Ok, I refer to some stuff I found recently, for example questions 1,3,6,12,14 from
http://www.911research.wtc7.net-reviews-nist-WTC_FAQ_reply.html
And then there are all those other things (too many) like the 5 frames of the thing that hits the
pentagon near the ground. Show the vaporized plane or whatever it was and the CT'ers have
no ground. What's so secret about it, we are allowed to see pictures from inside why not a video
of da plane, da plane. I'm sure there must be more video evidence of what happened, i guess if I walk
there with a toothpick they notice me.
ps. I wish I never started with the 911 thing, I don't sleep very well last time
See if I can help...a little. I am by no means the most knowledgable, but I can often direct you to the answer If I don't have it myself.
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
1. The "multiple" impact comment is based on one interview article (it alludes me now) and contradicts the testimony of L. Robertson, one of the two original Structural Engineers who worked on the WTC. He says it was designed to withstand the "impact" of a (single) 707. Of course, designing is far from a failsafe. In their design for such a thing, they could not have accounted for (i) angle of impact, (ii) height of impact (what floor).
2. It was designed for a 707, which is 20% smaller than a 767.
3. The building actually did stand up to the impact, it did so for 50 min (S Tower) and 70 min (N Tower) respectively. There were no calculations to determine how long they would stand once hit.
3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.
Ok, that is like asking "How could a man land on the moon in 1969, since noone had ever landed on it prior to then?" That is a bit of an extreme case I know, so to approach the point a bit more scientifically.
No other building had ever been hit by a plane the size of a 767, and have 5000 Gallons of fuel drain through out it, setting off 6-8 floors of office fires reaching 1000-1200C in temperature before either, so it is an unfair comparison. It was the COMBINATION of severe damage from the aircraft impact, along with the WIDESPREAD FIRES that resulted in the eventual collapses. That said there is an article which proves this statement wrong...
FPE article on previous collapses
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
1. These are approximates. There are more than one approximations out there that vary from 9-15 seconds for the collapses. Either way, if you look at what happened, you would expect not much better than near free fall anyway. You see, the overwhelming energy and momentum caused by the drop of the 18-20 floors of building above the impact zones even a modest 1-2 floors upon initialization of the collapse process, insured that little if any resistance was met as it continued down (read NIST FAQ yourself, and their other reports...you will see this). thus, for all intensive purposes, they would have collapsed at near free fall speed (8-9 seconds).
12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
1. Why would NIST look for such evidence? Was it in their mandate to look into every idea someone comes up with as a possible cause for the collapse, regardless of how far fetched. They didn't look into Aliens shooting magic beams into it, or into "cloaked" planes launching missiles into the buildings where we think we see plane impacts (believe it or not this is proposed by some CTers).
2. There were thousands of people who worked on the cleanup of the WTC, including many who were demolition experts. None of them saw any sign of explosives, or other possible causes...
Implosionworld/Protec article
14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?
They have explained that those who were originally designated to work on the WTC7 case were diverted to the completion of the other elements of the NIST report until recently. There is an interim report, which I doubt will change much, from them on building WTC 7...
NIST REVIEW SITE
Go down the list until you find the "Interim Report on WTC 7" it is about 80% of the way down the first list of PDF files.
Finally, wrt the Pentagon Plane video:
the cameras that the footage was taken from are security cameras that take pictures at a rate of about 1-2 per second, not real time (20-30fps).
The other sources of footage are the property of the businesses that they were confiscated from. Once the FBi is finished with them (if not already) they will be given back to their owners. Ask yourself this...who has asked for the footage? What response did they get? Show me the proof that they asked and show me the response they got.
TAM
