Jump to content
The Education Forum
W. Niederhut

Things The NYT Doesn't Want To Talk About

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

I believe their integrity was destroyed by the gaping holes made by the 767s.  

 

Just a contemplating thought here regards PB's take on the jet crash created holes undermining the buildings support structure above them, along with the structural weakening heat generated by the explosion and igniting of up to 20,000 gallons of jet fuel.

My recollection of the holes were that they were very noticeable on the sides of each tower they hit.

However, not to the same degree at all to the non-impact sides.

My point is that you would think that the collapsing heavy weight building structure above the undermining holes might fall over the gaping holes more unevenly than the sides that weren't taken out ?

Kind of a slanted falling versus straight down?

Also, after viewing the immediate beginning of the entire tower collapses over and over, you see the part of the towers above the lower impact floors literally exploding into a great shooting out direction spray of what looks like a mass of small powdered dust material.

An evenly dispersed spray that involves the entire above impact structure all around, in one instant!

Like the entire top part of the towers above the impact sites just exploded itself.

And how could the non-heated, non weakened structure underneath the burning higher floors ( the huge physical majority of the entire building) turn into dust in seconds themselves as well?

Look at the pictures of the collapsed structures debris pile immediately after their fall.

It's mostly disintegrated dust!

As well as the massive cloud of powdered debris (that looked just like the ash from a volcanic eruption) and was pushed out so voluminously it was up to several inches deep in some areas city blocks away!

The powdered volcanic ash looking debris clouds shooting out of the tower collapse looked just like the pictures of the 1980 Mount St. Helen eruption!

Do controlled demolition experts feel the massive disintegrated dust cloud and it's incredible volume matches what they would expect from a non-controlled high rise building collapse? My common sense tells me they did not.

Building seven is another matter unto itself. No building that big falls into it's own footprint that evenly and instantly without controlled demolition being used. So obvious, even to people uneducated in that field imo.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2020 at 8:30 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Pamela,

    From the standpoint of Newtonian physics, a central issue is the near free fall collapse of the 100+ steel floors of WTC1 and WTC2.  The observed free fall acceleration is evidence no significant resistance to collapse by the entire steel exo- and endo-skeletons of those massive towers.

   Something synchronously demolished the massive lower steel sub-structures.

   Jet fuel (or office fires) on some upper floors could not possibly have done that.

    Finally, there is ample evidence of explosive demolition -- on film, audio, and the suppressed testimony of scores of witnesses.

Again, I maintain my position. Let's just agree to disagree and move on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Just a contemplating thought here regards PB's take on the jet crash created holes undermining the buildings support structure above them, along with the structural weakening heat generated by the explosion and igniting of up to 20,000 gallons of jet fuel.

My recollection of the holes were that they were very noticeable on the sides of each tower they hit.

However, not to the same degree at all to the non-impact sides.

My point is that you would think that the collapsing heavy weight building structure above the undermining holes might fall over the gaping holes more unevenly than the sides that weren't taken out ?

Kind of a slanted falling versus straight down?

Also, after viewing the immediate beginning of the entire tower collapses over and over, you see the part of the towers above the lower impact floors literally exploding into a great shooting out direction spray of what looks like a mass of small powdered dust material.

An evenly dispersed spray that involves the entire above impact structure all around, in one instant!

Like the entire top part of the towers above the impact sites just exploded itself.

And how could the non-heated, non weakened structure underneath the burning higher floors ( the huge physical majority of the entire building) turn into dust in seconds themselves as well?

Look at the pictures of the collapsed structures debris pile immediately after their fall.

It's mostly disintegrated dust!

As well as the massive cloud of powdered debris (that looked just like the ash from a volcanic eruption) and was pushed out so voluminously it was up to several inches deep in some areas city blocks away!

The powdered volcanic ash looking debris clouds shooting out of the tower collapse looked just like the pictures of the 1980 Mount St. Helen eruption!

Do controlled demolition experts feel the massive disintegrated dust cloud and it's incredible volume matches what they would expect from a non-controlled high rise building collapse? My common sense tells me they did not.

Building seven is another matter unto itself. No building that big falls into it's own footprint that evenly and instantly without controlled demolition being used. So obvious, even to people uneducated in that field imo.

 

I acknowledge your position. I disagree.  Let's just move forward...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/7/2020 at 8:58 PM, Pamela Brown said:

For John Butler:  there were no 'massive steel columns' in WTCI and 2.  The buildings had load-bearing walls. There were girders only in the central core.  The widebody 767's, loaded with 20K gallons of fuel, left gaping holes, stories high, in the external structure, which violated the integrity of the walls, and, as a result, the buildings pancaked.  The public is not supposed to figure this out -- hence the 'explosives' rabbit trail.  Those who designed 9-11 knew what they were doing.  They figured out that the structure of the buildings had an Achilles heel...

The core columns held up 60% of the buildings, the exterior columns only help up 40%. The core structure was sturdy enough to have acted like it's own skyscraper if it were left free standing. We know from the photographic evidence that the antenna of the North Tower dipped ~10 feet before the roofline started to move a single foot. This "roof caving in" scinareo is also indicated by the fact that the crown trusses were not found intact at ground zero (a web of connected steel columns on the roofs of both twin towers). Not saying demolition is a fact or anything, but if the twins collapsed naturally, a science-based explanation would have to explain these things. Not aware of any study that has tried to explain these observations that the conspiracy theorists gave been bringing up for over 10 years by now.

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...