Londonrake wrote:From 37C downtown Sydney
(having survived crossing 2000 miles of Outback.
). Evidence of the recent cataclysm coming into this city was quite sobering. Literally Mile upon mile of blackened landscape.
Mr Hood well fits the definition of Troll. He’s always sown discord and in fact delights in it. Loves a good row, in order to “prove his superiority”. It’s a consuming hobby and principle priority of his. In that endeavour he’s fallen out with more people than anybody else I know. A pariah. None of which has affected his obnoxiousness in the slightest.
If he were to decide the world was flat tomorrow he’d produce well researched and irrefutable “proof” on the matter and his view would be unshakeable. You would be yet another inferior idiot for not acknowledging the “well informed” obvious. Furthermore, he would have absolutely no interest at all in anything anybody else had to say to the contrary, other than to use it as springboard for yet more his own endless output. Bludgeon, bludgeon, bludgeon, until you gave up, in exasperation. There to be one of the “shot down”. Adding to his countless victories.
Which is why I reiterate. It’s a total waste of time engaging with him on any issue of substance.
Ohh, he’s also prone to the occasional outburst of idiocy. That and intelligence not of course being mutually exclusive.
As you seem to be holding Court again ............ and expounding your opinion on your favourite defendant ..... I will post this. I wasn’t going to bother, but feel free to comment even though the reply is to Cyprusgrump, although for you it is a TLDR!
Cyprusgrump:
I rest my case!
What case?
You have done nothing but ridicule and insult and you have not provided a single comment that has credibility, only inane remarks expressing your rather academically limited opinions. That makes me very different from you! You would make a rotten Lawyer!
I will now present MY case! You failed miserably to work it out for yourself so I will explain it to you ..... of course, whether you understand it or not, is another thing! All you have to do is identify what in your opinion is wrong or inaccurate, in any of the following, with an explanation of why, to prove your point. In fact your own version of this would be interesting ...... if you have one ..... but the Official story doesn’t fit the evidence!
WTC1 Collapse.The official explanation and the dismissal of controlled demolition being the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers by NIST/FEMA, is a cover up on the same scale as Saddam’s WMD’s and the Gulf of Tonkin incident! It is only supported by obfuscation, misrepresentation of the Laws of Physics, selective evidence, a string of downright lies and ............ an audience too stupid and ill-informed to see through the deception!
THE PROOF? It all comes down to two cameras, at two different locations recording the same event. Both these cameras clearly indicate a short but noticeable movement at exactly the same moment, about 10-11 seconds before the start of the collapse of WTC 1. That sudden movement can only be the result of a seismic shock as the two cameras were both at different physical locations. Watch the video from the start until the debris cloud then obscures all views of the top section of the tower. You may have to repeat, as events happen in very short spaces of time. The following sequence is observed. (
Using camera #1 as the event time line for the time scale.)
Scene from first camera #1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfSAiDq15ysSame scene from second camera #2 as a confirmation of the shake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYzIja6mlRs&list=PLyFB3IONZSLkeJh8vRquSVti2XgRM1uXD&index=1921. @00.22 Camera #1 shakes noticeable for just maybe just ½ a second.
2. @00.22+ almost coincident with the movement, a sudden and significant increase in the eruption of smoke from the roof and visible North face of WTC1, is clearly visible . ....... structure/mast remains static with no visible movement.
3. @00.33 The mast appears to dip slightly ........ but still remains vertical therefore it is obviously still fixed to the hat truss.
4. @00.33+ The roof line begins to drop ...... and then descends at the same acceleration as the still attached mast, maybe ½ sec after the mast first moves.
5. @00.34+ Total top structure collapse starts from the impact point ‘UP’ and the roof accelerates down with the top structure collapsing into the impact zone. The main and virtually undamaged structure below the impact point remains static.
6. @00.37 Mast, still falling, begins to tilt toward the south.
7. @00.40 Last view of roof and top structure as it is then obscured by the cloud of dust and debris at the impact zone.
The collapse in slow motion;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5V3JTO4kmM&list=PLyFB3IONZSLkeJh8vRquSVti2XgRM1uXD&index=95A few simple pointers:1. Camera #1 is clearly fixed, not hand held, so it is fixed within or onto the building it is located in. The shake is slight but noticeable. When checked against similar shots from camera #2, also fixed but clearly on a tripod and viewing WTC 1’s collapse, but from a different location and angle, it indicates the shake has to be a seismic event because
static camera #2 also shook at EXACTLY the same point in time, which was 10-11 seconds before the start of any movement due to structural collapse.
Both cameras responded to what can only be described as a seismic shock from a sudden and violent event. A shock wave travels much faster than a sound wave in air does and, had it been an explosion, it would have been heard and recorded. The seismic wave reached the mountings of both cameras at exactly the same moment. This ‘
shock wave’ was obviously not apparent with hand held cameras.
