Hey out there. Some people out there read a poorly written conspiracy article on some funky conspiracy site that mentions the possibility of remote controlled planes and Mormons and Jews involved in the WTC and get very confused. Now to say with absolute certainty about someone usually leads to the person saying it to looking foolish. But be warned what I am going to say might be offensive to you: if you think 9/11 is a government plot, you're dumb. Really dumb. Drool on yourself dumb. Now, before you start shouting about ad hominems and such, allow me to prove it. A site mentioned as a decent source was http://www.serendipity.li, which has an article on: High-energy disintegration Here is my well researched and respectful reply: WTF! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAH! Allow me to set your bull---- o'meter off. This site's sources include: "A physicist who worked on the original infrared beam weapon" "according to America's leading fire engineering experts" "a German physicist " "A former East German physicist" "another plasma expert" Notice the lack of names among the "physicsts". Here is a name he did use: 'The television evangelist Dr. Robert Schuller visited the ruins and said that there "was not a single block of concrete in that rubble," suggesting that the nearly 425,000 cubic yards of concrete had disintegrated into dust.' You hear that! A TV evangelist! "Not a single block in the rubble." Color me convinced. A) Did he go through every piece of rubble? How well does a cinder block fare when it falls from the 50th floor/gets smashed by tons of metal or other chunks of rubble falling from the 50th floor? The best source: 'Television viewers saw the immense amounts of dust, described by one observer "as if some high-energy disintegration beam or laser had been focused on the towers, and pulverized the concrete into minute particles of ash and dust."' PBS's NOVA Online: Why the Towers Fell. The biggest debunking part is The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective. Notice, the engineer talked to is "a professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT"), and not some guy with some experience in a similar field so he thinks he knows something about it. Plus he has a name. Guys with names: generally better sources than guys with no name. He carefully explains how the WTC could not have gone down any other way than straight down. NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over? Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over. Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways. As he mentions above: in order for the WTC to tip over, you'd have to tip it dozens of feet to one side. How exactly would that be possible? Another big thing with WTC conspiracy theorists is steel. I don't want to copy massive sections but if you go to The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective you can read how fuel reached every part of the floor at once, how heat and temperature are different, and how steel softening and buckling caused the Towers' collapse. Stuff about the Pentagon will be made fun of later but for now you can read Snopes.com
NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over? Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over. Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.