reply to post by jmt18325
HAHAHA! Don't make me laugh at this Popular Mechanics garbage! Please!
1: Pods on the underwings? Label me a Conspiracy Theorist. Go ahead. I have never thought that there were missiles to aid the Towers' infamous
descent. Pairing legitimate arguments with crazy, off-the-wall ideas is classic disinformation.
2: Then why did 25 decorated military officials (some of which intercepted planes before) come forward to say that there was indeed a stand-down order
because in their experience, the jets could intercept planes and did it all the time? If there were only "14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous
48 states" at the time (the time which many terror warnings and ominous messages abound), then I don't know how safe I really could be in this
country.
*The post mentioned above is on ATS and has information about 25 decorated military officers who came clean about their views on 9/11. I'll post the
link to the actual site if anyone would like to see it.
3: You could sell me on parts of the high-speed plane slicing through some utility shafts to an extent. Eventually, the object(s) hit and hit and hit
mand lose velocity and speed (obviously), so they can "slice" no longer. And being this as it is, I find it hard to believe that jet fuel and oxygen
seeped into elevator shafts that weren't cut open when they were sealed to keep things like fuels and gases out in case there ever was a fire. It's
not like the buildings were in terrible shape, as Popular Mechanics suggests. And since structural steel conducts heat AWAY from the source in the
first place, I find it hard to imagine that fires would burn with such intensity and cause so much damage. Imagine how little steel there would have
to be in order for the Towers to come down in this fashion! Oh, and paper as a major combustible item? If it reached 150 degrees Farenheit outside,
paper would catch on fire. At the temperatures allegedly found in the Towers, paper, even in bulk, would be eradicated. Ever thought of it that way?
And for God's sake, pancaking again? I have an article (please say if you would like me to post it) which features an engineer explaining how steel
structured buildings don't pancake. I guess core columns provide no resistance to those floors falling ever so heavily. That's why they turned to
dust!
4: How is a plane that hit hundreds of feet from the ground supposed to make an earth tremor on the sidewalks and streets? Steel, an excellent
conductor of heat, is also an excellent conductor of vibrations. The planes impacted, the vibrations began, and they diminished as they worked their
way down. The steel in these buildings is not similar to a tuning fork, people. They are thousand-pound columns designed to support a large
skyscraper. No joke. And WTC 7...Hmm. This was a building not hit by a plane, yet collpased due to fire damage, even though there hasn't ever been a
building globally fail due to fire. I refer non-believers to Madrid. The building was bereft of basically anything. And you know what? That tower had
furniture and paper and a multitude of other combustibles inside too. Never fell. GOOGLE it.
5: I just don't know what to make of the Pentagon plane crash. I know people argue that the nose of the plane made the 12-foot hole in the C-ring, I
know some argue it was 16 feet wide, some argue that it was the fuselage, and others argue that it was the landing gear. I've heard them all, and by
both "Conspiracy Theorists" and "Non-Believers". The question is: If the black box was recovered, then why not have a press release? And why not
release ALL video footage of the plane crashing? And why was there no wing damage to the building? The supposed side damaged and the projected path
shows a plane body, but no wings. It must mhave bounced off the lawn without a marking on the grass.
I'll continue this...
[edit on 12-3-2008 by OMW24]
