Where's the Sledeghammer-- Part 2
See the post below for the context of this question. The "sledgehammer" refers to the upper chunk of tower that crushed down the huge lower part of the tower to ground level, completely pulverizing everything inside and massively compacting the debris.
The conundrum is that the "sledgehammer" is missing from the top of the debris pile-- instead we just see massively compacted and shredded debris.
Here are the three basic answers for "where's the sledeghammer?"
1) Bazant would say that after "crushing down" the lower tower, the sledgehammer underwent "crush up" as it met the debris pile. However, we have shown that Bazant's explanations are bogus. Briefly, there is no evidence that the sledgehammer even survived the downward destruction, and it defies logic to believe that even if it existed, that this powerful sledgehammer would compact down to the same degree as the lower debris-- simply by caving in on itself as it hits the debris pile.
2) A non-standard explanation-- but still consistent with a collapse mechanism-- for where the sledgehammer went is that it was destroyed in early stages of the collapse, but as it broke apart it initiated a collapse chain reaction such that the tower broke apart progressively during the collapse-- chunks of building progressively breaking down lower floors. The problem with this explanation is two-fold. First, it is hard to see how the collapse would progress symmetrically and to the massive degree seen-- and also produce so much pulverization. Second, it seems impossible that this type of collapse would proceed as rapidly as was seen for the WTC since it is a more piece-meal form of collapse-- bit by bit breaking down. (This type of action is actually what would be expected for a REAL collapse.)
3) The sledgehammer was not the upper chunk of tower but was in fact powerful demolition charges placed throughout the towers. This is the simplest explanation, and the one that can explain the complete picture-- which is why it simply has to be what happened on 9/11.
The conundrum is that the "sledgehammer" is missing from the top of the debris pile-- instead we just see massively compacted and shredded debris.
Here are the three basic answers for "where's the sledeghammer?"
1) Bazant would say that after "crushing down" the lower tower, the sledgehammer underwent "crush up" as it met the debris pile. However, we have shown that Bazant's explanations are bogus. Briefly, there is no evidence that the sledgehammer even survived the downward destruction, and it defies logic to believe that even if it existed, that this powerful sledgehammer would compact down to the same degree as the lower debris-- simply by caving in on itself as it hits the debris pile.
2) A non-standard explanation-- but still consistent with a collapse mechanism-- for where the sledgehammer went is that it was destroyed in early stages of the collapse, but as it broke apart it initiated a collapse chain reaction such that the tower broke apart progressively during the collapse-- chunks of building progressively breaking down lower floors. The problem with this explanation is two-fold. First, it is hard to see how the collapse would progress symmetrically and to the massive degree seen-- and also produce so much pulverization. Second, it seems impossible that this type of collapse would proceed as rapidly as was seen for the WTC since it is a more piece-meal form of collapse-- bit by bit breaking down. (This type of action is actually what would be expected for a REAL collapse.)
3) The sledgehammer was not the upper chunk of tower but was in fact powerful demolition charges placed throughout the towers. This is the simplest explanation, and the one that can explain the complete picture-- which is why it simply has to be what happened on 9/11.
posted by spooked at 8:00 AM
12 Comments:
Simple explanation satisfies a simple mind.
That is (one of) your (many) problem(s). You are unable to think in an abstract, technical way that examines anything beyond a "simple" answer. You prefer instead to look for the easiest, simplest explanation and when things go *beyond* that, it gets too technical for you, so voila - it looked like an explosion so it must BE an explosion! Doh!
You are unable to think in an abstract, technical way that examines anything beyond a "simple" answer.
of course anonymous @ 11:21 can explain the wtc destruction, he just chooses not to - "if you don't know then i'm not going to tell you, nyah nyah nyah!"
if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is probably not a frog.
11:21am-- sorry, what is YOUR answer then, and why is it better than demolition?
It's not that I just picked demolition because it is the simplest explanation, I picked it because the other explanations are problematic.
Further, I am perfectly willing to get more technical, as I did in these posts:
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/spooked911
Still no explanations for the lack of Bazant's "sledgehammer"?
what a shock.
The only "sledgehammer" was explosions from within.
I am doubting very much that there was any sledgehammer effect on the WTC.
Other than explosions, that is.
hmmm.
Bazant said that the top of the wtc acted like a sledgehammer, and squashed the lower part of the wtc, but everyone can see with their own eyes that the top of the wtc was already rendered into powder before it had any chance to squash the lower part of the wtc.
photo.
how can powder suspended in the air act as a "sledgehammer", crushing the lower part of the tower?
it could not.
Where is the "sledgehammer"?
Is this a trick question? I don't see anything that could be construed as a "sledgehammer".
What the f--k is going on here?
timothy--
Supporters of the official story have likened the top of the towers to "sledgehammers"-- large sections of buildings that broke off and supposedly drove the collapses.
"...large sections of buildings that broke off and supposedly drove the collapses."
That's what I thought. But if that was the case then they should have been on top of the debris pile, right?
10:14am--
right
Post a Comment
<< Home