Good points, cant argue.
There are certain events that do not lend themselves to the definitions, explanations provided to us/me.
For instance, specifically; Days and weeks after we heard of reports of 'fires continuing to burn in the rubble" Back when i heard that I was ok with it. Then add into the equation, a film clip of the excavator pulling up a clump of molten steel, the fire chief telling his crew not to hit it with water because it will flash/steam and the operator wont be able to see what he's doing. The crew was within 50 feet of the stuff, if there was a fire hot enough to melt steel in the rubble, they would not be able to be that close. Steel requires @2500degF to melt. I personally have used a torch to cut steel, it takes an enormous amount of fuel to do this. These were class 'A" buildings, the stuff in them does not combine to produce this type of fuel/fire. It does not, it never has in the numerous steel high rise structure fires before of after 9/11. That molten steel that was present in the basement of both towers and WTC 7 does not belong there based on my experience with steel for a number of years. The fire codes wont allow enough combustables, to melt steel.
So, lets go with the natural elements combining to form nano thermite, and somehow the stuff in the buildings combined into an element that could melt 5" thick steel (the thickness of the 47 steel colums in the base core of the towers), dont you think there would have been a nationwide revaluation/study to make sure that this stuff was not in every other high rise steel structure on the planet? I promise you I mean no malice in that statement, I am only going on the possibility you are right.
I was a facility manager for 5 years, and after 9/11 there were no changes at all to any of the national fire codes. So draw your own conclusions. As`I see it since every item is acceptable in an office high rise, its likelyhood of causing steel to melt is nil.
Now, the dust that was collected is suspect because it was collected within 10 min. I have to agree, seems odd. Maybe a better explanation is in order. Now, if we question that (logically) then should we not question the passport that survived the crash? it is equally odd dont you agree that a paper and plastic passport could survive the fireball/crash, but other things didnt. Not being argumentative, but I am willing to accept that piece of evidence on faith, then the dust deserves the same consideration, yes?
I certainly dont like the negative spin that the word conspiracy theory has. On one hand some of the groups immediately point the finger which leads us to look at them like nuts. However, if you dont like how they say it, then just look at what they are saying. The A/E group seems to be focusing on the premise that;
1-The towers were designed and built to withstand exactly what happened, yet the fell.
2-They are not saying who, just that whomever it was had to have access to the structural steel.
My feelings are that no theory of why/how those buildings fell should be chasticed. If someone came out and said the Titanic sank because the rivets were made of an inferior grade/mix of steel, people would listen, test, evaluate, and give an answer. They wouldnt call them names, conspiracy nuts, liars or anything else. Now if they came out and said that the rivets failed and we found out that White Star Lines bought them from a company in Germany, we might see things reacted to differently.
The debunking of the A/E I have seen is poorly done in my opinion and doesnt specifically adress the claims to a point in all cases.
Either way I can see facts that need better explanation. The truth lies somewhere in the middle as I see it now.
(I am a stickler for factual hard evidence) Taking the reports the news gave me vs what I have looked for myself with my own two eyes and seen, now makes me wonder.
Frank
|