Architects have said the same thing. The architects who built the World Trade Buildings said they were built to take many hits from planes bigger than the planes that supposedly hit the towers.
It never happened before. Smaller planes, yes. They did not guess correct what would happen with large planes.
What about all the buildings around the world that caught fire and burned for days and never fell?
The fire never melted or weaken the steel.
Most engineers disagree about the steel being weakened. Steel loses half of it's strengh at 1100 degrees. Jet fuel burn from 800 degrees to 1500 degress. Also, the crash propelled jet fuel through building, and knocked off fire proofing. Although the latter was probably less of a factor actually.
Also, look at the close ups of the buildings on youtube.
You will see thermite leaking from the buildings.
Link please. I do not see.
No one can bring down a hard target without using shape charges on the columns.
A hard target is comprised of steel reinforced by concrete.
A multi-ton metal plane filled with hundreds of pounds to over a ton of fuel cannot?
AB-SO-FUCKIN-LUTE-LY :glugglug:
Does anyone here who opposes the thought of an inside job realise just how much outside cooperation non-experienced pilots would need to succesfully fly planes into buildings from thousands of feet above the ground?! I mean come on... from up there, even skyscrapers are tiny.
They can't just, you know, lower the plane?? The WTC are the highest buildings in New York City aren't they?
Didn't they go through pilot training?
And what about that "conveniently" found terrorist passport, lol, in the wreckage of the towers.....
Quirky. But far, far from conspiracy. It seems unlikely that it would survive, but I don't know how often small random things sometimes escape.
people, they really, really think we are stupid.[/QUOTE]
I have a friend who is a Phd Chemist,and when he watched it and they started talking about the thermite stuff,he confimed that all of the chemical aspects of the investigation were true.
Your friends chemist? It must be true then!
I hear ya.... look at the countless photos taken around the world of Actual Plane crashes. There is debris everywhere in real crash sites. The Pentagon photos speak for themselves once you look around outside what they tell you.
Most crash sites are crash landing though. Flight 93 and Penagon were not.
It would have fallen more on its side if it was a natural collapse, not straight down.
Why would it have? The leading hypothesis that steel weaken and floors sagged which put stress on the columns on the sides which started collapse.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
