Letters to the Editor
Xanthro
Published Letters: 522 Editor's Choice: 47
-
Some answers
[Read the article: The 9/11 deniers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"What were the firefighters' and eyewitness reports of multiple explosions about? "
Explosions. Why do you think there wouldn't be explosions after the planes collided with the buildings? There would be plenty as transformers exploded, fuels ignited, compressed air escaped. Remember, there is a raging fire, and such fires cause explosions.
"Why would the central core of 47 steel columns collapse to the ground so quickly, especially below the impact floors, when they would have been over-engineered maybe 5 times the rated stength needed?"
They didn't collapse quickly, the buildings stood longer than would be expected. While well built, they were not built to withstand that type of impact.
Remember, the World Trade Center was designed BEFORE the age of the Jumbo Jet. The WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 at landing or take off speed, not a larger plane flying far faster.
Plenty of sites talk about the Empire State Building being hit in 1944 by a B-25. The problem is that plane weighs 20,000 lbs and was going 150 mph, not a 280,000lb plane going 500 MPH.
Also, sites keep using current figures for modernized 707s, not the size of the 707 when the towers were designed.
"What were those horizontal blasts of smoke and dust coming out of the towers many floors below the collapse?"
Fires caused by fuel and other combustable materials leaking and burning downward.
Remember, this is a HUGE fire.
"How can jet fuel (kerosene) soften even unfireproofed steel in 56 minutes?"
Because it burns hot, and it's not the only item burning. The beams don't have to melt, they just have to weaken, in fact, it wouldn't shock me if the towers fell without any fire, simply because of damage to too many supporting members. If the stress is past a certain point, failure will occur, as weakened beams continue to fail, more load is passed to other beams weakening them as well, soon the support for an entire floor is compromised and the structure collapses.
"In WTC7, simply put, why did it collapse straight down so quickly?"
Because that's exactly how it should collapse. Why on Earth would be any other way? Gravity pulls down, outside of strong winds or some other force pushing to the side, a building will collapse on itself.
During the Northridge quake an entire aparment complex collapsed on itself in the same manner.
If the forces weakening the support members are equally spread throughout the building, then the building will collapse straight down.
A controlled demolition uses gravity to do much of the work. Much of the work is to reduce the impact of debries on the surrounding area, and as you can see at the WTC site this is not the case.
"Here's some they don't ask, but I do: Why was Bush not lifted out of that school by his elbows by Secret Service, like Cheney was in the White House?"
Because the White House could be a target rather than the School that Bush was at.
That's one you could easily answer on your own. You know the highjacketing was planned in advance. How exactly would they know where Bush would be? The White House on the other hand isn't moving around and would make a tempting target.
"Isn't "Protect POTUS" job # 1? How can we accept that NORAD simply absolutely failed to protect our skies that day, especially the most protected airspace in the entire world."
Because NORAD hadn't been on the kind of alert to intercept such types of attack for years, because there was nobody to intercept. Even if it had been on such an alert, these are American aircraft operating in American airspace and would have been hard to intercept.
Remember, the highjackers planned to have all the planes hit their targets at the same time, because they feared interception, the problem was there weren't planes airborne to intercept.
-
Ignorance doesn't count.
[Read the article: The 9/11 deniers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"clearly airplanes crashed into the buildings, but it was controlled demolition that brought them down. anyone who is at all familiar with that demolition technique would recognize this."
Except of course for those who actually do such demolitions for a living.
But perhaps you mean familiar as in have seen such a demolition on TV, but not actually know anything about how they work. Then of course the ignorant can come to the wrong conclusion.
-
Yes, it's out of the question
[Read the article: The 9/11 deniers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Given the dishonesty of the administration, it is not out of the question that their explanation of 911 is also a fabrication."
It's wholly out of the question not because Bush and company are good guys and would never think of such a thing, but because it would be IMPOSSIBLE to pull off.
You talk about being open minded, so let's think about this.
Bush has a warrantless wire tapping program, can't keep it secret.
Bush goes around the FISA warrants, and can't keep it secret.
Bush administration outs Valarie Plame, and can't keep it secret.
If Bush was behind the attacks, why not simply ensure there is evidence against Iraq and Iran?
How exactly, do they keep all the people who actually do controlled demolitions quiet?
The problem with this type of conspiracy theory is it relies on continous perfect conspiracys in order to explain holes in the original theory. One perfect conspiracy itself is impossible, much less connected ones.
BTW, plenty of concrete and steel buildings have collapsed in the past, in pretty much the same manner as WTC 7. It happened here in Los Angeles in the mid 80s, and the damage was asymetrical as well. It's happened in England and France. Plenty of trade papers have been written on the subject. It only doesn't happen more often because we learn from each instance on how to improve the buildings.