disinpho wrote:Why create a fake-truth movement complete with architects and physicists around the traditional demolition hypothesis? I'm pretty sure you agree with me that most members of the mainstream truth movement are being extremely dishonest and misleading, so aren't they being dishonest about the method of destruction?
The 3 buildings that vanished on 'ground zero' where immense and constructed in a redundant and extremely sturdy matter. In any case it must be the largest controlled demolition ever attempted. I'm still skeptical that it could have been achieved with anything like conventional demolition-cutter-charges.
truthseeker wrote:A certain professor Z. Bazant of Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, has written many peer reviewed, scientific papers about this and he says that the average density of the total volume of the intact buildings, tops C and bottoms A, incl. everything was 0.25. It means that the weight of one cubic meter of the building was 250 kilograms. To be compared with one cubic meter of water that weighs 1000 kilograms.
You can conclude that the buildings were quite light as they contained mostly air.
Same professor, a stupid terrorist in my eyes that US Dept of War should imprison at Guantanamo at once, suggests that the average density of the rubble B of the buildings after 'collapses', when top C compress bottom A and itself C into rubble B, is 1! One.
It means that a 410 meters tall square (the footprint is square) building compresses into a 102.5 meters tall square rubble pile (with same foot print) when 'collapsing' (crush down + crush up) as follows according Bazant:
that then becomes a pyramid of rubble B - same density - with bigger bottom foot print and less height.
The US Journal of Engineering Mechanics, JEM, has published a scientific analysis by me - http://heiwaco.tripod.com/blgb.htm - of this strange phenomenom!
In response to your post.
I noticed a link that you included. Which led me to Richard Gage videos.
He still believes the (thermite) theory demolition, and pulverisation top down theory> Am i incorrect
with this thinking?
disinpho wrote:To paraphrase Judy Wood: Where the F*** did the towers go?
nonhocapito wrote:disinpho. We are not fools, and we know where you are getting at. You must be anoter fan of the energy weapons of Judy Wood that, evidently, to you make more sense that simple, tested, safe controlled demolition. Now let me stop you at once: do not even try to promote that theory. We cannot have this discussion over and over again. Wood, whose head must be made of the same material, derive her conclusions from faked pictures. That's enough to dismiss her ramblings entirely.
On your part, suggesting how massive and hard to destroy were the towers by posting big pictures (BTW: we NEED the source of these pictures) of big metal frames will not make the possibility of controlled demolition less acceptable or less probable.
Controlled demolition can tear down anything. Bridges, skyscrapers, anything. If we built it, we can destroy it. Including your massive twin towers. Energy weapons are a kook story meant to distract everyone from the massive use of fakery involved in covering up how really the things went.
hoi.polloi wrote:Could have been the "built to demolish" kinda thing? Seems a safe bet now that we'll never know.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests