There is such a thing as "insignificant warping" of parts of a 47 story building. The steel perimeter and the cladding tiles could have been the only thing causing the movement noted on the transit. This fact was made into a rumor that the entire building was leaning. A firefighter named "Miller" actually thought he could see the building leaning with the naked eye. But nobody has ever provided any photographic evidence for that.
There is such a thing as "insignificant warping" of parts of a 47 story building. The steel perimeter and the cladding tiles could have been the only thing causing the movement noted on the transit. This fact was made into a rumor that the entire building was leaning. A firefighter named "Miller" actually thought he could see the building leaning with the naked eye. But nobody has ever provided any photographic evidence for that.
Geez, what material other than high explosives and nano-banano-fofano therm*t was known to be at the scene?
If someone wants to play the exord in the building card in the 9/11 attacks, somebody with burns with blast injuries is weak stuff. Burn injuries from explosive detonation only come in at 4th place (out of 4) on the trauma medicine blast injury treatment checklist, and yes, that's in descending order..
I know Hollywood loves their fireballs and movie goers love 'em too, but that isn't what happens when explosives detonate - there is a very high temperature expansion of high velocity gas at the moment of detonation, but for the most part any fire at a detonation point comes from materials ignited by that expanding gas - watch this video -M18A1 Claymore AP mine:
1lb. C4 plastic explosive. Watch as many times as you like, small bright flash, no fireball.
Lets go bigger:
500 lb. Mk82 aerial bomb - iirc just under 200 lbs. TNT mix with filler.
More flash, still no Hollywood fireball. You can use the counter on the video to gwet a rough idea of how long the flash lasts at the moment of detonation.
Lets get bigger:
1000 lb. Mk 83 aerial bomb w/ JDAM package, 440 M/L Lbs of TNT mix as the MK 82. Watch that detonation and time that flash.
So in light of reality, what is the most reasonable explanation for a fireball reported by witnesses and what materials were proven to be at the scene of the 9/11?
There was a bulge, but the same reasoning could be applied there. And nobody ever said how big the bulge actually was. Looking upwards on the surface of a building, any small irregularity can be noticed. That's why the reports of the top of the North Tower leaning were probably just due to the perimeter wall units that were bowing inwards.
There was a bulge, but the same reasoning could be applied there. And nobody ever said how big the bulge actually was. Looking upwards on the surface of a building, any small irregularity can be noticed. That's why the reports of the top of the North Tower leaning were probably just due to the perimeter wall units that were bowing inwards.
"Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse."
It should be obvious to anyone of more than meagre intelligence that burns alone are evidence only of heat, and that anyone close enough to an explosion to suffer burns would also suffer blast injuries.
You do realize, I hope, that fireballs are usually not a feature of most explosions? The "movie" style of explosion is usually not; it's a deflagration using gasoline because it's more visually appealing. Not an explosion.
Also, burns are almost always secondary injuries in explosions; the damage an explosion causes is blast or shock. If you're close enough for the actual explosion to burn you, you're generally close enough that the blast kills you, and the burns are the least of your worries. Burns in survivors are usually caused by secondary effects (materials ignited by the explosion or by the damage the explosion caused).
Expected injuries from explosions would be concussion and blast effects, and shrapnel injuries...not burns. Not fireballs. And we don't see patterns of injuries consistent with that.
Given that there were a lot of large pieces of rubble available to be hit by, it's hardly an outlandish suggestion. It's even possible he was hit by a small piece of rubble, or several small pieces.
There was a bulge, but the same reasoning could be applied there. And nobody ever said how big the bulge actually was. Looking upwards on the surface of a building, any small irregularity can be noticed. That's why the reports of the top of the North Tower leaning were probably just due to the perimeter wall units that were bowing inwards.
It's impressive, you'll all note, how MicahJava always understands what was going on better than the people who were actually there, despite the fact that their testimony is all he has to go on. It's a gift he uses a lot in formulating his clearly superior and not in the least contradictory interpretations.
It's impressive, you'll all note, how MicahJava always understands what was going on better than the people who were actually there, despite the fact that their testimony is all he has to go on. It's a gift he uses a lot in formulating his clearly superior and not in the least contradictory interpretations.
The facts about the dynamics of the plane collisions, building fires and collapses on 9/11 were apparently presented to you a while after the conspiracy theory CD claims were promulgated, so you already had the latter idea planted in your mind.
As I explained earlier, what's illogical about this investigation is that most of the physical evidence was sold off as scrap without careful examination, and the FEMA report reveals this.
The fact is that probably only about 3% of the steel needed to be looked at carefully. Any steel columns that were not physically deformed could be sold off as scrap. This essentially means that only those steel columns around the floors of impact and fire needed careful examination.
BTW, I'm not a truther. My argument is actually based on being a skeptic.
Yep, precisely my point (but better made, thanks pgimeno).
Injuries are consistent with blunt force trauma and fire, rather than anything expected from an explosion.
But too many people only know explosions from Hollywood. Generally, that's a good thing (in a perfect world, no one would have experience with explosions). In this case, not so much.
The two main reasons why I do not believe the CTs are
1 - if an experiment is repeated and it gives the same result, it is verified. Fly one jumbo jet plane into a TTT and it collapses, then repeat and the second tower collapses. That is verification flying a jumbo jet plane into a TTT will cause it to collapse. If there had been a third tower, fly a similar plane into it and it would collapse.
2 - the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists almost always also believe in other CTs where governments are hoodwinking the public to benefit a few very wealthy/Illuminate/Jewish people. They like to think they are being clever and daring by doubting the government. They are biased and have an agenda.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
