All in all, it seems to me I don't recall calling my argument "irrefutable," and don't believe you can find a place where I did. If you can't, I'll presume you just misprinted. In any event, I do recall Ray claiming his posted theory was "unassailably" correct, and I just don't think so and can suggest you be quick to call him to task on that, as I have.
Taking your description on faith, in part, the then fact that the lower floors only collapsed after the top floors finished coming to rest upon them, simply doesn't seem surprising...it would, you see, come to be a lot of mis-distributed weight to carry by then.
I suspect it is possible for steel to sheer in such a catastrophic event. You?
But I will tell you this....it is impossible in any event, for the bulk of the building to come to rest upon the ground, without the floors having "pancaked" together, like the official version says, unless the floor flew off in various directions. Do you recall the video showing floors flying off some other directions? I don't recall that in the videos, but if you think the floors didn't fall essentially straight down, you are welcome to it...surely I can imagine some sideways slippage could occur during the fall.
Fuel? You want records? Can't believe it 'til you see the pump guys scribble? Unless you start from the premise that the planes didn't take off with enough fuel to get to their west coast destinations, I think it is not in dispute that they carried a heavy load of fuel. To start with the premise that the planes carried little fuel, you'd have to provide evidence to prove they were underfilled for their destinations, first. If you accept it before proof, for the sake of "seeing how well it fits the theory", along with lots of other unproven notions at once, you will begin to believe these almost certainly baseless at bottom theories, themselves.
It's been a while since I've seen video of the collapses, but I'll tell you I think demolition charges going off would be obvious to mnny observers, and we'd know. Really, does your theory offer some reason, if there were demolitions and al qaeda didn't set them, why wouldn't the perpetrators frame al qaeda for setting them? Why would the perps use two methods and try to hide one of them? Did "they" frame al qaedo for flying the planes? Were the demolitions planted by the powers that be just coindidental to al qaeda airplane attack, or were the "bushies" in cahoots with al qaeda itself? Or Saudis? Did Bushies know the attacks were coming, let it happen on purpose, figure out there would need to be demolitions to make the coming attack worse and plant them? Wooo, what a stretch. If not, and there was a pact, did Bush then go kill Al Qaeda and Taliban dudes in Afghanistan as a part of their pact?
Dude...sigh.
Dan B. |
