Thanks!
Andy,
Here is the PM site that talks about debunking the 9-11 theories. Page 6 or so I think sums up pretty well what I think happened and explains it enough for me to be satisfied, especially much more than the other conspiracy stuff.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1
A number of the ill-advised crack pot theories are addressed, but then I never gave them serious thought anyway. Was flight 93 shot down? Does it really matter? Honestly I don't know, not sure it makes a difference. Clearly it was taken over. Clearly the terrorist intended to flight it into a building. Would I, myself, as Commander in Chief, shoot down a passenger jet knowing if I didn't, it may fly into a building? That's hard to answer. Plus there would be no way of knowing the passenger were going to try and regain control, and even if I did, there's no way I'd be certain of their success. So all in all, not sure it matters. The other theories are, neat, but unimportant.
LOBBY
Sorry, but I am a nerdy science buff, and I can spot this a mile away. So a plane hits the side of the north tower, bursts into a huge fire ball. Jet fuel that is designed to vaporize quickly, is aided by a large blast, while already burning..... is ... going.... to 'spill'... down an elevator shaft?... and do so with... force enough to blow out the entire ground level floor... er... from the elevator shaft.... No. Sorry. That is NOT an explanation.
The fuel would have to be in liquid form, which it wouldn't be after that impact... and then not be ignited, which it clearly was.... and pool at the ground level, which it would not do since the elevator shaft goes down another 4 or 5 levels into the ground below the lobby. NO! Sorry, that is OBVIOUSLY wrong. Even if all the other scientific impossibilities suddenly were true... there would be no reason for the force of the explosion to vent at the lobby rather than the parking garage, or in the floors above the lobby.
Only if there was an explosion at the sub-basement would the force be released at the first above ground level... the lobby.
MELTED STEEL
It covers the melted steel... but it doesn't. It simply says the steal didn't have to melt, only get hot enough to flex and bend. This ignores that IT DID MELT. Look at the picture I posted. That steel *is* melted! So what did that?
It also goes over Curtains and paper and furniture, but again, those items would burn cooler than Jet fuel, still making it impossible to get hot enough to bend or sag, much less melt the steel.
PICT
Page 4 is neat. Note in the photo, the top of the building is intact. This is what would have been expected. If the floor had been burned out, the top should have remained in one piece. If all the support beams had been severed, the top should have slid off, like the photo shows. But instead seconds after this photo, the top disintegrates. Think of it like a stick planted in the ground... if you burn out the middle of the stick, the top falls off. This is what should have happened.
Also, note the dark red flames on the other tower. Again, this indicates a low temp burn, and doesn't look anything like an inferno. Go to Google Images and type in Building Inferno to get pictures of what a real inferno looks like. That looks more like a camp fire dying out.
GRAPHS
There is something vastly wrong with the graphs on page 5. Note how on the second graph, the plane impacts were larger, and had longer lasting readings, than the collapse of the entire building. Clearly something wrong.
Also note how prior to the plane crashes, there are a number of reading, while prior to the buildings collapse, it's nearly flat line. It should be flat line prior to both events. ...Unless there were explosions prior to the collapse, in which case the two upper readings would be expected, not the bottom ones. They seem reversed, but they are most certainly not correct.
BUILDING 7
The WTC 7 theory is complete hot air. Watch the videos. No one, as in, no one saw WTC 7 on fire until late afternoon. Yeah there were no firefighters there, because it wasn't of fire. Further, the buildings directly adjacent to the twin towers were vastly more damaged, but they were still standing. WTC 7 was barely touched, but it fell down after 1 hour of burning? No. Lastly, the diesel pump would not have been running. WTC 7 still had power.
However....
What is more telling is what Popular Mechanics didn't answer. Like all the people who testify to there being explosions. Or the audio recordings of firemen inside the building that do not indicate high temps. Or the news reports of explosions. To the audio tracks of explosions. Nor did they answer what caused the core to fall. Or how the Slurry walls in the basement of the building were damage. Nor does it cover what would cause chunks of metal to be ejected from the building with enough force to embed into buildings blocks away. Or how concrete floors pancaking, turn into pulverized dust. Nor what caused the large blooms of white smoke to appear at the base of the building just prior to the collapse. Or how a woman can stand in the hole where the plane hit, while supposedly 900ºC temps existed there weakening steel.
Thank you very much for your link though. I had been looking for such a report. Sadly, I think that due to the lacking, illogical, and scientifically unsound explanations, combined with all the vast amount of questions they conveniently didn't answer.... I am now more convinced than before, the terrorist clearly didn't do it alone.
