Metallicube said:
|
Larry Silverstein wasn't a new leaseholder on WTC 7. He is the one who built it back in the 80's. I'm sure he had been paying insurance on that for the previous 15 or so years. He was the new leaseholder on the rest of the WTC complex though. Don't you usually get insurance when you acquire a new property? Also he wasn't paid $7 billion. That is what he was trying to get because he was trying to say the attacks consisted of two events. Thus he should get double the $3.55 billion the policy was worth. He eventually got a maximum of $4.577 billion. He has also still been paying the port authority $102 million a year for the past 10 years for his lease on the rest of the WTC. All of this had nothing to do with WTC 7, it was just 1, 2, 4, & 5.
WTC 7 was seperate and he was awarded $861 million for that.
I've seen the report from Jones. There was no chain of evidence. There is no way to verify that what he tested actually came from the WTC. I mean seriously, make up your mind. Was it thermite or explosives? Because they aren't the same thing. If people were hearing explosions it wasn't thermite. It boggles my mind that people still try and use this theory. Also thermite is never used demolitions. It is pretty volatile and only cuts vertically. Why would they choose that when they are going to ram a plane into the building? What sort of casing was this thermite in that it could withstand the impact of the plane and the fires without going off? Also, explosions in the basement before the planes hit? You take a single eyewitness but ignore the fact that tens of thousands of people were around the ground floor of the WTC. If there were actually explosions in the basement there would be much more concrete evidence.
Air moves like a fluid. The majority of the building is filled with air. When the top part of the building started collapsing that air was compressed. It takes the path of least resistance which in many cases meant a window blowing out. Take a beachball filled with air. Now poke a hole in the bottom and squeeze the top. The air will come out of the bottom immediately. It isn't the air from the top coming out. It is the air from the top pushing the rest and the bottom air shooting out. Now take a beachball with no holes. Keep squeezing it until it fails. That was probably the weakest part of the ball, likely along a seam. Just like the windows would be the weakest part of the WTC.
Do you not see how the comparison to the Manhattan project is bad? Information on the project was released to the public just a few days after the Nagasaki bombing. They didn't bomb NYC and then keep it secret for a decade. In your fantasy, do you think the people who rigged the WTC for demolition didn't realize what they did after 9/11 (though it would be pretty damned difficult to not know as they were doing it)? Or are you suggesting Bush and Cheney were pulling all nighters in the WTC planting explosive charges. Since you claim only a select few people knew what was going on.
Shooting a plane down doesn't reduce it to ash, and plenty of debris was found that wasn't ash. As for why a bandanna was found, who knows. A plane crash is unpredictable. There were likely thousands of items of clothing onboard that plane. Does that one bandanna surviving prove anything? Like I said NORAD wasn't notified until there was very little time left and these were not normal hijackings. In all those other hijacking cases did NORAD simply shoot down the plane a few minutes after it was alerted of a hijacking?
It wasn't a 747 that hit the Pentagon. It wasn't on the first page, and it isn't now. It was a 757 which is smaller than the 767s that hit the WTC and MUCH smaller than a 747. You're right, the plane didn't leave a cartoon cutout of itself in the pentagon, but it did cause severe damage to the area where the wings impacted the building. They had much less mass and contained fuel. They weren't just going to keep travelling as a solid piece. You also have to ignore all the plane debris around the pentagon as well as the light poles and generator that the plane hit before impact. This is just another case of you probably saw some video with a quote from somebody and one or two pictures and you then believe a wild theory based on nothing. Where did all the plane debris come from? What happened to the plane if it didn't collide with the Pentagon? Where are the people? Why fake a plane crash when they already crashed two of them? You have to make crazy leaps in logic and ignore all the facts to believe only a missile hit the Pentagon.
I have to single this next part out.
|
Metallicube said: I made a mistake, I meant 707.. Guess that disproves everything else I said, right? :P I'm confused.. If the buildings were designed for a scenario where a plane was lost in the fog, doesn't that support my case? Also, Less Roberson was a chief engineer who built the tower, so I'm not sure why you are trying to discredit him. In addition, Frank A. DeMartini, project manager of the WTC construction, made the same claim of the building's ability to withstand a 707, and even went on to say he felt the building could withstand MULTIPLE jetliner impacts. At any rate, even if these steel buildings were NOT designed for such an impact, they should not have completely imploded in on themselves at near freefall acelleration. |
Holy crap, did you not read a single word of my post that responded to all your points? It was the very first part.
First of all, do you not see the difference between a plane flying slowly, low on fuel, and trying to land versus a plane moving at a high rate of speed, loaded with fuel, trying to crash into a building? How does that support your case at all? Different scenario, smaller plane, and Leslie E. Robertson even said they didn't know how to deal with a fire like that at the time.
Second, Frank A. DeMartini was FOURTEEN YEARS OLD when the World Trade Center complex began construction. He had no part in the design of the buildings. He wasn't associated with them until the company he worked for was hired after the 1993 bombing. He was't "project manager of the WTC construction". He was the construction manager at the WTC. There is a big difference. He handled construction like moving drywall or plumbing, not the engineering of the building. He was an architect not an engineer.
The Windsor in Madrid was not all steel. Even if it was, it didn't have the same design as the WTC. Even if it was, it wasn't hit by an airplane. The Windsor had a concrete core as well as concrete interior columns. It also had reinforced transition floors which made the building stronger. What your conspiracy videos probably didn't show you was the building did collapse. At least partially. The portion of the building that was held up by the steel curtain wall came down while the side with built with concrete and the bottom floors also built with concrete held up. Watch this video, it shows the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz-WVJ0zeXE#t=2m25s
Well I think I've covered pretty much everything. Your stack of houses comparison is just bad. You do realize a graph of time and distance fallen won't be linear right? If you drop a rock from 1000 ft, it doesn't take twice as long as a rock dropped from 500 ft.
You claim to be using common sense, but you aren't. You're using out of context examples, half truths, and just flat out lies to create this grand conspiracy that doesn't even make sense. Do you not see how when you latch onto every theory it makes your whole argument worse? Why would the government fly planes into the WTC, but also plant explosive charges, but not just that they used thermite too? You have such a belief that anything the government says is a lie that you're willing to cling to any wild theory someone puts out just to dispute it. Take flight 93, you were under the impression that the only debris was ash or microscopic and the flight recorder was never recovered. Both of these things were untrue. I think you've accepted this, but doesn't it cause you to sit back and think maybe all the bullshit you've been fed isn't correct?
