9/11 was a conspiracy not a conspiracy theory

[Final-Fan]

Rath said:

cyberninja45 said:

Stop twisting my words, I never said the collapsed was on purpose or not. But if a scenario has to take place where only a certain section in  skyscrapers' upper steel support is weakened for whatever reason , then its obviously a 'stupid'  design where its highly possible in resulting in the entire building imploding completely, asymmetrically ,suddenly/rapidly where thousands of people may still be inside with little to no time for evacuation. Thats a DEATH TRAP.  That should only be possible with the use explosives at precise locations in a tall building. Especailly in skyscrapers of that capacity.

And  if you are proudly admitting this is the norm and nothing is wrong, then you are sounding foolish.

I wasn't trying to twist your words.

It may be a death trap but it's also the laws of physics - things fall downwards. When you have that much mass falling downwards then whatever is below it (in this case the rest of the tower) basically does not stand a chance. You cannot reasonably design for tens of thousands of tonnes of material falling on your building.

"After reading some comments I realize that there are  two types people here. One that believes 9/11 was a conspiracy, and one that does not. And have to say the ones that doesnt are the ones who sounds  foolish."

You didn't.  If someone says, "anyone who thinks it wasn't done on purpose is a fool," I'm gonna take that to mean he believes it was done on purpose. 

As for the death trap:  CYBERNINJA PAY ATTENTION TO THIS:  it is my understanding that there were three separate stairwells going all the way up the towers that could be used for evacuation, but the plane that hit the North tower destroyed ALL THREE of them on the level(s) where it hit, making them completely impassable due to debris/fire/etc.; and in the South tower, two were cut off and one was severely damaged/difficult to use.  If I am mistaken in this in any significant way someone please correct me. 

I think that having three independent means of evacuation is far from criminally negligent design; and IMO, you're overlooking the simple fact that to evacuate the top floor of a building you have to travel through all the floors below it, and that when one of those floors has been destroyed and filled with flaming jet fuel it might simply not be possible.  Do you think they should have provided parachutes? 

It is my understanding that the ONLY reason so many people died is because they were unable to evacuate the people who were stuck above the level where the plane crashed in the North tower, and people in the South tower were unaware that it was possible to use the one stairwell not completely impassable. 

I would also like to point out the following:  "evacuation below the impact zones was a success, allowing [over 90%] to safely evacuate". 

So, cyberninja, I am interested in what you have to say about all that.