The WTC Contradiction
Does anyone else find these two official facts just a little bit contradictory?
1) each WTC tower was a massive, strong structure that swallowed and chewed up a very large jet airplane without any distortion in its overall form except for holes where the planes went in.
2) each WTC tower was so flimsy that each tower completely disintegrated in a matter of seconds when significantly less than half of the supporting columns of one upper floor were weakened by plane damage and fire.
Strong.
Flimsy.
Which is it?
UPDATE: There is also a major contradiction in the collapse of the towers:
1) the top section that collapsed first for each tower, essentially disintegrated and turned into dust, suggesting that the lower part of the building is offering strong resistance to the collapse.
2) the lower section of the towers fell apart at nearly free-fall speed, suggesting there was almost no resistance to the collapse downwards of the upper sections.
High resistance.
No resistance.
Which is it?
Note-- both of these examples are REAL and SERIOUS contradictions that cannot be explained by the official collapse explanations. However, both of these contradictions can be resolved by the explanation that explosives were used to bring down the towers.
1) each WTC tower was a massive, strong structure that swallowed and chewed up a very large jet airplane without any distortion in its overall form except for holes where the planes went in.
2) each WTC tower was so flimsy that each tower completely disintegrated in a matter of seconds when significantly less than half of the supporting columns of one upper floor were weakened by plane damage and fire.
Strong.
Flimsy.
Which is it?
UPDATE: There is also a major contradiction in the collapse of the towers:
1) the top section that collapsed first for each tower, essentially disintegrated and turned into dust, suggesting that the lower part of the building is offering strong resistance to the collapse.
2) the lower section of the towers fell apart at nearly free-fall speed, suggesting there was almost no resistance to the collapse downwards of the upper sections.
High resistance.
No resistance.
Which is it?
Note-- both of these examples are REAL and SERIOUS contradictions that cannot be explained by the official collapse explanations. However, both of these contradictions can be resolved by the explanation that explosives were used to bring down the towers.
posted by spooked at 1:44 PM
12 Comments:
oh i find them to be very contradictory - and you're right; they can both be explained very simply: explosives
Please list the structural engineers who concur with your hypothesis of the towers collapse.
poofity
poofin
poof!
10 seconds to poof
don't forget that there was 2 poofs in the space of one hour!
poofums
poofery
now poof this!
Judy Wood has a degree in structural engineering and she concurs with the idea that explosives were used.
Beyond that, I can't tell you. Why don't you do a survey yourself on the question, since you are so hung up on this issue?
Judy Wood does not have a degree in structural engineering.
so what if she does or doesn't? her website makes it plain as day the extent to which the NIST report is untrue.
Based on the understanding of someone who has studied teeth all her life.
But to someone who designs and builds skyscrapers and knows what makes them stay up or fall down, the NIST repirt makes perfect sense.
I'm with the actual skyscraper experts on this one.
S.O.T.-- why are you calling Judy Wood a liar? She has three degrees in engineering, a BS, MS and PhD. She says she has a degree in structural engineering. She also has done more than work on teeth "all her life".
Why engineers may be afraid to speak out on the WTC demolition.
I'm with the actual skyscraper experts on this one.
this is just more of your nonsense sword - it's time for you to put up or shut up and provide a link to your skyscraper experts who agree with NIST -
anyone with eyes in their head can see just from the photos (poof! see above) that the towers exploded and disintegrated. NIST does not explain that.
I am not lying, Spook. I am not the one whose case is so weak that he is reduced to blowing up rabbit cages and claiming screenshots from video games are appropriate for forensic analysis.
And at the end of the day, Judy Wood is NOT a structural engineer.
and once again the mighty sword of truth fails to provide a link to any of his many skyscraper experts who should take up the slack of NIST and it's failure to explain how and why the towers exploded and disintegrated from the top down in only 10 seconds. a phenomenon that we can all observe just by watching a video of.
what the fuck sword? i thought you were smart but you are falling into a conspiracysmasher type of ad-nauseam bullshit. put-up or shut-up.
Post a Comment
<< Home