quote:Originally posted by Dude111
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
Interesting.
for a supposed theory open for critical examination, that is quite possibly the most misleading piece of filth I have ever read.
I haven't the time nor patience to pick apart the many assumptions and presumptions that riddle the entire work. Suffice to say that when you base your theory on supposition without and hard facts, you lose all credibility. There's absolutely no proof that the building was rigged. None whatsoever. But the writer blows over that point by rationalizing the lack as evidence as a possible cover-up.
The conclusion marks the terrorists as "ill-trained Muslims," which is a joke. They were in-fact trained well enough to carry out their plan to fly 4 planes into important structures. 3 of the 4 hit their mark.
The statement: "ill-trained" makes you think they weren't clever enough to bring the buildings down on their own: ergo (which is a huge leap), something else helped bring down the towners.
Ok, let's concede to the notion that the terrorists were "ill-trained." To that end I submit that their intent was not to actually bring the building down. The writer does not include the consideration that their ill-training actually led to a greater devastation because no one knew what could happen in this case.
For example, in the 80's, a middle school student in my hometown got the bright idea to blow off a pineapple (1/4 stick of dynamite) in a garbage can that was built in to the wall. His intent was to have a big bang and destroy the garbage can and have the school let out for the rest of the day. Simple enough, right?
What actually happened, to the surprise of him and the fire department, is that the papers inside the garbage cans caught fire and exploded out the can (both through the top and a hole in the front) and quickly started a fire across the hall where the hot refuse rested against a wall. The blast also blew a hole in the metal on the sides and back of the can and in the wall, which then caught on fire. What seemed like a localized fire with a little smoke, ended up burning down a large portion of the interior of that wing of the building. The school was closed for the last 6 months of school and the summer. The young man who created the blaze had no idea that would happen, possibly because he was stupid and certainly because he was naive.
Anyone that knows fire, knows how completely unpredictable they are. Fires travel between walls and floors. Often, a fire will travel between floors to reach the other wall since it can't jump across the room. One may think you've put out the fire, but the fire is above you and you don't even know it because there's no apparent smoke. This is one reason a fire fighter pokes hole in everything.
This is only one way in which this article is practically blasphemous. Other omissions of certain facts are darn right negligence. Like the fact that rapid air compression can cause pulverization. Or the fact that the planes didn't hit one floor, but rather hit several floors. The place that hit the south tower (which ended up falling first) hit the building at such and angle that 8 floors were simultaneously hit.
One of the things he says he's looking for is replicatibilty. In science, anything that is replicable is explanable. The fact that no other building has fallen this way would stand to reason, since no other building complex in the world has ever been attacked like the world trade center. Computer models are just that, models. They exist in a vacuum, protected by what the computer knows. In the real world where people live and breath, things do not go as planned and there's no protection from unknown variables.
If you believe the theory that the building was taken down by blasts, then you cannot possibly think that the terrorists were ill-trained. In fact, you would have to concede that they were expertly trained to time the explosions with precision to take the buildings down.
And, then you would have to believe that the terrorists intended to bring the building straight down "in its footprint." Which would seem to be counter to the idea of mass destruction. Certainly an angled fall would've been even more debilitating to the city and our country. It's hard to believe any terrorists would take such care in making sure the building was blasted so "evenly" (as the article would make you believe)
IF the intention is to make the argument that there were other people involved in taking the building down, other than the terrorists themselves, then "those people" must have felt so fortunate to have been given their opportunity to take the towers down under the veil of terrorism; Because it doesn't stand to reason that they would place cutter charges in a building and have them just sit there waiting for an attack so that they could be used. If the cutter chargers were in the building already, then they planned to take the building down without the help of some jet airplanes. Otherwise, the cutter chargers would just sit there waiting for the opportune time, all while never ever being detected by the various crews that serviced the building.
what's interesting, is not the theory that Dude111 posted for us, but the fact that there are dupes like porkbeaks, who actually buy into the idea and perpetuate the fictional re-tellings and presumptions.
