WTC Challenge-- Day 5
Once again-- I challenge anyone to build a PHYSICAL model of a steel tower with similar dimensions and structure to the WTC and show it undergoing complete collapse at near free-fall speed following limited structural damage and subsequent column damage (from fire or from physical severing).
It should be easy to do, right?
If the official story is true, that is.
All you have to do is build a rigid tower with similar dimensions to the WTC, then cause damage to 10% of the tower about one third of the way from the top-- then have the tower completely collapse into basic components.
Think of it as an engineering challenge.
It really shouldn't be that hard to do.
If the official story is true, that is. If towers can collapse into base components from limited damage on a few floors, it should be easy to model this right?
Come on-- don't you really want to prove the conspiracy nuts wrong!?!? Don't you really want to TRY this?
Of course, I think such a model is impossible to build because you simply cannot explain what happened to the WTC without demolition.
In reality, this challenge is all just an exercise to get people who believe in the official story to think about structural engineering -- and to realize that strong steel tower structures like the WTC simply don't undergo complete global collapse from gravity acting on their own weight-- when there is only limited damage to the structure.
I, and many others, hold that ONLY demolition can account for this:
and this:
Moreover, there is abundant evidence for some sort of exotic demolition at the WTC.
If the official collapse story is TRUE, why is it so hard to PROVE it (without resorting to unverifiable computer models)?
It should be easy to do, right?
If the official story is true, that is.
All you have to do is build a rigid tower with similar dimensions to the WTC, then cause damage to 10% of the tower about one third of the way from the top-- then have the tower completely collapse into basic components.
Think of it as an engineering challenge.
It really shouldn't be that hard to do.
If the official story is true, that is. If towers can collapse into base components from limited damage on a few floors, it should be easy to model this right?
Come on-- don't you really want to prove the conspiracy nuts wrong!?!? Don't you really want to TRY this?
Of course, I think such a model is impossible to build because you simply cannot explain what happened to the WTC without demolition.
In reality, this challenge is all just an exercise to get people who believe in the official story to think about structural engineering -- and to realize that strong steel tower structures like the WTC simply don't undergo complete global collapse from gravity acting on their own weight-- when there is only limited damage to the structure.
I, and many others, hold that ONLY demolition can account for this:
and this:
Moreover, there is abundant evidence for some sort of exotic demolition at the WTC.
If the official collapse story is TRUE, why is it so hard to PROVE it (without resorting to unverifiable computer models)?
posted by spooked at 8:00 AM
13 Comments:
Once again, proof that the idiots at conspiracy smasher have absolutely no ability to confront reality. Their only weapon is ridicule, and all they do is whine.
If I am sooo stoopid, how is it that I could build a scale model of a WTC tower using steel components-- and not have it collapse following extreme damage one-third of the way down???
Could it be that I'm smarter than all your precious engineers?
Or could it be that the engineers are in complete denial or that they know speaking out would be detrimental to their career?
Of course there are engineers who have bravely spoken out.
And I will delete any comments that slander Judy Wood or say her expertise was in making false teeth (a lie).
Hey, could it be dangerous for me to breathe all this microscopic dust? Who should I call, Christine Todd Whitman?
My tower keeps exploding and turning to dust before I can tell whether it's collapsing or not.
How can I tell if it's pancaking or exploding? It seems to be exploding. Everyone says it's exploding, but the TV says it collapsed.
Fred
so far, despite the constant conspiracy smashering distractions, we still have yet to see a link to a single structural engineer who really does support the official fairytale.
get on it!
oh ya, one more thing; giggle.
Conspiracy Smasher, are you here to engage in or obstruct inquiry?
What would you suggest an American citizen do when his government, with all the resources necessary to do a proper study of the World Trade Center annihilations, has destroyed evidence and produced studies driven by politics, not science?
"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the 'official investigation' blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure."
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225
I don't know what Fire Engineering thinks of the NIST study. They called for a "fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned." They may be satisfied that NIST did that.
But their concern about destruction of evidence could not have been allayed, and NIST could not have had evidence that was destroyed. Most importantly, there is no reason to believe that the political forces seen by Fire Engineering are now interested in full disclosure. The fact that NIST did not model beyond when "global collapse ensued," and that WTC designer Les Robertson says that this is not necessary and says the families want "closure," tells me that these political forces are still powerfully opposed to the rule of law and science.