2. Almost immediately after the camera shake, there was a clearly visible and significant increase in the volume of smoke ejecting from the structure visible at roof level and also emanating from the visible North face, but there was no immediate visible effect on the flames. This suggests that there was clearly an ‘
event’ inside the structure and unseen from outside except for the tell-tale change in the smoke volume. As it had no visible effect on the flames it occurred most probably within the central core structure.
3. The mast is attached to the hat truss which in turn connects all 47 core columns and, via 8 outriggers, links it to the outer steel spandrel tube. For the mast to drop,
ALL the columns supporting the Hat Truss have to have been removed simultaneously, otherwise the structure would have tilted and tumbled. (
Newton) So all the 47 centre columns must somehow have been removed simultaneously, thus removing the counter force (Up-thrust) to resist the gravitational load (Down-thrust) of the mass of the truss, allowing for a near free fall gravitational acceleration.
4. The roof line descent starts about ½ a second after the mast first moves, but the mast and structure remained intact and without independent movement, indicating the Hat Truss was also still attached to the outer spandrel tube structure.
5. The top structure and the mast, remains on what appears to be a vertical axis and with no noticeable tilt until about 3 secs after the mast first moves @00:33.
6. Then @00:37, the mast begins to tilt. The top main structure is not clearly visible but appears to also start to tilt in the same direction (South) which was the face subject to the most smoke/fire, as it was the downwind side, even though it was the opposite side to the impact. This tilt could be the structure complying with Newtons Laws of motion by taking the line of least resistance, the weaker side. Had fire and/or damage been the cause, this motion would have been the first movement to be seen ..... but it wasn’t ...........
it trailed behind the first visible movement by about 15 seconds!7. The whole top structure accelerated at near free fall acceleration, still appearing to rotate to the South, until it disappeared into the debris cloud.
8. The collapse of the top structure is clearly seen as a bottom-up collapse. There is no view that shows the remaining bottom section in motion at all, only the accelerating debris field. The assumption can only be that the lower and structurally intact section was a top down collapse. But neither the collapse of the top section or the bottom section debris front, showed any significant reduction in the free fall acceleration until it hit the debris pile toward ground zero.
Conclusion:Had the collapse been
CAUSED BY fires softening the damaged steel to the point it became malleable and started bending, then, according to both Bazant and NIST and also as defined by Newton’s Three Laws of Motion, there would have been a progressive gravitational collapse unarguably causing a tilt toward the North side of the building, that being the impact point and line of least resistance to the collapse. WTC1 would have quite likely toppled according to Bazant’s reports rather than a collapse of the complete structure, as the lower structure was undamaged, was designed for a greater load and was not subject to fire.
This tilt of the top section did happen, but not until 3-4 seconds after the first visible signs of collapse and also to the South, when the mast dropped and after the main structure started to descend vertically about ½ sec. later at almost free fall acceleration. Therefore as the structural failure of the columns started after the collapse when the top section toppled @ 00:37,
it WAS NOT and COULD NOT have been, the initiator of the collapse as promoted by the official conspiracy theory.If the collapse had been due to the failure of the 47 centre columns that then resulted in the free fall collapse seen in the videos, all 47 columns would have been required to fail simultaneously within milliseconds, otherwise a fall to the line of least resistance (
A tilt.) would have occurred. (
Bazant/Newton)
(This symmetrical and free fall collapse scenario is covered in detail by Dr Hulsey in his report on the collapse of WTC7 for Alaska University.) The instantaneous collapse scenario (
the official conspiracy theory) apparently due only to gravitational progressive failure, can be nothing but an impossibility as the structure did not topple and ‘
something’ somehow managed to destroy all the 47 columns on multiple floors simultaneously and in sequence. Firstly from the impact zone upward to bring down the top section, and from the impact zone downward to bring down the undamaged bottom section of the tower. This is the epitome of 'CONTROL' and is an impossible scenario, defies the Laws of Physics without there being some sort of physical intervention ..... such as some method of controlled demolition.
The seismic ‘
event’ that occurred at @00.22 is unexplained but was clearly big enough to initiate a seismic ground wave displayed as movement of two static camera’s .... maybe more. It has to be more than just coincidence that this ‘
event’ was coincident with the increase in the amount of smoke emanating from within the structure. It would also be rather naive to believe that this ‘
event’ was not in turn related to the initiation of the collapse just 10-11 seconds later. This ‘
event’ preceded all movement seen before the collapse commenced @00.33 - 34!
Thus, structural damage from the aircraft impact, fuel fires, followed by office fires could NOT have been the reason WTC1 collapsed or, based on probability, for the collapse of WTC2 and WTC7 either!
The two videos are simple raw, visual, undeniable evidence and need no interpretation. They cannot be even remotely regarded as either ‘
fake news’ or a
‘conspiracy theory’ and the observations are factually correct and based on simple logic.
It shows without any doubt that the official claim CANNOT BE TRUE! The understanding of that fact boils down to simply knowing how to measure time, having a basic knowledge of Physics and the application of Newton’s Laws of Motion, set against an event sequence determination time line ................ and some common sense!
.
