- Joined
- Oct 3, 2008
- Messages
- 12,753
- Reaction score
- 2,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Basic 9/11 Physics and why over 38% of Americans don't believe the "official stor
Yes, and it always boils down to the 'air pressure' buildup... which is negated by the FACT that for the pressure to buildup and push outward as it did would mean that they would be sequentially downward roughly constant distance from the actual collapse wave.
Also, that air pressure buildup through the stairwells in the middle of the structure pushing outward would spread out in the relatively open floors.
This is one area where I think that I_gaze_at_blue had it right... that if 2-3 floors structural supports were eliminated would create enough energy falling down to crash through the remainder of the building as seen with the verinage demolition technique.
Now, as for the mechanics / physics, well, no, I couldn't give the specific physics involved (I only have a highschool level understanding of physics), but I can link to the requisitions where Turner construction had access to the elevator shafts / lobbies for "upgrading fireproofing".
It would be my speculation to say that certain areas surrounding the elevator lobbies were coated with these explosive / incendiary sol-gels (likely packaged as legitimate fireproofing), this would be used to cut the columns over 1-3 floors, and sporadically down through the elevator shafts and surrounding core columns (which could be accessed as easily as moving the ceiling tiles in all likelihood).
I am basing this speculation on the 'ring' of fire that's seen building up just before the second tower collapsed, how the buildings with only partial damage saw the undamaged section fail simultaneously, and that the building was set to 'drop' as seen with the verinage technique.
I honestly don't have an answer as to what precisely caused the 'squibb' effect, the most logical explanation, especially given the timing and location of these 'squibbs' that explosives is the most likely explanation (untill an explanation comes up that isn't debunked by the odd locations / timings). As for the sound, well... don't forget when the squibbs appeared the top of the building was collapsing down, so the sounds would have been drowned out.
BTW, I don't diss these sources in an off the cuff fashion... I really do want to believe that it's all naturally explicable, I just haven't seen anything that attempts to explain things as such that isn't violated by the video evidence. Also, EVEN IF, it DOES get explained to where I can't honestly speak about explosive demolition of the towers, it still does NOT change that the government (or elements within) were aware that the attack was going to take place, and even WANTED it to take place, if they were not involved directly in the planning.
Similarly, with the BP oil spill, I believe that BP and Obama's people WANTED this rig to explode, because it helps them push their agenda. I don't think that it was rigged with explosives, but rather, based on the hearings, that BP's top people had given orders that they KNEW would be detrimental so that it facilitated the explosion. I don't know if I posted it on this site, or if that was just in discussions with people in the real world that Obama was going to call for a carbon tax / cap and trade scheme to 'fix' the problem.... it was within a week that Obama's on tv pushing for this cap and trade as part of his plan to 'get BP' (which is like 'getting' a child molester by supplying him with a group of young children)... sorry for digressing.
Yes, and it always boils down to the 'air pressure' buildup... which is negated by the FACT that for the pressure to buildup and push outward as it did would mean that they would be sequentially downward roughly constant distance from the actual collapse wave.
Also, that air pressure buildup through the stairwells in the middle of the structure pushing outward would spread out in the relatively open floors.
This is one area where I think that I_gaze_at_blue had it right... that if 2-3 floors structural supports were eliminated would create enough energy falling down to crash through the remainder of the building as seen with the verinage demolition technique.
Now, as for the mechanics / physics, well, no, I couldn't give the specific physics involved (I only have a highschool level understanding of physics), but I can link to the requisitions where Turner construction had access to the elevator shafts / lobbies for "upgrading fireproofing".
It would be my speculation to say that certain areas surrounding the elevator lobbies were coated with these explosive / incendiary sol-gels (likely packaged as legitimate fireproofing), this would be used to cut the columns over 1-3 floors, and sporadically down through the elevator shafts and surrounding core columns (which could be accessed as easily as moving the ceiling tiles in all likelihood).
I am basing this speculation on the 'ring' of fire that's seen building up just before the second tower collapsed, how the buildings with only partial damage saw the undamaged section fail simultaneously, and that the building was set to 'drop' as seen with the verinage technique.
I honestly don't have an answer as to what precisely caused the 'squibb' effect, the most logical explanation, especially given the timing and location of these 'squibbs' that explosives is the most likely explanation (untill an explanation comes up that isn't debunked by the odd locations / timings). As for the sound, well... don't forget when the squibbs appeared the top of the building was collapsing down, so the sounds would have been drowned out.
BTW, I don't diss these sources in an off the cuff fashion... I really do want to believe that it's all naturally explicable, I just haven't seen anything that attempts to explain things as such that isn't violated by the video evidence. Also, EVEN IF, it DOES get explained to where I can't honestly speak about explosive demolition of the towers, it still does NOT change that the government (or elements within) were aware that the attack was going to take place, and even WANTED it to take place, if they were not involved directly in the planning.
Similarly, with the BP oil spill, I believe that BP and Obama's people WANTED this rig to explode, because it helps them push their agenda. I don't think that it was rigged with explosives, but rather, based on the hearings, that BP's top people had given orders that they KNEW would be detrimental so that it facilitated the explosion. I don't know if I posted it on this site, or if that was just in discussions with people in the real world that Obama was going to call for a carbon tax / cap and trade scheme to 'fix' the problem.... it was within a week that Obama's on tv pushing for this cap and trade as part of his plan to 'get BP' (which is like 'getting' a child molester by supplying him with a group of young children)... sorry for digressing.
