This seems to be the problem in understanding 9/11. Everyone embraces the ideas that when you connect the "dots" the picture emerges explaining what appear to be disparate and separate bits of information. This is often how crimes and mysteries are solved.... piecing together evidence... connecting the evidence "dots".
The zodiac is an example of a nonsense connecting the dots... the stars which make up Orion have hardly anything to do with each other. When view from almost any other place in the universe the pattern which we see as Orion would not resemble it at all. So there is no Orion... it is a collection of dots (stars) we connect because we choose to see Orion, the hunter in Greek MYTHOLOGY. Note the word MYTH in mythology.
...............................................................................................................
Step right up and connect the dots....
The "collapse" of three steel framed buildings
is NOT mythology, and indeed the manner of said destruction is VERY suspicious to say the least.
can anybody connect any sort of "dots" at all & get commercial airliner at the PENTAGON?
REALLY?
Aren't truthers merely connecting the dots to form a hypothesis?
The prez came on the tele a few days ago in regard to Syria. He said,
"you've all seen the videos, of dead and dying children, gasping for air"
etc yadi. Is he saying we're supposed to form an opinion based on utoob?
That's what he wants us to do. The intel he was given was altered, and
he was shown the same videos we can see.
He's asking us to put two and two together and believe what we're told.
You realize that among three categories across sev polls:
1) You believe the official conspiracy the gov says happened.
2) You believe something else happened to bring down the towers.
3) You're undecided.
More people vote # 2 than either of the other categories.
Is the majority just more gullible then?
or there is a 4) option . that is people believe the hijack/crash/fire collapse. but just don't agree on some of the details in the OCT.
How is it possible for people to have opinions about facts?
What can't all observers agree are the facts?
Which observations as fact subject to disagreement?
What IS the debate about?
How is it possible for people to have opinions about facts?
What can't all observers agree are the facts?
Which observations as fact subject to disagreement?
What IS the debate about?
The FACTS are not so much the issue, We get agreement
from all sides that indeed WTC7 descended for 2.25 sec
at Free Fall Acceleration, HOWEVER the concept that its significant
that is were the opinion becomes critical. I KNOW that its significant
because you can NOT expect fires, especially fires of the nature observed
in the case of WTC7 to be a major factor in the complete & total destruction
of said building. Also in the case of WTC 1 & 2 note that the "collapse" was
a very regular event, in that as it happened all 4 sides of the tower were destroyed
at the same time, because if the catastrophic failure had a bias to one side or another,
the rubble that was allegedly powering this destruction, would have all rolled over the
edge and down to street level, leaving the "pile driver" with insufficient mass to
completely destroy the entire tower.
The telling feature of all this is the uniformity of the collapse events for WTC1,2 & 7
along with the fact that there was complete & total destruction of the towers & WTC7.
Note that for a total of 3 "airliner crashes" the aircraft hits a wall, penetrates said wall,
and the entire aircraft ( save or aprox 1% of it ) enters the building through the hole
it just made and then a huge jet fuel explosion happens but NOT until after the entire
aircraft had disappeared inside the building. REALLY people?!?!?!?!?!
what is going on around here?
In fact very precise traces of the movement show that there was not perfectly smooth acceleration at G... How would you account for that?
And besides... falling at or near G has nothing to do with CD. The twins did not show a rate of G for the descent... the motion accelerated to about 65mph and then held at that speed. How do you explain that?
Why shouldn't the collapse be uniform? The mass distribution would account for that. The main force was gravity.
You need to brush on on your physics. The impacts were exactly what would be predicted. When would you expect the fuel to explode? Would fuel air explosions require the fuel to be aerosolized (sp?)? What would turn all the fuel into mist? How and when would that happen?
The collapse of the twins was a ROOSD which gutted the interior causing the facades to lose support and peel away and the core to collapse from Euler forces. Do you know what Euler buckling is or how the slenderness ratio applies to columns?
Do you accept the concept of a cascading failure? A cascading failure is a failure in a system of interconnected parts in which the failure of a part can trigger the failure of successive parts. Such a failure may happen in many types of systems, including power transmission, computer networking, finance and bridges. Can you see that one thing can lead to another and the event gets out of control? Do you know the story of the Chicago fire? How did it start? Great Chicago Fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do you get it of not?
One Question: do you buy it ... that is the statement that "Total collapse was inevitable ....... "
as published by the NIST ? do you are do you not buy it?
enquiring minds & all that rot!
