I have not linked to this blog by "Spooked," but I read it almost everyday, and have gotten a lot of ideas from Spooked.
I don't always agree with Spooked, but I usually do, and he explains and backs up his ideas, and is clearly dedicated to careful and logical inquiry into the events of 9/11.
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/
Spooked also links to a lot of websites and blogs about 9/11 and politics, and is a great resource for that reason as well.
North Tower Pulverization
The top is already gone - what is pressing down on this massive building?
South Tower Pulverization
Stop calling this a "collapse"
Blown to Kingdom Come
Smoke pours up; the building peels to the sides all the way down to the ground.
South Tower Obliteration
If the top part is what is pile-driving the bottom part, why is it shorter than the top of the North Tower next to it? If gravity is all that is doing this, doesn't all that dust mean that the lower part is resisting the upper part? How is the top part losing mass at the same time it is driving the lower part downward in "free-fall"? And why didn't the top part fall off to the side? (Part of this may be perspective, but other pictures show the top part losing mass early on).
Do you trust your own judgment? Does this make sense?
"As the heat of the fire intensified, the joints on the most severely burned floors gave way, causing the perimeter wall columns to bow outward and the floors above them to fall. The buildings collapsed within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km/h" MIT Professor Thomas Eager
Strong Building
Those massive core columns could support the building's weight several times over. The external columns could also bear 40% of the building's weight with no wind, and also could withstand steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of a Boeing 767.
"Flight 175"
Real planes don't do this.
2 comments:
Thanks! :)
You're welcome. Just have to say that your recent posts about the moon and about Japan from the Barnes Review are not among the stuff I like. The latter is probably correct but the source is tainted.
Post a Comment