Not convincing.
Nobody believes the U.S. government attacked itself.
Personally I find it difficult to dislike you. You are expressing these views but are doing it politely and not too maniacally. You aren't denigrating anyone and your posts are not insulting.
Frankly you are an interesting person.
But these views, they assault my intellect. They leave me with a feeling of bewilderment. I cannot understand how you could come to believe this stuff having served and being an aviator just like me. I am deeply offended by these ideas but can find no character flaw with the messenger. I'm going to have to respond to the ideas.
You know these kids *could* figure out how to fly an airliner adequately to run it into a building. You know that a few guys *could* overpower the aircrew members as they were arrayed back then. Likely two big western boys could manage it back then. You know just how much fuel was onboard. You saw in the video not much fuel came out of the other side of the building so you know where that fuel ended up. I think you also know that a symmetrical collapse of a steel framed building is not a freak occurence but is *the* primary mode of failure for large structures of this type. I think you exhibit knowledge of all of these things.
But you pass right over them and vigorously hit on some recurrent themes, that an adjacent building could not fail the way it failed. I've read your posts kind of carefully. I'm an engineer and have had a few material-science classes and possess a degree in electrophysics so I know a thing or two about metals.
I cite Wikipedia (lol): "7 World Trade Center was situated above a Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building. On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the WTC collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 p.m. The collapse began when a critical column on the 13th floor buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of the east mechanical penthouse at 5:20:33 p.m."
Every word in that citation is supported by direct evidence. Exactly what part are you challenging?
Let us engage a bit...
Nobody believes the U.S. government attacked itself.
Personally I find it difficult to dislike you. You are expressing these views but are doing it politely and not too maniacally. You aren't denigrating anyone and your posts are not insulting.
Frankly you are an interesting person.
But these views, they assault my intellect. They leave me with a feeling of bewilderment. I cannot understand how you could come to believe this stuff having served and being an aviator just like me. I am deeply offended by these ideas but can find no character flaw with the messenger. I'm going to have to respond to the ideas.
You know these kids *could* figure out how to fly an airliner adequately to run it into a building. You know that a few guys *could* overpower the aircrew members as they were arrayed back then. Likely two big western boys could manage it back then. You know just how much fuel was onboard. You saw in the video not much fuel came out of the other side of the building so you know where that fuel ended up. I think you also know that a symmetrical collapse of a steel framed building is not a freak occurence but is *the* primary mode of failure for large structures of this type. I think you exhibit knowledge of all of these things.
But you pass right over them and vigorously hit on some recurrent themes, that an adjacent building could not fail the way it failed. I've read your posts kind of carefully. I'm an engineer and have had a few material-science classes and possess a degree in electrophysics so I know a thing or two about metals.
I cite Wikipedia (lol): "7 World Trade Center was situated above a Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building. On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the WTC collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 p.m. The collapse began when a critical column on the 13th floor buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of the east mechanical penthouse at 5:20:33 p.m."
Every word in that citation is supported by direct evidence. Exactly what part are you challenging?
Let us engage a bit...
