point one.
the buildings(both towers!) fell at nearly free fall speed.
I think there would have been some resistance. concrete by itself would have slowed the fall down a few seconds but there was absolutely massive core collumns in there that would have slowed the fall down alot more than that. I have not seen a plausible argument to explain the speed that the buildings came down. again i could understand maybe one building oddly coming down that fast or coming straight down into its footprint but two, no, three buildings? no way, i really can't see how, unless they were controlled demolitions. this fits so neatly into the fact that FEMA swept up the evidence and got rid of it under massive security while keeping other investigators out and the bush admin denied access to investigation.
2) black smoke, very few flames...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...wtc1hole1.html
photos indicate that the fires were smoldering or going out, not showing a raging inferno. in order for the buildings to come straight down we would have to get the steel structure to melt uniformly across a complete cross section. there is absolutely no way that one section melting or weakening could get the buildings to plunge straight down! i just don't see how this could happen.. besides the fact that the fires didn't seem to be hot enough to melt or weaken the steel enough for a collapse of even one column.
wish i could hang out here and talk more about the info i've been reading but i don't have time.
bottom line for me is that if the buildings came down like the bush admins conspiracy theory describes, a) there would have been much more open investigation. b) those who didn't do thier job protecting the country would have been reprimanded. instead they got promoted.. how does that make sense?
Threaded Mode
