Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
It's easy to second guess everything and ask questions. But you second guess the most obvious things and then refuse to accept the explanation.
|
I haven't heard explanations - only leaps of logic into leaps of faith; "common sense" logic, probability, possibility, hypotheses and theory.
There's nothing wrong with all these because we simply have not been given an explanation or investigation. We've been given a possible scenario, whose likelihood is closer to impossible than improbable.
I'd like to know how asymmetrical inward bowing of perimeter columns could lead to global, symmetrical collapse and the destruction of core columns. How fire and heat that should take several hours to even soften steel in an enclosed area, can do so in less than an hour in open-air conditions.
But just generally, I'd like to know how they get from point A to C without passing by B.
It's not what NIST says, since of course they will not say anything that is, in and of itself, incorrect. All they say, taken on its own, is probably 100% correct.
It's what they don't say, explain or outline that frustrates me. It's their denial of molten, lava-like rivers of steel beneath the debris.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
My favorite example is the so called "squibs". Clearly, we can see something popping out of the corners of the towers as they come down.
|
Actually "squibs" or ejections of air, dust and other materials pop out of windows, not corners or anywhere there's solid structural support.
The problems with some of the squibs in the WTC videos is that they're erupting from building corners, where three to four solid steel skyscraper beams are intersecting...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Looks suspicious, huh? However, you need to stop thinking of the towers are "buildings" and more of "enclosed cities that housed fifty thousand people". Everything that was needed by fifty thousand people was housed in the towers... Steam, water, air, Hydraulic fluid - did you know that their was lines for Hydraulic fluid all the way to the very top of the towers... For the window cleaning. Is it not possible that one of these lines, under pressure under normal circumstances, burst and found the path of least resistance, exploding out of the building? Don't answer that yet.
At the same time, the buildings were air tight - completely air tight, meaning you couldn't open up any windows. You have dozens of air tight floors with all of that air instantly being compressed with no where to go. Again, something found the path of least resistance and exploded out of the side of the building.
|
The buildings were buildings, please. Their self-enclosure did not mean they created their own air to breathe; and the "air tight" argument goes "out the window" when those planes made those big holes in them, the engines and explosion of fuel punched holes in the walls and windows on the other side, and the so-called fireballs managed to fly shrieking down the elevator shafts to the lobby and blow out those doors while setting other fires along the way, I guess by blowing out those elevator doors too.
Anyhow, the kinds of ejections you're talking about happen with progressive collapses, or rather "pancaking". Since NIST and others discount progressive collapse, and since those who support the popular theory talk about all the air and wind needed to keep these fires "raging" for so long, you're contradicting yourself with the whole squibs as air-ejections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Speaking of explosives, there's a lot of discussion about certain chemicals found in the debris. This seems to come as a surprise to some, but common sense tells you that a city of fifty thousand people would have pretty much everything it needed to support itself. We discussed Barium earlier - you said it was impossible to have barium found there - yet sixty seconds of research tells me it's found in light bulbs.
|
Eh, you can lay off the Barium, I admitted I shouldn't have mentioned it solely, and that I meant it's apparent higher-than-normal levels. However it was a "for example" reference since I didn't have the actual USGS study or independent analysis before me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Another commonly discussed chemical is thermite, which is laughable. Of course there was thermite - it's using in welding, and the WTC complex was constantly under construction with improvements, upgrades, companies moving in and out, etc.
|
Thermite and unignited Thermate flakes were found in much of the dust, from many sources. Thermite is not used for indoor welding, and somehow I don't think they would have found it so evidently in the dust if it was from the initial weld jobs forty years ago.
Iron spheres were found in enormous quantities in all the dust samples from non-WTC buidings all around, and were even the basis for a couple of lawsuits because of the connection with WTC, Silverstein Enterprises and the Port Authority - whoever was being sued by the insurance companies concerned.
Iron spheres can only be created by very very high temperatures that cause steel to separate and evaporate into these tiny little globular drops of metal that then harden in mid-air. Which is impossible in the temperatures reported and theorized by NIST and the other government bodies.
The sheer amount of these little iron balls can't be accounted by the welding that occured after the collapse, partly because there wasn't that much metal cutting, all the beams were already about the length required to load onto trucks, and secondly because the residue of metal cutting in the pit wouldn't make it as far as the initial dust cloud did, to deposit dust in layers inches thick in apartments dozens of blocks away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Anything that you come at me with can quickly be explained away by using common sense. In the mean time, you can't give me a reason why anyone would want to do this. You talk about pipelines that have been in the planning stages for twenty years, and the Jew bashers are trying to tell us that Israel is behind it - while ten years later, nothing has changed for Israel.
|
Well I don't have to give a why, or who, did it, though it can be fun to consider, and there's so many people who benefited that it's hard to define any precise modus. I tend to favor the PNAC > Bush Regime > Big War Machine line of consideration, as well as the whole trading off of homeland freedom for security erosions of our world since the event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by porno jew
|
That's what I say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyClips
.gov website? Yea now I'm convinced!! I'm sure they are telling the truth  |
Don't dismiss any of the findings and evaluations in any government report, they're probably factual. It's the conclusions that are head-scratchers.