You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #88: A considered rebuttal. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #69
88. A considered rebuttal.
Asymmetrically, partially and less than the speed of gravity.

The towers did collapse asymmetrically. A partial collapse is almost impossible when you're talking about a half million ton structure that goes almost straight up. Any collapse of the upper sections would overwhelm and crush the lower sections, destroying the rest of the building in seconds. As for the speed, what do you expect for it to do, pause in between levels? I'm sure that if it had collapsed in several phases, that would have been viewed as evidence of demolition too.

Here's what controlled demolition looks like:

A collapse which looks nothing like the collapse of the towers. Try looking at the WTC collapse footage again, and you'll notice that there's really very little similarity. For instance, the top of the South tower tips over in the direction of where the plane severed the most supports. Are you suggesting that that didn't happen? Or the fact that the towers are clearly disintegrating as they come down, throwing debris all over hell, which a controlled demolition doesn't do.

And in any event, didn't I ask what a NON-suspicious collapse looks like? And you gave me video of controlled demolition?

If a 767 hit the Pentagon, where did the engines hit the wall? Where did the tail hit the wall? What happened to the wings and tail? Just wondering.

You didn't answer my question. If you seriously believe that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to the plane and the passengers? Contrary to popular opinion around here, you can't simply throw around allusions and loaded questions and call that proof. You actually have to account for the holes in your theory.

But just to be a good sport, I'll answer your question. If you look closely at the photographs, you can see the impression of where the forward part of the wings hit the Pentagon wall. Being that that wall is made of 18 inches of reenforced stone, backed by six inches of kevlar webbing, it would have proven stronger than the thin steel skin and skeleton of an airplane wing, which is deliberately designed to be as light as possible. The wings would have been bent back by the combination of impacting the wall, and being dragged forward by the inertia of the main fuselage where it had broken through.

how 19 Arabs outwitted our entire military, intelligence and justice departments for 2 years in the run up to 9/11 and managed to outrun the entire US air defense for a full two hours

It's a simple enough equation if you're not seeking a reason for paranoia. Surprise + inititive + confusion + mistakes = Visitors 3, Home 0.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC