Some say that the events of the 9/11 is riddled with inconsistencies,
nothing can be further from the truth.
On 9/11 we see 3 skyscrapers with tremendously consise
behavioural characteristics within the broadest of variables.
This is what I see:
Three skyscrapers, incredibly variable damage yet
shockingly similar end results.
Before 9/11 a total global collapse at those speeds
would be so hard to predict , boarderline impossible
since there were no historical evidence to support it.
But on that day it was rule of thumb opposed to unique.
And when NIST was giving the task of explaining the collapse
I thougt this to be the easist of jobs because the variables
did not need to be even remotely specific in order to
replicate the events to ensure consistency and validity
to the hypothesis.
1. The damage to the buildings is of low or little significance,
you could fire a missile at any location of the building above the top
half and be well within the safe zone.
2. The only variabel to take in account was the fires, however
the real variable we see any real difference in is the time
this fires lasted.
Making even a computer model of these occurances could probably
be done in a week if you have the basic simulation software.
Since the only parameter to consider is the duration of the fires
and it would prove the concept.
So we have a model of the trade centers, make a hole that might look
like a plane hit it (just for show since that damage really isnt important)
and put some floors on fire , 2-3-4-5 maybe 10 for good measure.
And BAM results.
Then you replicate the results varying the number of floors on fire to hit
the sweetspot in order to match it to the time.
Since the odds of the trade centers to fall like they did 9/11 from fires would
be from a ballpark number 3 / 1 million some might lead someone to believe
this to be improbable.
Why people believe the official story to be so selfevident I often
compare it to myself still playing the lottery and I sometimes actually
believe that I would win.
Throw a bit of emotion and the nations leader firmly state
"You will play the lottery! Never tolerate outrageous mathmathicians
theories" and the world would be much easier if you follow suit.
I wonder what is taking NIST so long to replicate the collapses , oh well.
nothing can be further from the truth.
On 9/11 we see 3 skyscrapers with tremendously consise
behavioural characteristics within the broadest of variables.
This is what I see:
Three skyscrapers, incredibly variable damage yet
shockingly similar end results.
Before 9/11 a total global collapse at those speeds
would be so hard to predict , boarderline impossible
since there were no historical evidence to support it.
But on that day it was rule of thumb opposed to unique.
And when NIST was giving the task of explaining the collapse
I thougt this to be the easist of jobs because the variables
did not need to be even remotely specific in order to
replicate the events to ensure consistency and validity
to the hypothesis.
1. The damage to the buildings is of low or little significance,
you could fire a missile at any location of the building above the top
half and be well within the safe zone.
2. The only variabel to take in account was the fires, however
the real variable we see any real difference in is the time
this fires lasted.
Making even a computer model of these occurances could probably
be done in a week if you have the basic simulation software.
Since the only parameter to consider is the duration of the fires
and it would prove the concept.
So we have a model of the trade centers, make a hole that might look
like a plane hit it (just for show since that damage really isnt important)
and put some floors on fire , 2-3-4-5 maybe 10 for good measure.
And BAM results.
Then you replicate the results varying the number of floors on fire to hit
the sweetspot in order to match it to the time.
Since the odds of the trade centers to fall like they did 9/11 from fires would
be from a ballpark number 3 / 1 million some might lead someone to believe
this to be improbable.
Why people believe the official story to be so selfevident I often
compare it to myself still playing the lottery and I sometimes actually
believe that I would win.
Throw a bit of emotion and the nations leader firmly state
"You will play the lottery! Never tolerate outrageous mathmathicians
theories" and the world would be much easier if you follow suit.
I wonder what is taking NIST so long to replicate the collapses , oh well.
