Quote:
Originally Posted by mt006
The #1 fact that anyone can eyewitness is the destruction of the towers themselves.
They fall flat like demolished buildings...
Surely an uncontrolled collapsed based around a warping of the structure due to the ferocity of a burning plane woudnt go straight down.
|
You mean that they should have toppled over? How would a building that is failing at the top fall over? You would expect that in such a case, the part of the building above the damage would start to topple over until it finally exerted more force on an area below it than that area could support, and then the entire structure would begin to collapse from the damage point down. And in fact that is exactly what happened.
Quote:
|
I remember when reading up on these theories a quote from an expert in these matters who said that the destruction was not consistent with plane damage. This was later changed to the standard press release of the US Government.
|
A great many things were said in the hours and days following the attack. 9/11 deniers like to just focus on things said in the first confusing times of the attacks on 9/11. However, as people learned more about what happened, it became clear what brought the towers down. As such it is not surprising that peoples opinions change.
[QUOTE[The #2 fact is that the Towers were recently insured for mega amounts against Terrorist attack. Not unusal however another report I read (sorry no source here as this was a while ago) stated the the Twin Towers were not compliant with new building legislation and would have had to be pulled down anyway within a few years.[/quote]
Um, actually, i wouldn't find it outside the ordinary at all that there was insurance on the towers. Remember that they had been the target of an attack before. As for the issue of their being out of compliance, i have never heard anything to support or debunk that claim. However, there was no way that they were going to have to be taken down any time soon.
Losing money at the WTC?