Notice that Fire Engineering says that the American Society of Civil Engineers "ran" this farce. Under these circumstances, why is there any reason that structural engineers, who allowed their professional society to run a farcical study of one of worst crimes in American history, will come forward now and do the right thing?.
Fire Engineering said:
"Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative."
A proper forensic investigation is no longer possible. That is called obstruction of justice, whoever the perps are.
Spooked is a credit to both this country and whatever universities educated him. Your actions make you an embarrassment.
i agree that spooked is definitely a credit.
and con smash is definitely an embarrassment:
"and you wonder why we laugh at you clowns"
that pretty much speaks for itself.
Here is the ridiculous argument we get from those obliged to peddle the official story: "Your models don't work because it was a unique set of once-in-a-lifetime circumstances that produced the results you saw on 9/11. By the way, it happened three different times within one day in one area of one city." And if it were true every structural engineer in the country believed this, then they should all be fired for touting such nonsense.
It's a scary proposition to believe elements of our government were involved in this and I don't necessarily hold anything againt people who cannot find it in themselves to accept such a premise. However, everyone involved in this issue would do well to simply rely on their common sense. Remember things you learned when you grew up. Examine photographs and videos on your own. I think the most important thing we can do is encourage others to simply explore and inquire on their own. I tell people all the time, "You don't have to believe anything I say. All I want you to do is look for yourself." The amazing thing is the number of people who don't realize all the things that were said/done/shown on 9/11 until they take a closer look. And that's true whether they believe the "official" story or not.
Great advice, Jim. Common sense is all I have, but I won't let that stop me. I recently tried to debate the building annihilations at ScrewLooseChange, and laid out some questions in detail. No one would answer them, even a guy that had a lot more training in physics and math than me. He just said he would defer to the experts, and that I was accusing those experts of being complicit in murder.
I wish we all could pretend this happened in Russia and just look at the evidence. Better, pretend we are from Mars.
Another thing I sometimes hear is "chaos theory." It's all so complex. That just makes me wonder how the same thing happened twice exactly the same way (towers 1 and 2) and basically 3 times in one day. If everything is so chaotic, shouldn't there be some differences?
hey conspiracy smasher, learn how to spell Chicken...they didn't teach you that in Cointelpro school, you f*ckin spook?
keep trying to ridicule, laugh, do what you may...i see right through that tactic, it's classic counter-intelligence, the fed spooks use the same tactics against protest groups, specifically anti-war and anti-globalization...we're too smart for you...so, ridicule, laugh, mock...soon, you and your spook friends will see justice...the perps will be revealed...
I don't know about other people, but I would prefer not to hear any accusations that someone is anything other than a concerned citizen.
Barry Zwicker, who thinks spooks are everywhere, said something I think makes sense:
“We should always have mutual respect among ourselves when we’re discussing anything… because then it’s not so easy for someone to sow discord in our midst. We should never engage… in name-calling… there’s a certain person who says, ‘Anyone who says that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon is a ‘hoaxter’.’ ... the more of us who do not call names the more the name-callers will stand out like sore thumbs.”
http://www.gnn.tv/B16415
I guess I broke that rule up above by calling conspiracy smasher an embarassment. I apologize, conspiracy smasher.
You're not an embarassment to your country, unless you are in fact a spook.
oh this is familiar:
He just said he would defer to the experts,
i encountered that very same deflection when earlier this year i was trying to discuss 9/11 with a retired so-called professor on another blog - he said that he wasn't very familiar with 9/11 specifics and would defer to the experts - less than 1 month later his "good" name (david "oh i'm a computer scientist but i can't make a link and i think my copy/paste is broken!" benson) shows up as being the advisor in chief of the ridiculous jod911.com which purports to "debunk" 9/11 conspiracy theories.
wow such credibility! wow the complete thoroughness! morons/shills.
kiss my ass DB and go make a bicycle-powered search engine out of coconuts!
i'd be very suspicious of sites and bloggers trying to "debunk 9-11 Conspiracy Theories"....they seem organized, calculated, and tactful...i personally think most of them are counter-intelligence/spooks, possibly NSA, or an affiliated organization...these people aren't nice, cuddly, lovey-dovey bloggers, they are out to destroy the S-11 truth movement...i'll continue to be skeptical, and cynical, of the "debunkers"...may the spooks rot in hell...
21st century information warfare, let the good people win...
Post a Comment
<< Home