Where's the Sledgehammer?
Here we can see the top of the WTC1 debris pile, very shortly after 9/11, before the debris has been taken away:
Here's a close-up of the core area:
Here is a further zoom-in:
Here is a another zoom-in:
Why is the debris on top of the pile so shredded and compacted?
Where is the top of the tower that supposedly drove the collapse?
Where is the freaking sledgehammer that did this immense damage?
Here's a close-up of the core area:
Here is a further zoom-in:
Here is a another zoom-in:
Why is the debris on top of the pile so shredded and compacted?
Where is the top of the tower that supposedly drove the collapse?
Where is the freaking sledgehammer that did this immense damage?
posted by spooked at 11:59 AM
31 Comments:
here is another photo of the WTC1 *rubble*:
photo
it is obvious that the so-called *rubble* is not even as tall as that ambulance which was parked in front of the WTC1 right before it *collapsed*.
sledgehammer - scheuerman's own choice of words.
so where did this alleged *sledgehammer* go?
Where is the evidence of a nuclear detonation 40 feet below that in the basement?
Where is the evidence of a nuclear detonation 40 feet below that in the basement?
Right in front of your eyes, if you dare to look.
What are you expecting to see and what do you see?
WTC 1 Inner Core Destruction Advancing Ahead Of Collapse Demolition Wave
Where is the evidence of a nuclear detonation 40 feet below that in the basement?
Why are you so concerned whether nuclear detonation was involved (as the Anonymous Physicist, Spooked, the Finnish Military Expert and even David Howard have posited) or not?
The official explanations (NIST, Bazant and now Scheuerman, all denying the possibility of any explosives whatsoever) have been thoroughly debunked. Isn't that in and of itself a cause for concern?
Meanwhile, Bin Laden is still at large and millions of Iraqis continue to perish due to these official "explanations".
And while we're fucking at it, where's the U235 if there was a nuclear detonation?
3:09PM--
I deleted your earlier post because I didn't care for your tone.
Second, the evidence for nuclear devices is there, if you think about it and read what I and A.P. have written already.
Part of the answer is we can't see what happened 40 feet below there, and we haven't been shown what the base of those core looked like. As I explained in an earlier post, my hypothesis is that parts of the outer core were taken out by small nuclear devices.
You still haven't explained where the sledgehammer is.
You still haven't explained where the sledgehammer is.
That's because the real sledgehammer was explosions from within.
But @3:09 knows this already.
The sledgehammer looks more like the pile of shop sweepings left after drilling, turning, grinding the sledge until nothing solid is left.
How it is turned into such sweepings "on the fly" as it fell is interesting enough in itself, but to imagine this cloud of debris acting as a pile driver to crush the undamaged tower below is just silliness, and cannot stand as the basis for a meaningful model.
The sledgehammer looks more like the pile of shop sweepings left after drilling, turning, grinding the sledge until nothing solid is left.
How it is turned into such sweepings "on the fly" as it fell is interesting enough in itself, but to imagine this cloud of debris acting as a pile driver to crush the undamaged tower below is just silliness, and cannot stand as the basis for a meaningful model.
Exactly!
Which is why I would REALLY like to hear what the official explanation is for this.
My guess is the best the shills can come up with is "shit happens when a giant building falls down".
But a more detailed explanation WOULD be nice.
I too would like to know what the official explanation for this is.
Even though it seems as if their entire explanation of the WTC collapse revolves around this supposed sledgehammer effect, for some reason they ignored this lack of a sledgehammer completely, didn't they.
But that's ok because like that other comment says "Meanwhile, Bin Laden is still at large and millions of Iraqis continue to perish due to these official "explanations".
The official explanations (NIST, Bazant and now Scheuerman, all denying the possibility of any explosives whatsoever) have been thoroughly debunked.
Then honestly, I don't understand what the hold up is in actually getting one of these "debunkings" published. If they truly are that thorough, comprehensive, and (dare I say) remotely reasonable, there is no reason why we should be going on 6-plus years without one, single 9/11 Truth theory published in any kind of reputable science journal.
If it is that cut and dry, one would expect that at the very least 51% of the scientific community would be in agreement, and you wouldn't have to be resorting to Blogger and other scattered and various 9/11 dot coms.
You can argue that "it just takes time", but six years and nothing legitimate to show for it?
I'd either be worried or would start to question the validity of the movement.
I'm curious to know what happens to the top of the tower in a basement-nuke scenario.
And how a nuke in the basement would produce the image shown above.
I don't understand what the hold up is in actually getting one of these "debunkings" published.
relax chad, who says that this avenue is not already being pursued even as we speak?
and there is no movement.
I'm curious to know.....and how a nuke in the basement would produce the image shown above.
judging from that image shown above it appears that the entire tower has been totally obliterated from top to bottom.
and frankly, i am curious as to how a "non-explosive gravity driven collapse" (as NIST, Bazant and now Scheuerman would have us believe) could produce the results shown in those images above.
can you explain it chad?
so far neither NIST, Bazant, nor Scheuerman have even tried.
what are you waiting for chad? go get your science teacher.
judging from that image shown above it appears that the entire tower has been totally obliterated from top to bottom.
