Humint Events Online: Three Things Supporters of the Official WTC Collapse Theory Don't Like to Talk About

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Three Things Supporters of the Official WTC Collapse Theory Don't Like to Talk About

1) factor of safety-- there WAS extensive redundancy in the structures-- typical structures have at least five-fold redundancy

2) there WAS fireproofing on structural steel, thus ordinary fires should not have weakened the structure significantly (the NIST idea that the "plane crashes" stripped insulation from a large proportion of the structural steel is unsupported by evidence and is extremely improbable).

3) the odd fact that for BOTH towers, initial asymmetric damage turned into a symmetric global "collapse"

4) the fact that despite very different damage and fire patterns, BOTH towers were completely ablated, down to their bases, and both towers showed a similar violent mechanism of destruction

5) the NIST model of "collapses", where part of one floor collapsing pulls apart the core then pulls down the whole tower, is completely illogical and filled with flaws

There is also the other evidence that people point to as evidence of demolition, but usually official story supporters have some form of rebuttal for this evidence.

I have not seen good rebuttals to these points above, however.

UPDATE: Clearly, NIST simply cannot explain what happened to the towers. There is SO much to criticize in this letter, hopefully I will have a chance to post a more extensive critique of the NIST letter in the near future.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one has answered because the questions are so stupid. Example: "ordinary fires should not have weakened the structure significantly"

What's ordinary about a fully fueled 767 hitting a building?

9:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what's ordinary about being shown an aluminum 767 with a plastic nosecone slipping right thru the side of a massive steel and concrete wtc as if it were casper the ghost?

10:12 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

Duh, the structures were standing FINE after each taking the impact of a "767". Apart from the plane-shaped holes, there was no loss of integrity to the towers, they were standing fine, no leaning or sagging.

So again, the fires should not have weakened the structures significantly.

Further, I was raising issues, not questions.

Calling something stupid does not make it so, and if that is your best rebuttal, no wonder so many people believe the towers were blown up.

11:59 AM  
Anonymous Jim said...

I always loved "fully fueled" - none of them used any fuel from their takeoffs did they.

5:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

help! it is hot enough to melt steel in here!

1:28 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger