Still Waiting for an Engineer, Any Engineer to Explain:
1) the way the top 30 stories of WTC2 could disintegrate in a matter of 3 seconds in MID-AIR!
2) how the disintegrated top 30 stories of WTC2 could then drive a global collapse of the strong and undamaged lower section of the tower.
3) the way the top of WTC1 melted down about 50 feet without any distortion in the facade.
4) the way the last few core columns of WTC1 that remained after the collapse (the "spire") turned to dust as they fell.
5) what exactly all those "squibs" were that were shooting out of the sides of the towers at precise points preceding the collapse wave. "Compressed air and debris" doesn't explain these events unless you can explain why the debris shot out so violently at such precise locations.
Finally, can ANY engineer bother to model the actual collapses of the towers, to show how they could COMPLETELY collapse at near free-fall speed????
2) how the disintegrated top 30 stories of WTC2 could then drive a global collapse of the strong and undamaged lower section of the tower.
3) the way the top of WTC1 melted down about 50 feet without any distortion in the facade.
4) the way the last few core columns of WTC1 that remained after the collapse (the "spire") turned to dust as they fell.
5) what exactly all those "squibs" were that were shooting out of the sides of the towers at precise points preceding the collapse wave. "Compressed air and debris" doesn't explain these events unless you can explain why the debris shot out so violently at such precise locations.
Finally, can ANY engineer bother to model the actual collapses of the towers, to show how they could COMPLETELY collapse at near free-fall speed????
posted by spooked at 8:34 AM
5 Comments:
1.) The top didn't disintegrate. You can see the entire section fall.
2.) The top didn't disintegrate.
3.) Not sure about the melting, but please explain how you can see no "distirtion" through the smoke and dust the collapse produces.
4.) You're seeing what you want to see. The spire is covered in the dust. You can watch the whole thing physically fall. Dust, being lighter, stays in the air, giving the appearnce that it just went "poof".
5.) The "squibs" were nowhere near violent enough to be explosives. And your argument of them being placed "precisely" leads me to believe that if there was a conspiracy, you'd be in on it. Perhaps you can share YOUR of how you know the "squibs" were "precisely" placed.
1 & 2) see here:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2006/07/has-30-story-building-ever.html
also see here:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2006/01/irrefutable-evidence-for-massive.html
It disintegrates
3 & 4) see here:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/10/exotic-weaponry.html
3) you can see the corners fairly well
4) it looks like it turns to dust to me
5) not even sure this is worth responding to, but
a) you've no idea how violent the squibs should be for explosives, b) they were rather large compared to the building, c) by precisely, I meant they appear at precise points on the building and were not just puffs of smoke coming out of a few rows of blown out windows
moire about squibs here:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2006/01/squibs.html
Finally-- are you an engineer?
Fair enough, then, to ask for an engineer to pose cogent and responsible questions - and not some half-baked wacko who draws goofy pictures that belong in a 3rd grade art class.
And don't give me that bullshit you tried before about you being a "scientist". You are no more a scientist then my dog is a brain surgeon.
...and we all KNOW what you are "pinch":
A PAID GOVERNMENT SHILL.
hope the BLOOD MONEY is worth it...
;-)
with the absence of any engineer weighing in on this i will take this opportunity to advance my theory:
it was done with explosives of some kind.
Post a Comment
<< Home