Right. And...?
Give me an explanation. Are you suggesting a nuke in the basement obliterated the tower from top to bottom? Are you suggesting nukes were placed throughout the building? Please elaborate.
and frankly, i am curious as to how a "non-explosive gravity driven collapse" (as NIST, Bazant and now Scheuerman would have us believe) could produce the results shown in those images above.
I'm sure you would be as I highly doubt you are qualified enough to even understand their explanations. I myself cannot, so don't feel bad. I do however, remember learning about a thing called "potential energy" in physics. Buildings have a lot of it. Skyscrapers have even more.
relax chad, who says that this avenue is not already being pursued even as we speak?
and there is no movement.
I'm totally relaxed, but thank you for your concern. And your statement is speculation. Hell. You even phrased it as a question. The fact still remains that it's been 6 years without a 9/11 truth peer-reviewed, scientifically published paper. What's the hold-up? You guys jump all over NIST for taking so long on their WTC7 report, even after they state that it's been delayed so that they can look at alternative theories (such as explosives), but when it comes to your side putting out something it's "Relax, we're working on it, maybe."
Hypocritical.
The fact still remains that it's been 6 years without a 9/11 truth peer-reviewed, scientifically published paper. What's the hold-up? You guys jump all over NIST for taking so long on their WTC7 report, even after they state that it's been delayed so that they can look at alternative theories (such as explosives), but when it comes to your side putting out something it's "Relax, we're working on it, maybe."
What you don't seem to understand is that I, like everyone else in the 9/11 "movement", has to work for a living. Unlike NIST or Bazant, it is not our freaking job to do this. We do what we can, when we can.
The other thing you don't seem to "understand" is that NIST, Popular Mechanics, the govt. and many others are professional shills for the official story and that many people are SCARED to speak out publicly for fear of detriment to their careers.
Why Haven't More Scientists and Engineers Spoken Out About the Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center?
Are you suggesting nukes were placed throughout the building?
Yes.
You know, the whole "I'm scared" excuse is such utter bullshit. If you have concrete evidence that the government carried out the attacks, then YOU FUCKING COME FORWARD WITH IT! How dare you sit there and risk the lives of hundreds of millions of people just so you can "save your job". Not only would you be blowing the whistle on the biggest cover up known to mankind, you're probably gonna' be quite popular afterwards for exposing the truth. Grow a sack.
No.... The only reason they're "scared to come forward" is because even they don't fully believe this crap.
What you don't seem to understand is that I, like everyone else in the 9/11 "movement", has to work for a living. Unlike NIST or Bazant, it is not our freaking job to do this. We do what we can, when we can.
Really? What you don't seem to be able to comprehend is that I'm not talking about YOU, you ego-centric freak. Is Stephen Jones not a scientist? Is it not his JOB to figure this stuff out? Where is his scientifically reviewed paper? Where are all the other papers from all the other scientists you guys claim to have on your side? It IS their job. Why 6 years and no paper?
And the fact that you are blind to the irony in what you yourself typed is hysterical. "It's not our job to do this." .... And yet somehow, you know better than they do, right?
....
Seriously, Spooked. You expect me to believe that people would rather watch the NWO take over the globe, impose some sort of world-wide police state, put dissenters in camps, etc. etc. etc...
... all because they don't want to lose their jobs?
Is that your perception of humanity? Are people that cowardly?
You know, the whole "I'm scared" excuse is such utter bullshit...How dare you sit there and risk the lives of hundreds of millions of people just so you can "save your job".
shut the fuck up chad. spooked didn't say that he was scared so maybe you should go dwell on your own sac.
since you have admitted several times now that you do not understand the wtc destruction maybe you should just go find something that you actually do know something about.
Is this the Chad blog now?
Reading comprehension, Anon. The "you" I was referring to was not Spooked. It was the implied "you" of the people who are "scared to come forward."
And you're right. I have admitted my lack of qualifications in understanding the complex nature, science, and physics of how and why buildings collapse. I have never studied it.
Unlike others, I do not pretend to know more than I actually do.
jeez louise chad, in the space of the 1 week that you have been here you have sunk to the level of demanding that we provide you with examples of official progress.
frankly chad, any progress or lack thereof is none of your business at this point, so fuck off.
if you are truly worried about official publications then maybe you should hit up mr. scheuerman for an advance copy of his novel.
Personally, if I were on your side, I'd be demanding the same thing.
Six years and nothing concrete to show for it is embarassing.
And FYI, a novel is defined as: a fictitious prose narrative of considerable length and complexity, portraying characters and usually presenting a sequential organization of action and scenes.
So while I'll pass on the fiction, I'd love to see a member of the movement come up with a sequential organization of action and scenes. ... Another thing that has yet to be done in 6 years.
So this IS the chad blog now!
Still waiting for someone to tell me where the sledgehammer is...
Just a reminder-- that stuff sticking up out of the debris is only a fraction of the core-- perhaps the inner 25% of it.
The only sledgehammer was explosions from within.
yup, @7:52 knows where Bazant's "sledgehammer" is.
7:52 was deleted for violating the commenting policy.
Post a Comment
<< Home