"Max... the 'physics' are irrelevant here, and your demands for explanation non-sensical.
9/11 Physics is only irrelevant to the ignorant and those with pre-defined closed-minded agendas.
The lack of an explanation for the breaking the laws of physics is admittedly but one piece of evidence of a crime, but it is a glaring one and one that can't be easily covered up by political appointees and discussion thread instigators.
Firstly, you can rabbit-on all day long about this or that characteristic of a falling building... but ... this does not go any way at all toward proving a crime occurred, and if so, who perpetrated it.
As much as I'd like say, "I can see your point" and "taken in isolation you might be right," I can't. You're just wrong and are simply parading how little research into 9/11 that you, as a history major, have performed.
Taken in isolation, the characteristics of the falling WTC-7 building are incredible: not to be believed based on the shifting stories provided by the government.
The purpose of "rabbiting" about this single feature is to bring awareness to the lies, to crack open the door in our nation's collective disbelief, and to shut down the coincidence theorists, who with the eagerness of those cashing government paychecks all too vocally & viciously lump everything about 9/11 -- including the advertising, the lead-up, the execution, the cover-up, and the distasteful follow-up as given in the article above -- as just "unfortunate coincidences."
To your point, NIST's admission of freefall in Stage 2 does not name a perpetrator, except to imply that hijackers in airplanes could not have achieved it by themselves and needed insiders, and that collateral damage (and fires) inflicted by the collapses of the neighboring towers cannot account for an over-designed modern skyscraper freefalling through eight stories.
WTC-7 has many, many issues that even rudimentary research on your part would bring to light. (For example, there are reports that explosions and fires happened in WTC-7 before either of the neighboring towers came down.)
Secondly, you are the one who is making extraordinary claims, therefore the burden of proof is upon you.
A history major who cannot read. The links were provided.
- Collateral Damage of 9/11 (PDF)
- Collateral Damage of 9/11 Part II(PDF)
The building got fucked-up, and then it fell over. (hey, I've got a degree in history, not structural engineering)
I agree with the statement: "The building got fucked-up." The issues are when did the building get fucked and how.
As for "it falling over", wrong, wrong, wrong. That's the issue. Had it fallen over, that would have been believable. No. Despite having 30% of its perimeter columns severed and a large portion of one side "scooped out" (supposedly), the building did not fall over. It fell straight through the path of most resistance... And worse still, the longest duration stage 2 shows that "most resistance" was not even 35% resistance (ala fire weakened steel) but was 0% resistance!!!
You don't have to be a structural engineer. High school physics suffices.
Even if we were to agree (and I don't) that the buildings were intentionally demolished, how can you prove it was the Bushies?
Means, motive, and opportunity. The history revealed by E. P. Heidner in the links are compelling.
Next time, before posting your knee-jerk responses, do some reading and research like in the links provided.
No comments:
Post a Comment