Steven E. Jones is a physicist which has examined and is continuing to examine the materials first-hand. You also have to understand that most of the material was disposed of before investigations could take place. I'm sure a lot of the engineers from AE911Truth would love to examine the materials first hand, but I'm not sure if they would be authorised. Besides, why the emphasis on engineers?
So you have one physicist on your side, and all the rest on mine. Yes, I can see how your
one physicist can sway the argument.
Why the emphasis on engineers? Gee, I don't know, maybe I'd like to hear from people who would know about this stuff, as opposed to the clerk at the Quickie Mart.
Down there on the ground? Do you really? What does that say about all those people researching the cosmos? Does Stephen Hawking need to be within a black hole in order to study it?
A lot of information can come about through studying videos of the event. You can see the collapse in slow motion for a start and you can see the finer details of what actually happened throughout the collapse.
Actually, you
can't see the "finer details" of the collapse on film. The vast majority of the collapse films is from handheld cameras, while the rest is generally from news cameras quite a distance from the buildings.
And don't compare the pseudoscience being conducted here to Stephen Hawking.
If through studying the videos you can ascertain that it was physically impossible for the top of a building to destroy the bottom, then that is not circumstantial and it goes a long way to proving some other factor must have been involved.
But the problem here is that you
can't ascertain that it was physically impossible for the top of the building to destroy the bottom, because it
is possible. You're thinking of it as if the top of the building, in one shot, destroyed the rest of the building, but that's not how it worked. The top of the building fell into the bottom, and as it fell, each floor collapsed and hit the one beneath it.
What's really happened here is that you, and others like you, have fallen in love the idea of a conspiracy, so you choose to believe the junk science offered by laymen who don't know the first thing about architecture or engineering or physics.
I'm sure 9/11research isn't clinging to anything. 9/11research concentrates on evidence. If he said two different things at two different times, it will be noted. Though they aren't clinging to this fact. There's a lot more evidence there that supports the use of explosives.
There's no evidence to support the use of explosives, though.
The standard conspiracy theorists MO? Like there's a standard conspiracy theorist?
Yes, there is, actually. The standard MO is that no matter how many throngs of experts agree, the conspiracy theorist will believe that he or she knows something that nobody else knows. They'll think that there's something being hidden from the public. They change facts to support their belief, rather than the other way around. No matter what anyone says, you will believe that the towers were brought down by explosives. That isn't research, that's religion.
The website doesn't make Romero an important feature. There is only one page out of probably thousands on that site which addresses his comments.
And for the record, it wasn't a slight change in story. He explicitly stated
I know what he said, I read it.
Did both planes hit the same area of the buildings? No. Yet both buildings fell straight down in the same manner. The lighter tops destroying the heavier un-damaged lower structure. Just because we saw - for the first time - 737 impacts and fires affecting buildings, it does not automatically mean they are what brought them down.
Where do you get that from? Where is the evidence that this isn't exactly how a building reacts when hit by large airplanes in that manner? Think about it: Two planes hit two towers, both of which fell in similar ways. So the evidence says that when a tower is hit by an airplane in that manner, that is what happens.
Both planes didn't have to hit the same exact place. What they did do that was similar was hitting the towers high. They hit high intentionally because they had already tried destroying the building from below. The bomb in the basement didn't work, remember?
And that's what happens when a building pancakes. The upper floors fell into the lower floors, causing a cascade effect. And please, if you watch the videos, the towers didn't fall straight down. The tops of the towers both tilted to the side as they fell, due to where the planes hit, because the structural support for the impact sites were either destroyed or heavily damaged, and the fires weakened the steel to the point where it eventually gave way.
Ha! That's hysterical!
You want evidence? Please. You don't want evidence, you want someone to blindly agree with your conspiracy theory. All evidence--
all evidence--points to the towers falling due to the damage of impact and the ensuing fires.
I'm sure we're all aware of that too. Just provide the evidence on where you believe the structures were damaged due to the impact. Then you can provide the evidence supporting the fires weakening the rest of the structure.
OK: World Trade Center One, and World Trade Center Two. Isn't that evidence enough? Or how about thermal expansion? Are you aware that heat makes metal expand? Are you aware that when metal expands, it weakens? After the impacts had destroyed some of the supports, it put more of a burden on the remaining supports. The fires then heated the supports, causing them to expand and weaken. At this point, with over-burdened supports expanding and weakening due to the heat of the fires, it's only a matter of time before they start to give. And that's how you have the tops collapsing back into the building.
While you're at it, you can also provide some evidence that supports the hypothesis that the top destroyed the bottom.
Well, the towers fell. How about showing some evidence that the top
didn't destroy the bottom?
EVIDENCE? You know the fireproofing was dislodged? How do you know? Where's the evidence?
What I'm failing to see here is how the burden of proof is on me. Where is your evidence that it didn't, other than your desire for our government to have committed the worst atrocity on American soil in our nation's history?
But just so I'm not accused of hiding, read the NIST report.
The answer is no. The planes were not fully loaded.
Those flights were chosen because they would have the most fuel in them.
Did they? Do you believe them? You place your faith on those that are historically linked to the term 'Yellow Journalism'. Go on, look up the term. You will find Hearst publishing at the heart. Popular Mechanics is a Hearst publication. However, if you would like to produce their findings, their evidence, please do so. I'm sure someone here will take a look at it. If it hasn't already been picked apart at some point.
Obviously you've never spent a minute of your life looking at the evidence, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to turn the burden of proof on me. Have you even read the official report? Did you read the Popular Mechanics study? Have you read the NIST report? I'm guessing you haven't.
[/quote]OK. Yes, there are some who are (not on our side) convinced that the government were involved, who also state that planes did not hit the buildings, or that mini nukes were involved etc. There are not just two angles, two sides going at it here. Let's just concentrate on the collapse and the evidence it provides.[/quote]
OK...well, how about the sheer amount of explosives that would required for such a demolition? You'd need at least 100 lbs of explosives to destroy one column. First, where were the explosions? Aside from the rumbling heard as the tower fell, there were no loud bangs that would match the sound of an explosion on that level. How about the fact that someone would have had to install all of those explosives with nobody noticing. When would they have had access to the building with no one around? There was one point the weekend prior to 9/11 when one half of one tower was shut down, but that's only one half of one tower.
While we're on the subject, what about whistleblowers? Why hasn't one single person come forward to admit that there was a conspiracy? For this to have been accomplished, the government would have required dozens, maybe hundreds of people. Just imagine the manpower it would have taken to rig the buildings, provided that it would have been possible with no one seeing or hearing them do it (which nobody did). We can't keep prison camps secret, we can't keep presidential oral sex secret, so what makes anyone think we would have been able to keep this a secret? Believe it or not, there
are good Americans working in the government, so where are they? Where are the actual patriots stepping up to say what happened?
And the way the twin towers fell does not match a controlled demolition. Building 7 did resemble a controlled demolition, but not 1 or 2.
That really is funny, dude. You don't have one single shred of evidence to support your crackpot theory, and yet you have totally bought the idea that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. But
I need to provide evidence? The evidence is there, you just choose to ignore it.