ray Marshall said:
1. As being familiar with explosives in the coal mines, we put off shots in megasecond delays. Didn't something look funny with how the buildings fell straight down? All three buildings. With megasecond delays, you can make a shot do as you like to. I worked with this procedure in the mines.
Coal mines are not buildings. The structural stability of buildings relies on some fundamental support systems maintaining load-bearing integrity. Once those fail, gravity tends to take things straight down.
2 This one I'm not acquainted with with experience but experts have said that diesel fuel and karosene doesn't burn hot enough to melt the steel contained in the construction of the three buildings. In other words, it wasn't hot enough to melt steel.
If you want to melt steel into molten liquid, then you need something that burns hotter than diesel fuel, kerosene, and burning paper/wood.
However, you don't need to melt steel to a liquid for it to lose strength, allowing a collapse. Steel (and other metals and substances for that matter) lose strength at much lower temperatures than what is required to "melt" them. The temperature of jet fuels and the fires in the building are enough to cause structural failure considering the damage to a number of supporting structures caused by the impact of the aircraft.
3. Why were there no US aircraft checking out the airplanes that hit the two towers and the Pentagon?
Fighters were scrambled to the region but did not arrive in time. The U.S. government was not on alert for this type of threat until the hijackings began to occur. Furthermore, we have rules regarding the use of afterburners over populated areas because of the damage from sonic booms they can create (which were ignored later than morning as the situation developed). Furthermore, our government was still trying to figure out who had the authority to shoot down a plane full of innocent passengers before we knew for certain what the hijackers were planning to do. By the time we knew for certain, the impacts had occurred.
4. The pentagon was suppose to be hit by a large plain. Wouldn't there have had to be some of the wreckage, wings,tail piece and air plane motors visable afterwards.
Much of that debris followed the fuselage into the building, although there was plenty of evidence that a plane had crashed. If you look for photographic evidence, you will find it.
One Two
4. The same thing in Pennsylvania. Where is some of the wreckage visable after the plane landed in a field?
The plane didn't "land" in a field, it plummeted at very high speed into the ground and left a crater filled with shattered debris and body fragments.
See photos on the right of this page.
6. The air piolots could have flipped the plains unside down and the terrorist would have been thrown out of control. They are trained pilots and they can control the plane however they won't too.
Uh huh. So, have you even flown a large passenger jet inverted? Have you even heard of anyone doing it without crashing the plane? These jets are not stunt planes or crop dusters. The pilots were trying to avoid getting anyone hurt.
Remember, the pilots don't yet know what was happening to them. At the time these jets were hijacked, no planes had yet crashed into buildings. Furthermore, standard procedure with hijackings is that the hijacker wants something (often political) and has no intention of killing themselves or most of the hostages. (If you were alive and paying attention to the world outside your home in the 1970s-1990s, you would know this.) Flight crews and passengers were told to cooperate with the hijackers for everyone's safety. Certainly, that's not true today. Furthermore, when the passengers of Flight 93 realized that the hijackers intended to kill everyone on the plane as well as people on the ground, things changed very quickly. You can't judge early 9/11 behavior by post 9/11 knowledge of events.
7 The planes evidently were on automatic control otherwise, and who put them on automatic control?
I don't even understand this assertion. The hijackers had some flight training so they were able to manage the basic instruments. The most difficult parts of learning to fly and plane are the take-off and landings. The hijackers didn't have to do either of these.
---
You list of evidence/allegations makes little sense. A small amount of common knowledge and common sense (plus the willingness to consider evidence that might contradict your sensationalist theory) easily disproves these allegations.
