Friday, October 13, 2006

9/11 Revisited

I bought the new refutation of the 9/11 conspiracy theories last week, and have been dipping into it. It's rather disappointing. Destroys the lunatic ideas; largely ignores the weighty matters. Having got myself into a frame of mind where I was ready to be convinced that the conspiracy theories were all nonsense, I was wanting something really solid on which to base my views. It's not there.

I really wanted it to be there.

Then today, whilst looking at some Peak Oil material, I came across this - and then used up an hour and a half watching the videos. Very lucid, very sober. Still with errors in, and things that I would disagree with, but they make the fundamental point, as described by the blogger like this:
If the aircraft had been the sole cause of the collapse the collapse should have happened "unevenly", beginning on one side of the building, causing a sideways toppling effect which "pulled" on the still viable supports throughout the rest of the structure until they were compromised (which the film quotes WTC architects and engineers as saying it was designed so that that wouldn't happen). In other words, the top of the buildings, if they fell at all, should have toppled sideways. And the resistance created by the still-structurally-sound lower levels would have been sufficient to retard the fall significantly, and further push the upper structure outward in one respect or another.

I don't believe the "Hollywood perfect" collapse of not one but TWO massive structures rings true to anyone. I think it takes considerable self-convincing to make it seem like it does.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.