following the standard DIVIDE & CONQUER algorithm, its no different than the Democrats Vs Republicans, or the STEELERS vs ( whoever they are playing at the time ) or Dudley Do-Right vs Snydley Whiplash .... Its expected that we have chosen teams and are playing somekinda sport. But really the world is just a bit more complex than that, there are people who are convinced beyond any doubt at all that the official story of 9/11/2001 is total fraud, but have all sorts of different ideas about how or what was really done that day. The one unifying element behind "team official story" is the bit about the suicidal Arab hijackers taking control of airliners and smashing them into buildings. But then again there isn't perfect unity there, its either LIHOP .... or something. whatever .... anyhow, just a bit of food for thought in the case of WTC7, it certainly looks like controlled demolition so riddle me this bat-fink, why should chaotic fires, cause the same result as weeks of engineering & preparation for demolition of the building?
How come we're the ones with a unified, unwavering explanation, supported by math, yet the truthers have a myriad of explanations on how the buildings came down which include, mini nukes, explosives, thermite, holograms, missiles, converted planes, remote control, planes vs. no planes, etc. Why have you guys not united under one theory? You can't all be right.
exactly where is that unified & unwavering explanation founded on math ( etc... ) where is that to be found? Please provide a pointer.
Read the NIST reports. It's all there. Same conclusions as to what brought down the buildings. Now, where are YOUR side's papers showing that explosives could have been used to create what was observed in videos and pictures? What is that? No papers? Nothing?! Interesting...
Its obviously not enough to make the case that NIST lied. How do you support a statement like "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation " You consider the NIST "reports" to be the complete & accurate account of how 3 skyscrapers were totally destroyed that day? I will tell you one thing for absolute certain, the NIST "reports" constitute a white wash job, a cover-up of something that stinks! Our "leaders" have lied to us.
You make these statements yet refuse to give reasons why. Only that it's a "white wash job". Explain what is wrong with the NIST reports and why you disagree with them. What have the engineering folks in the truther community done as far a math and explanations as to how explosives/thermite brought the buildings down. I have yet to see ONE paper from your side. Why is that?
one example: the fall of WTC7 .... note that the building descends uniformly and keeping its shape for at least the first 2.25 sec of visible descent of the north & west walls, this looks exactly like Controlled Demolition. so just exactly how is it that one gets a result that looks exactly like the product of weeks of careful planing & engineering, and caused by random FIRES? and another: In the case of the towers, the top mass above the alleged aircraft crash sites was said to have collapsed down upon the remaining structure and caused the complete destruction of the tower, HOWEVER, there are a multitude of ways that this can go in a direction that results in NOT complete destruction of the tower, and a much smaller statistical sub-set that would result in the total destruction of the tower. That is, the odds are totally against the occurrence of both towers experiencing total collapse. & the NIST statement "total collapse was inevitable ...... " = total FRAUD.
You keep saying "the building". Are you aware that the east penthouse collapsed into the interior 6 seconds prior? Are you aware that the rest of the interior started to descend right before the roofline started? Rephrase that statement above to reflect what REALLY happened and we'll talk. From beginning to end? Descriptions of the building leaning when a transit was placed on it prior to collapse? The bulge in the building being described prior to collapse? Creaking noises emanating from the building prior to collapse? The collapse of 1/3 of the interior followed by the rest of the building 6 seconds later? This all happens with a controlled demolition? Show me a demolition that has the characteristics described by me above. You can't. You're bringing statistics and odds to a structural engineering debate?!
For just one possibility: what if the rubble thus generated by the "collapse" filled up the elevator shafts & stairwells (?) its certainly a possibility and if the rubble did pack the shafts, (etc... ) then it would act to stiffen the structure and make it more difficult to destroy. also, a tremendous amount of push to the outside as evidenced by the large cloud of pulverized material that was ejected from the tower, many tons of material ejected in this way how is it known that there remained enough mass within the footprint of the building to keep smashing floors in sequence? at the time of the very first downward motion of the buildings roof, it became a crap-shoot, what bolt, or weld will fail next, and because the building was the product of human hands, the connections can not be considered to be perfectly consistent, and in addition, the forces that imposed upon the connections, could not possibly have been uniform or consistent, therefore, how can anyone expect the result observed on 9/11 to "just happen" as a result of the alleged aircraft crash & fire.
How could the rubble, generated by the bottom of the descending upper section impacting the upper floors of the lower section fall FASTER than the descending debris front and fill up the shafts?! How do you know it was TONS of material that was ejected? Do you realize that the core was encased in gypsum planking? Could that have been the debris cloud? As far as knowing what mass remained in the footprint, take a look at how high the pile of debris is and what lay around there. What about the huge elevator motors located in the core? How many tons did those weigh? The large electrical panels? The hat truss? Can you see INSIDE the perimeter columns to see how "uniform" the impacts of the descending debris could was?
The TONS of material was verified by the examination of the dust & rubble in the streets after the collapse event. You see the stuff in the street was composed of pulverized concrete, computer & misc office gear bits and yes a component of the stuff was the wall board material, but that was not all of it. in the case of rubble generated by the "collapse event" falling down elevator shafts, the fact is the front of destruction was not traveling at 9.8m/s^2 and therefore the rubble that found its way to the elevator shafts would fall into the empty space at free fall acceleration. You ask if I could see inside the building to see if the collapse was of a uniform nature, and its really not necessary to do that, note that the result was uniform destruction. what the supporters of the official story are banking on, is some sort of total uniformity of destruction in the "collapse" events of both towers. & my question is, WHY should there be uniformity in the "collapse" events of both towers?
How many tons of debris was in the 208' x 208' footprint? Why wasn't the destruction front traveling at 9.8 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]? You and everyone else says that explosives were used thus creating freefall right? Now you get to address one of the four questions I have asked n0spam. What caused the destruction front to fall at les that freefall? Uniform how genericBob. Explain what you mean.
Obviously, the NIST conclusions are inaccurate, as evidenced here: http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/ Independent scientists and other professionals have a myriad of 'problems' with NIST and their accounting of what actually happened on 9/11. We're asked to believe NIST's accounting of the fiasco, inaccuracies and all. Then, when inaccuracies are found, they're brushed off, and the purveyors of the information dismissed and ridiculed. Why?
From the previously presented link: During the past two years, the following error and two omissions came to light. The NIST report: gave an incorrect value for the width of the seat for girder A2001 at column 79 failed to mention stiffeners that provided support for girder A2001 failed to mention lateral support beams which supported beam G3005 (connected to girder A2001) which allegedly buckled. You can see here engineering drawings with the stiffener plates added as well as other views of girder A2001's connection to column 79. The locations of the preceding structural elements can be seen in figure 1 in William Pepper’s letter to Todd J. Zinser. Pepper states that the opinion of independent structural engineers is that, if included, the combined effect of this error and omissions by NIST is to “unambiguously” rule out NIST’s “probable collapse sequence.”
It has been. - - - Updated - - - So ... when will they present their findings to the community, along with a working theory?
You asked a question, and I answered that I didn't know. That's a dodge? Am I supposed to make something up?
9. Play dumb Why do you put your faith in 'scientists' who can't present a working theory in 13 years? Look to the evidence. Let the chips fall.
