::::::::
Personally, I’m not one to repeat endlessly the same open-ended questions again and again. But I did state that I would comment on the three questions that Arlen Custer posted on a diary entry a few days ago - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6110 . Unfortunately, I could not respond promptly because real world issues intruded. So, with my apologies on the delay, I offer these responses.
“1. How could the towers fall straight down upon them selves, in the path of most resistance, at the same rate as a brick falling through the air?”
I have addressed this issue here previously, but will repeat it yet again - http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bill_dou_080126__22the_shell_game_22_is_.htm . If the structures fell at freefall speeds (about 9.2 seconds in a vacuum), then why do all the photos and videos show the resulting debris (e.g., perimeter column sections) and debris clouds ahead of the towers' collapses? Oh, yeah. They were 'ejected" via planted and controlled explosives, which – by the way - couldn’t have been the slow explosive thermite...
Naw! The debris is falling faster than the towers, while the towers follow at a more leisurely pace of 12.5 seconds (if you focus on the perimeter columns) or 15...ish seconds, if you focus on the core columns - http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall__video_evidence.html and http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm .
While the perimeter and core columns' failures can be explained in terms of engineering and load acceptance, the actual destruction of the towers is explained in terms of the energy released. You can see that the towers resisted the collapse because of the debris outpacing the towers. The sudden release of energy associated with the floors above the initial point of collapse for each tower is what caused the resulting destruction of the floors (and ultimately towers) beneath the collapse points - http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf (refinements of this hypothesis have been peer-reviewed by others).
There's… only a massive energy release. As I've queried before on this issue, how does a "teeny weeny" nuclear warhead level an entire city? It's the sudden energy release... While nuclear weapons use a different equation than that of the towers' collapses, both processes use mass and speed (as either a velocity or constant). Why is this so difficult for Truthers to comprehend…?
With regard to the towers’ collapses, the heavy debris impacted the area within a 1,300-foot radius from the towers’ footprint - http://www.rms.com/Publications/wtc.pdf . There were even isolated cases of missile impact caused by falling debris at distances of 1,600 feet. The towers, though, were about 210 feet on any given face - http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/structural-data-wtc-1-2 . Now, call me silly, but… 1,600 feet doesn’t equal 210 feet. Therefore, their own “footprint” statement is… silly.
And about those core columns…
The core columns and perimeter columns were both load bearing and shared the weight of each floor. The two systems were tied together via the horizontal trusses. Once the perimeter columns failed (which is clearly shown in countless videos), the core columns could NOT carry the entire floor load nor were these columns designed to handle such loads - http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf .
The core columns were admittedly more massive than the perimeter columns and survived standing for several seconds after the collapses (i.e., "the spire"), but the core columns were never designed to be free-standing (i.e., they depended upon the horizontal trusses and perimeter columns to remain upright) and they too (big as they were) collapsed.
“2. How could an airliner crash into the thick concrete wall of the pentagon and not leave a large debris field?”
I have addressed this issue here (in part) previously but will repeat it yet again and address the extent of the debris field - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5915 .
One of the questions asked, “Do you honestly think that is even possible the wings, engines, or tail section would not leave any signs of impacting the concrete facade of the building?” No. There were numerous "signs", as well as debris left, on the façade and crash site, respectively. The ASCE – SEI report on the Pentagon incident has images (pp. 27-28) that clearly show, post-façade collapse, marks along the façade indicative of the aircraft’s total destruction - http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf .
The aircraft debris were scattered and fragmented because of the massive energy involved in the plane’s destruction - http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html . Debris was noted across the ground surfaces before the impacted face of the Pentagon – the same direction of the explosion caught in the “infamous” security camera images - click here , click here , click here , and click here . A decent summary can be reviewed here - http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm .
“3. How could an airliner crash into the ground and not leave a large debris field?”
There was a debris field but one associated with a near vertical descent of a multi-ton aircraft at about 575 mph upon impact. A similar incident occurred in May 1996 when ValuJet Flight 592 crashed in the Florida Everglades – near vertical and around 500 mph - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592 . If you can recall, there wasn’t much left to recover with respect to larger piece sizes. And yet, no one linked this crash to anything more nefarious than faulty oxygen generators.
UA Flight 93’s impact into the ground in Shanksville, Pennsylvania had a similar outcome to the ValuJet flight. The majority of debris was pushed into the earth beneath the impact crater; one of the black boxes was found 25 feet beneath the surface - click here and click here .
The overhead shot of this image shows the elongated crater (from the wings) and sizeable burnt section of the nearby woods. Some smaller debris is just visible scattered across the image’s field of view - click here . More images of scattered debris can be seen in these images but note their small size - click here and click here . And lastly, here are even more images of debris - http://www.911myths.com/html/epa_report_photos.html .
“There are certainly a great many other questions about these events, that the official explanation does not answer. However these three question alone, should be enough for anyone with a functioning mind, to question the official story. The only reason I can see for not questioning it, is that you don’t see the relevance in your life of our government being willing the murder us if it so desires.”
These sentences are nothing more than a biased opinion that focuses on deflection and misdirection. There’s more than ample evidence that – at a minimum – questions the assertions made in these sentences. And the ludicrous claim of “the only reason…” is far more reflective of a religious fanatic than an open-minded individual.
These three questions alone amount to nothing more than a mere bag of shells. But some find a “need” to pull madness from the McDonald’s jingle. They are asked not out of curiosity; rather, they are asked with a preconceived conclusion that “our government [was] willing [to] murder us if it so desires.” Placing the conclusion first and THEN handpicking the questions and evidence to support that conclusion is subjective, fatally flawed, and decidedly non-scientific. But – it marries well to an anti-government political agenda.
