, not to mention the explosions that took place floors down from the collapse.
Now, let's compare this to a non-covered up demolition:
So unless "Al-Qaeda" happened to put TNT in the twin towers to help them go down...
Well, the WTC contained a fair chunk of air, which had to go somewhere when the towers collapsed. The top sections acted as giant pistons, pressing the air through the building, eventually with enough force to blow out windows on the lower levels. Also note that there were fires on lower floors too. Melted aliminium from the plane even ran down an elevator shaft in one of the towers, igniting whatever it hit. The picture is quite grainy, but I believe what we see is dust and smoke being pressed out of open windows as the tower collapses.
George **** Bush:
"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower. The TV was obviously on. I used to fly myself and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.'"
That's funny, considering the first crash wasn't broadcast on TV considering no news crews knew it was going to happen. Blatant lying at it's most obvious, there.
I'd like to see a source on this. Preferrably two independent, reputable sources. Anybody can throw out a statement saying "Bush said this". As Abraham Lincoln once said: "
The main problem with quotes on the Internet is that it's hard to verify their origin"
And here's an interesting article regarding the missiles fired from the nearby Woolworth Building:
http://www.orbwar.com/woolworth/
This argument makes the least sense of all. Think about it for a couple of seconds. Why would somebody,
anybody bother with missiles when you've already got airplanes crashed into the buildings? I mean, the entire world's attention is focused on what's going on and
the buildings are already badly damaged and on fire. Why the heck would anybody risk blowing the entire operation by smuggling missiles into an office building just to fire them at buildings already going down? That's adding a huge amount of risk for practically no gain at all. And what would you possibly use them for, that you haven't been able to do with the airplanes already?
If, after seeing this, you still believe that Al-Qaeda were responsible for the attacks... tell me why and explain to me in detail why you believe that all of the "evidence" above means nothing. If you don't explain them all, I'm afraid I really can't take you seriously.
Okay: Now telling you why:
Al-Qaeda had, for YEARS already been launching attacks at the US, many of which probably failed and we'll never get to know their details. However, they were successful in blowing up the US embassy in Kenya, attacking the USS Cole, and detonating a car bomb in the basement of the WTC. And they've admitted the attacks and celebrated them as a victory ever since. There are a lot of people out there devoted to fight the US until the bitter end, believing they will be rewarded in Heaven for their sacrifice. While the suicidal, plane-crashing aspect is lacking mostly everywhere else, you'll come across Westerners believing in eternal reward if they dedicate their lives to fighting abortion, homosexuals or other "sins". They aren't exactly hard to find.
There would be too many people involved with rigging the event. One guy with a loose mouth, and Bush would have the mother of all scandals coming up. A humongous risk to take for what gain, exactly? The Afghanistan war has costed the US a lot of lives, money and reputation. If, and this is a huge big IF, the US were behind the attacks, I believe they would be carried out by bribing Al-Qaeda into flying planes into high-profile American buildings, and making sure they wouldn't be stopped at the security gate. That would really be the easiest way to do it.
Probably will be writing more later, I don't have an endless supply of time.
