The 9/11 terrorist attack... What really happened?

[Rath]

Metallicube said:

Yakuzaice said:

I really don't understand how you can just keep beating that drum when so many of your claims are simply not true.  I really don't get why people like you need to come up with these ridiculous theories when you could just say the CIA contracted the hijackers or something.  At least that would be tougher to disprove.  Not to keep hammering this creationist thing, but it is the same with them.  Why not just say God set forth evolution.  Why make everything so complicated?

What ridiculous theory have I mentioned? I'm only stating that the official story is simply not true. THAT is the ridiculous theory. It only happens to be the accepted one because it is an "official" story. I guess if the government said the tooth fairy was real, people would believe that too.. It's sad how the government is just an unquestionable authority to some.

The government is not unquestionable. The official explanation makes sense. Your engineering arguments are simply invalid. To go through a summary of your points.

1) The buildings fell at freefall.

Reply: No they did not. They fell at near freefall but if you watch the videos you will see debris falls faster than the building is collapsing. The building offers some resistance to the momentum of the falling segment.

 

2) The temperature of the fires is below that at which steel melts.

Reply: Very true. However it is well into the range at which structural steel weakens significantly.

 

3) The buildings take more force from winter storms than from the plane.

Reply: Probably also true. However they take the force from winter storms over a very large area and the air (as a fluid) can take the path of least resistance by moving around the building. A plane is clearly a very different scenario which is why it is able to do significant structural damage. (Honestly this is the weirdest argument I've seen - the scenarios are so clearly different).