Reply #46: That's not what it comes down to for me

[jobycom]

I don't believe the powers that be, but I put even less faith in unsupported speculation. I want to see evidence. As it stands, I saw two massive missiles strike two buildings, I saw those buildings collapse from the top down, as they were designed to do, and a few hours later I saw another building collapse in on itself, as it was designed to do. The building's collapse is on tape, there were no controlled explosion sounds, and the most likely cause of the collapse was the traumatic event that preceeded it, not some controlled demolition of which there is no evidence.

The common term used to describe a building's collapse AFTER an earthquake is "pancaking." Visualize a stack of pancakes. That's why they call it pancaking, because the floors are designed to collapse downward, one on top of the other. During an earthquake, they may collapse in various fashions, since the quake is likely to cause damage to one part of the structure that topples the rest of it. Thus, the south foundation of a building goes first, for instance, so the building topples slightly. Or maybe only that part of the building collapses. If you watch the collaps of the two main towers, you notice that in fact the structure began to topple more on one side than the other, starting with the point where the plane hit, then, as the massive weight of the top fifth of the building fell onto the rest of the building, it fell as it was designed to fall--straight down.

So it's not hard for me to see a building weakened by an earthquake suddenly "pancaking" hours later. It happens. That's why the term is such a common one. It even happened during Katrina. I've seen several pictures of houses whose roofs simply collapsed downward hours after the hurricane, so that all you see is a roof lying on the ground, with some debris sticking out. The houses that were destroyed during the hurricane bear all sorts of damage, from partial collapse to a complete scattering of debris, to even just disappearing, as the apparently floated or blew or where washed away, either before or after they collapsed. Barring any other evidence, that explanation is enough for me. It's not about believing or trusting, it's about seeing what evidence is out there, and not blaming large groups of unknown people without evidence to back it up. However, as I said, the collapse still looks suspicious to me, so I have doubts. They aren't strong enough to make me create an alternate theory, but they are strong enough that any further evidence wouldn't surprise me.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. Sorry I sound like I'm lecturing. I'm not trying to sound that way, I just come across that way. I see your points, and you make a good argument. You've got me wondering about it again. :-)