@formerguest said:@Yossarian said:Right… Well for starters there is footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon. In any case the absence of evidence isn't proof of an alternative thesis.
It's not odd at all. The sheer heat generated by the fire was simply greater than the frame could handle. Obviously the designers didn't foresee the need for the frame to withstand that amount of heat. There are more engineers who subscribe to this explanation than don't.
I note that this aspect of the conspiracy places weight on the supposed absence of planes at the Pentagon while ignoring the numerous eye witness and camera footage of the WTC attacks.
The evidence is fairly clear. A plot to fly planes into targets caused the damage in 9/11.
Don't want to argue Yoss, so please read my post again and particularly the first word, which is "Maybe". I happened to see the first sketchy report on CNN that night (then into the wee hours switching stations) and even before it was mentioned in later reports and any aircraft footage shown, I said to my housemate that judging by the damage shape it looks like a plane hit it, so I have no doubt that aircraft were indeed involved,
Can you please direct me to the footage you have seen or know of that shows anything resembling a plane approaching or hitting the Pentagon, so that I can put it out of my head, as my lack of seeing any such footage, along with the damage at it's supposed impact location has bugged me since that time.
As for construction, I have studied and regularly work with practising engineers in design and construction, with occasional demolition works to same as well. As such I am reasonably aware of the failure points of those elements and thus I stated that it was odd for both towers to pancake and collapse so uniformly, rather than the sections above the damage level to at least partially topple due to the uneven spead of initial structural damage and subsequent heat related failings of the frame. Not impossible, but one would get massive odds if on it actually occurring.
The adjacent building falling, well that is another matter altogether.
I'm not necessarily arguing with you, just the theories. There is plenty of detail in multiple reports as to the reasons for the way the towers collapsed. Your dealing with one floor collapsing and the weight causing the one below to collapse. With weakened supports there's nothing to hold them up. With the weight of whole floors and no support it's inevitable the ones below will collapse. I fail to understand what exactly is being proposed. That planes were flown in but then explosives were used? Just stop and think about the logistics of doing this. What does it achieve exactly?
As for WT7 again the reports state clearly the fire weakened the structure with the same inevitable result.
Pentagon footage? http://youtu.be/QOa3k_msQWc
It's probably not satisfactory for theorists but again the lack of clear footage proves nothing apart from that there is a lack of clear footage. The logistics of filming a fast low moving object with a fixed camera is not going to yield great footage. But let's remember the flight contained real people with real families.