|
wfz said: Different sized/shaped buildings, different designs, different situations. Would that building that burned 18 hours have collapsed if any of those things changed? Also, what are you trying to get at with this? That WTC 1, 2, and 7 were controlled demolitions, but they decided to leave 3, 4, 5, and 6 up to chance? Again with WTC 7, you can't directly compare the two situations. Would WTC 5 have stood if there was an extra 40 stories on top of the heavily damaged/collapsed floors 4-9? Would it have stood if the design had been different? WTC 3 mostly collapsed outside of the bottom few floors. I'm not going to get into the free fall claim again. How did the terrorist, who was apparently a bad flyer himself, fly the 757 into the Pentagon flying about 15 feet off the ground, straight at it? Even expert pilots say that would be near impossible. He didn't hit anything besides the building...and he hit it perfectly. He hit about five lamp poles and a generator before striking the Pentagon. Also you seem to like these vague claims. "almost free-fall", "near impossible", "hit it perfectly", etc. Previously people hijacked planes to use as bargaining power, not to use as weapons. There was relatively little time between the FAA contacting NORAD and the planes impacting their targets. Traditional radar has many failings. It only really tells bearing and location, it can be obstructed by weather, terrain, etc, and it is difficult to identify small and non-metallic aircraft. As a result, commercial aviation uses transponders that give a lot of additional information to air traffic controllers. When Flight 77 turned off their transponder it made it very difficult to find the plane, this was compounded by all that was going on that morning. Here is a video of air traffic on 9/11 (it is also really interesting on its own), there are over 4,000 planes in the air when NORAD is contacted about Flight 77, and that was a little over 10 minutes before it hit the Pentagon. The problem with most 'truthers' is that they aren't interested in seaking the truth at all. They usually have an idea in their head of how it happened and will ignore any evidence contrary to that. They usually make the claim of just asking questions to further obfuscate the situation. Closer to creationists than anything else. |







