Actually - do they even build skyscrapers that high without planning up-front what they would do to eventually take them down if they had to? Also, from the films of the WTC tower collapse, it looks like they collapse initially at the points where the planes went in. The 2nd tower collapses first because the bastard probably knew more weight and stress would be on the damaged area if it was hit lower on the building. But realistically - could a building like that withstand the falling weight of the upper levels (mass times acceleration) - or would it split apart like a flat weight applied to an upright straw?
I'm just checking back on this thread.... Mav, I guess you didn't read the article. It's calling out the douches behind the Loose Change 'documentary for forging a total lie. For money. I put it on here because I still see people cite it as 'proof of the 9/11 conspiracy'. Folks, feel free to watch Loose Change, but you owe it to yourself and you're country to also watch or read about the total debunking of every point made. Not to mention the history behind the creator of this movie. It's just like Elrond Hubbard telling his schoolmate that the way to make money is to create your own religion.....then years later, viola!
Excellent point. I'm sure they plan ahead by just building explosives into every skyscraper upon construction. That never occurred to me! (Insert sarcasm smiley. We need a sarcasm smiley, because I'm tired of people misconstruing my statements. I don't know how to lay it on any thicker)
Your question is so interesting that I called my father, an architectural engineer, who's worked on hundreds of large buildings and bridges over the last 35 years. Here's what he said: Knocking a building down is easy. The challenge is to bring down the building without destroying other buildings around it (i.e. make the building implode instead of explode, or take it apart piece by piece). That's the skill of the demolition teams and why they get paid big bucks. Since large buildings are designed to have a life of at least 50 years (and often much longer) there's no way of knowing what will be be surrounding it at the time it will be demolished. So, in a nutshell, the answer is no -- they don't plan up-front how they're going to destroy it. As he put it to me: "That's not my problem."
olias, you probably have no idea that about 300 "facts" are totally weird and out of this world in official 9/11 story? why dont you watch david r griffin instead of loose change? yeah, i know. you don't give a shit about the truth. where are the black boxes from the plane which hit the pentagon? oh, it is not important, huh? http://ae911truth.org/
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090412143451291 Niels Harrit, you and eight other researchers conclude in this article, that it was nano-thermite that caused these buildings to collapse. What is nano-thermite? Niels Harrit: We found nano-thermite in the rubble. We are not saying only nano-thermite was used. Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 �C. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron. Nanotechnology makes things smaller. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.
Richard Falk, retired Princeton University professor of international law and a United Nations-appointed human rights expert on the Human Rights Council, was blasted by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon for suggesting in his January 11 blog entry that there was a cover-up regarding some aspects of the official account of 9/11. Falk mentioned “the reluctance to address the sort of awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations” that David Ray Griffin documents in his books.
I've saw a documentary about the 9/11 conspiracy and there were some things that the 9/11 report did not explain very well. But what use is it standing by a conspiracy?