Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Looking and denying
[Read the article: The 9/11 deniers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Loose Change" never suggests that there were no planes to hit the towers. Clearly there were, but the planes were not what caused the towers to fall. The towers were blown up with controlled demolition explosives."
No, the towers fell because of structural damage to supporting members. I was shocked they managed to stay up as long as they did. At one point I was even hopefull that they wouldn't fall.
Now, why have planes fly into the buildings in order to cover up this supposed demolition? Simply blowing up the building in the basement would have been enough, everyone would assume AQ, there would be no evidence to say otherwise. The planes add nothing to the "conspiracy."
That, plus is very easy to see the collapse at the point of impact, which would mean the demolition would have to be at around the same floors as the strikes, why to hard to pull off.
"The plane hits were just a diversion, to cover for the demolition of the buildings."
Right, a diversion, good thing that you, and all the others who know nothing about demolitions or structural engineering are able to see through these things lest people with actual experience in applicible fields be lead astray.
"And building 7; that was a naked demolition. No one who has looked at it can deny it."
YI guess you think the Earth is flat as well. WTC 7 has none of the trademarks of a controlled demolition and all the trademarks of structural failure. High School videos and idiotic Physics professors of solar energy and fusion (Steven Jones) aside.
"The film does however; say that there were no planes at the Pentagon and in Shanksville. That is based simply on looking at the evidence, the photos, the videos and the witness testimony. Where are the planes? They simply are not there."
What exactly do you think should remain of planes hitting the ground in excess of 500 MPH? Pretty much nothing.
As to witnesses, those who have a background in aviation and could actually tell you about aircraft not only identified the aircraft correctly, but knew which airline they belonged to. Believing someone with no aviation background and couldn't tell a 757 from a Cesna and thought it was a cruise missile while standing 4 miles away just shows willing you are to attach yourself to easy refuted evidence and you lack any intent or ability to critically examine your position.