Originally posted by melon Those buildings were only mentioned as examples of the existence of "progressive collapse" as a phenomenon. As I stated before, the WTC towers were such a fundamentally different paradigm in architecture that you cannot compare these towers to any conventional steel structure. In fact, the WTC towers upset some prominent modernists so much that they literally killed themselves over it.
The WTC towers were designed quite differently by having the structures supported by the exterior, rather than the interior. For this reason alone, this is why a plane crashing into a conventionally-built skyscraper like the Empire State Building would, at most, have only led to the potential collapse of the floors above the impact zone.
This conventional theory of collapse is what bin Laden counted on:
His "experience in this field" is a likely reference to the fact that the bin Laden family is known as being a highly successful construction company in Saudi Arabia.
It is this fundamental difference between conventional skyscraper architecture and the postmodern departure of the WTC that likely drives this conspiracy. Yet, for reasons that I have explained, such a collapse is to be expected in the WTC towers, due to the unconvential sacrifice of form over function.
Yes, the WTC towers would have been engineered to withstand airplane impacts...according to early 1970s standards.
Do take note of one word there: "inerrantly." A study of documentary films reveals heavy controversy in the nature of what constitutes "bias," even inadvertent. Choosing to edit your video, you are making a "bias" as to what's important--and, more importantly, as to what's not important. Can that bias be trusted?
Take your animated GIF there for a moment, and let's look at it like a filmmaker. A documentary filmmaker would see the "bias" in the fact that that shot was framed in a way that 3/4 of the building is covered, and, as such, is unreliable, because of what it does not show--the bottom 3/4 of the building. It would also "not show" the events like described by the firefighter interview. You are basically demanding that we make a judgment in your favor on the basis of approximately five seconds, whereas you willfully disregard the substantial evidence to the contrary.
No. There's your logical fallacy right there. This kind of argument would state that you cannot defend science, because one is not a scientist.
But here's what I'm telling you. The scientific method, so to say, demands that one "puts up or shuts up." That is, intelligent design is not on equal footing with the Theory of Evolution, just because it "says" it has value. Likewise, these conspiracy theories cannot demand equal footing, without surviving substantial scientific review. Lumping together a bunch of ideologically convenient statements with a bunch of fringe scientists or academics is exactly what "intelligent design" is, and that's exactly what kind of crap you're spouting here.
Again, with your scientific doctoral credentials, it should be no problem to author a vigorously researched scientific paper for peer review, if "all the evidence is in your favor" like you believe.
So I'm telling you right now:
Put up or shut up.
Until then, science demands that we stick with the current body of scientists and academics, who believe that the WTC towers were destroyed, due to terrorist attacks. I do not have to be a scientist to uphold science. The burden is on you to construct the kind of evidence that will survive scientific and logical scrutiny. Lucky for you, your doctorate gives you that such power. You'll either turn out to be a hero or a laughing stock.
So what will it be?