fortwynt wrote:Yes. That this is all complete rubbish....but of course i have no technical expertise on any of these issues, so I suppose thats what its worth.
So you have decided that, from a point of view of complete technical ignorance, to disbelieve all technical explanations.
Just from the standpoint of a lay observation, (and yes ive read probably every scrap of information pro and con inside job theory), I just cannot and will not believe that this isn't highly suspicious....I just dont believe that the building would naturally (albeit not natural to have a plane hit) fall in the manner BOTH the twin towers did....it just seems highly impossible in the real world...yet there it is.
It most certainly is not natural to have a hundred ton aircraft moving at hundreds of MPH slam into a very tall building. In fact its only happened twice, on 9/11/01. Planes have hit other buildings, they have hit low, more horizontally spread out structures and structures constructed with short span, often refered to as post and beam, construction. Most have been smaller aircraft and travelling much slower. For instance, the B-25 that hit the Empire State building was travelling only 125 MPH (IIRC) and its total max weight is about the same of the weight of the max fuel load of a 767. Momentum is equal to mass times velocity, kinetic energy is equal to mass times velocity squared. Double the velocity and the kinetic energy quadruples.
Each tower did in fact collapse slightly differently. This is not unusual given that each tower was affected differently by the impact and had its fires started in not exactly the same places. There were of course similarities which is also not unusual given that both suffered damage from similar aircraft and had similar amounts of accellerant to ignite those fires.
Furthermore, the first tower to be hit was the second one to collapse, second to be hit being the first......so what this means is the tower that burned LONGER collapsed second, and within such a short time...it just seems very very suspicious and quite the "production".
you dont see that?
Certainly not the way you do. You ignore the fact that tower 2 was hit more assymettrically, by a faster aircraft, at a shallower downward angle, that its fires spread faster than in WTC 1 and that because of the rectangular shape of the core versus the square shape of the perimeter the aircraft parts had further to travel to reach core columns in WTC 1 than they did in WTC 2.
All of which means that again you are operating from a deliberate standpoint of technical ignorance. Here's a good place to start on this particular subject.http://www.debunking911.com/impact.htm
and what of the seismic events recorded JUST BEFORE collapse (not rumblings from collapse, but a clear first event directly preceding the collapses).....
You mean just before collapse that is visible from outside the building. You mean seismic recordings in a facility using an extremly accurate clock as compared to the time of day clocks being used to determine when the buildings began their outwardly visible collapse. Now ask yourself if the collapse of an internal floor would be readily visible from the outside and whether or not it would create a rumble.
then wt7....thats just a complete joke and not even worth the time to talk about it.
Given your utter lack of understanding of the towers I can expect you know little about WTC 7 as well.
Math, science, history unraveling the mystery, that all started with a Big Bang.....BANG!!