I do accept the concept that once the reserve strength of the columns at the strike zone was destroyed... they could no longer support the mass of the floors above.... that mass was more than sufficient when dropping of the floor below to destroy it and this rapidly repeated all the way to the ground.
The floor collapse did not destroy the columns... facade or core. But the collapsing floors destroyed the bracing (was the bracing for) of the facade and it could not stand without bracing... same with core...
So one it reached a point of no return those structures were goners... total collapse was inevitable... of course there were some columns which stood at the base... some to 14 stories tall I believe.
The collapse of 7WTC was likewise inevitable...but not for the cause NIST proposes... but because the load transfer trusses came apart and with them the core above them collapse and this caused the floors to collapse down inside the tower... pulled the first 7 floors of the perimeter inward and the 57 perimeter columns and the curtain wall came down as the last remaining part of the building.
One thing led to another... and there was no way for those designs to arrest the collapse.
This is one of the ways that I express myself as being a "FREE RADICAL"
you see, I do NOT believe that "total collapse was inevitable ..... "
because there are so many possible alternatives that involve damage, but not
complete destruction. & I have a sufficiently open mind to be able to embrace
alternatives on this subject.
I have in several previous posts, attempted to explain alternative modes of failure
that do not involve total collapse & total destruction of the tower(s), however
nobody wants to even engage in discussion on this bit. so be it ....
have a nice day
: )
What alternatives? How would the collapse arrest?
The very fact that you ask that question, speaks volumes.
The "collapse" was allegedly dependent on the mass of the "pile driver"
and with so much stuff being ejected out the sides of the towers, how
can anyone be certain that sufficient mass remained, to form the "pile driver"?
I believe that what was ejected through the windows was the contents of the floors NOT the concrete. The contents being ceilings, furniture and so forth. What you call the pile driver... is the mass of descending slabs... fractured.. not rectangular plates... but the mass of fractured concrete impacts on a slab and drive is down... also fracturing it... the mass is dropping at about 100' per second and so all the contents including the air between the slab being impacted and the one below it (and the contents) is forced out through the windows they over pressure shatters. 18,000 cu yards of air and contents are pushed out (like a bellows) at speeds of reaching 400 mph. This is a mighty destructive wind and pretty much destroys everything in the .1 seconds that it takes to drive the air out as the mass drops the 12 feet only to repeat again.
You don't need the contents to provide the mass to destroy the slabs one after another. Once you have 5 or more moving slab masses at 65 mph it's more than adequate to destroy the typical WTC floor slab.
Getting a "chain reaction" of that sort going + sustaining it is a good trick considering the fact that if at any given floor level, the connections on one side of the tower failed before the ones on the other side, the floor would have to drop on only one side forming a ramp for all that rubble to slide off & down to street level. oops!
its a rather good trick to have a building suffer asymmetrical damage, and then "collapse" in a completely symmetrical manner. The fact of the completeness of destruction is also still a red-flag. and in the completeness of destruction, how is it that people comment on the lack of recognizable items in the rubble, no desk, chair, telephone .... or? after other fires or natural disasters, damaged but recognizable bits of offices & home furnishings can be seen int the pix of the aftermath, but NOT at ground zero....also, what magic made the hat-trusses disappear?
Had nothing necessarily to do with the connections failing... any part of the floor system/composite could fail when overloaded. And considering that the mass above say any location on the 85th floor was about the same and if that mass dropped onto that location on floor 85 it would shatter it. And so since the mass distribution was more or less uniform in the tower.. the collapse would be more or less uniform and come straight down. And no it did not come down uniformly on each floor... sections of the floor plan collapse/destruction were ahead of others.
Even if at the wave of Harry Potter's wand, you could cause ALL of the floors to simply disappear and all at the same time,
would the outer wall & core of the WTC towers simply give up and collapse straight down?
The manner and speed of destruction is still VERY suspicious!
or?
Even if at the wave of Harry Potter's wand, you could cause ALL of the floors to simply disappear and all at the same time,
would the outer wall & core of the WTC towers simply give up and collapse straight down?
The manner and speed of destruction is still VERY suspicious!
or?
The fact that so many people simply do NOT get it
speaks volumes about the psychological warfare going on.
Yes, the CT guru's are doing a good job. You bought what they had to sell.
as I have said before, on the day ( 9/11/2001 )
it was OBVIOUS that the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 had to have been CD.
as I have said before, on the day ( 9/11/2001 )
it was OBVIOUS that the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 had to have been CD.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?