Quote:
Slaughtermeyer said:
You don't have to believe that 400 people are "missing" to believe that explosives brought down three of the WTC buildings after passenger jets crashed into two of them.
|
A number of the theories state that it *wasn't* passenger jets that were involved; that was what I was refering to. Reference all the "cruise missile hitting the Pentagon" BS. Also if you don't belive in a theory please mention that and/or refrain from linking to sites that use it as evidence!
Quote:
There's also a 'theory' that holograms and not actual planes hit the WTC. I don't know whether theories like this are deliberately made to discredit the 9/11 truth movement, but they can easily be ignored.
|
Quote:
Does MIT engineer Jeff King do that?
|
No, but ALL your previous reference does. And the first part of the video has no time stamp- it isn't clear if the explosion they're talking about isn't the second plane. The squibs showing are freaking flying debris. And the engineer so much as says: "at this point none of the theories we have make sense."
Never does explain how the people in the building didn't *notice* the prepration for demolition, which is quite extensive. To say nothing of the amount of explosives needed. None of the engineers involved talked? None of the contructions crews did?
The clouds he's mentioning are quite common and appear anytime a building comes down. By the way, watch the controlled demolions of other buildings in these videos carefully. Where does the collapse start? Answer: the bottom. Where did the WTC collapse begin? There's also ONE set of explosion, not the ridiclously complicated "detonation zone" most of these sites espouse. (mostly because falling buildings tend to be rough on the precise placement needed for these things)
That'd be the first time I've heard it mentioned..assuming he isn't talking about pulling the last crew out. These sites are delightfully sneaky about how they do their video and linking.
Case in point- one of them linked to
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/405.pdf
as proof of controlled demolition. What it actually shows that if a single floor was damaged to the point where it couldn't bear its load, it'd take the entire tower down. Also explains why the top part of the towers didn't fall.
No other steel structure has collapse from fire- I'll give them that. None of those structures had an aircraft impact followed by a large fire, however.
EDIT: side note on the dust cloud- most of the sites refer to a "pyroclastic cloud", probably quoting the engineer above, who mentions a TYPE of event that produces such dust. It wasn't such a cloud- which is a damn good thing because if was it would have killed everyone for miles around! They are *extremely* hot- the coldest are generally above 100C and it only gets worse from there.