Andrew; said:
Off topic but the Nose Out theory complains that the UA175 aircraft (theoretically assumed CGI artefact) passed through the building and the nose popped out amazingly unharmed and with no loss of momentum.
GlennB; said:
Who on earth would be so stupid as to think that the lightweight (carbon fibre?) nose cone would be the object seen as the first item exiting WTC2?
I will try to drag this detour that I did not invite back on topic (not easy, but read on). Nobody thought that, nobody thought that the lightweight (carbon fibre?) nose cone could do that, which is precisely why it became a "theoretically assumed CGI artefact". The problem is that most people naively, automatically, apparently will assume that "TV is reality", but as the fictional "Wag the Dog" movie warned us, that is not necessarily so.
GlennB; said:
Had to be an engine, landing gear or - conceivably - some dense object from within WTC2 itself.
A UA175 designated engine turned up at Church and Murray, some people claimed that it was from a smaller aircraft than the one advertised in the official narrative. Quite why that should be the case, if this size issue is a genuinely valid criticism, escapes me, since it sounds like a grotesquely careless and stupid "military deception" operational error; unless it was not an error at all, but a political Hegelian Dialectical "Easter Egg". The wingspan entry wound was also apparently not wide enough, for the aircraft that was advertised in the official narrative.
However, the lack of a loss of momentum on the Nose Out video would still be a problem if the "nose" were something else from a genuinely video recorded "material object" aircraft, rather than the nose. The pixel shape was apparently of the "nose leaving the WTC2 north face unscathed", without slowing down inside the building, not of an engine which would have been behind the nose and should have exited the building later anyway. It looks to me rather like either a massively important video fraud happened on 9/11 itself, or a relatively minor video fraud has happened since 9/11, by some mischievous troublemakers. I do not know and I cannot know which theory is correct, because video is obviously not very reliable as a form of evidence.
Topic link. So we have the steel frame of the building behaving apparently rather strangely on 9/11, but in a somewhat consistent manner. When an apparent aircraft flies into the steel frame building it does not seem to decelerate inside the building. If the object that flew out the other side was not the nose (the nose was the apparent shape) but an engine, then the engine actually accelerated whilst inside the building.
Vertical crush down collapse topic. When the top load suddenly falls on the intact tower below (by whatever process, exploding pancake, tiredness, magic) it crushes down the building in an amazing low resistance manner. Even though the WTC2 top load disintegrated upwards faster than it could fall downwards and the top was more weakly constructed than the tower below that it was theoretically impacting. So, the "gathering snowball effect" theory is that 40% of the top load was ejected outside the tower footprint during the first couple of seconds of the collapse process when the top load disintegrated. This left 60% of the normal static weight (mass x gravity) of a loosely arranged "snowball of disassembled building components" falling as a dynamic "heavy rain" load on the intact, redundantly over-engineered and very robust tower below. Not falling as a contiguous robust "sledgehammer load", but as heavy rain. Not like as a "sandbag" dropped from the top of a building on the head of an unsuspecting person below, but as the contents of a sandbag dropped from the top of a building. What is the difference? An intact sandbag would kill you, break lots of bones in your body, but loose dry sand falling on you would put sand down the back of your neck and probably only irritate you.
So when the WTC2 tipped-over-top disintegrated upwards faster than it could fall down, it did so explosively, which is to say stuff flew in all directions at once, up, down and sideways. The ripple-down explosive collapse process below the exploding top, in the initial stages, was also faster than the now disassembled top-load components could keep up, as they fell out of the sky, 40% outside of the tower footprint. It is difficult for me to see how gravity alone could achieve all of these strange effects. The hypothesised gravity motivated "heavy rain snowball" was evidently not causing the ripple down explosive collapse process, or causing the apparently explosive (presumably mistimed) squibs even lower down the tower than the main rapidly descending demolition wave front. How did the hypothetical "heavy rain" break the lateral floor connections between the core columns and perimeter columns so easily? Or break out the "barrel banding effect" of the perimeter column tube, or crush down the core columns, or crush the concrete etc. in such an apparently effortless resistance-free manner in such a short time frame? I really do not know but I think that the distortion of space called "gravity" only really supplied the energy to get the already disassembled, by some other energy means, building down to the ground.
GlennB; said:
eta: are you Andrew Johnson, once of the UK 9/11 forum?
No.
leftysergeant; said:
Looking at the shadows and the way that it all turned to flame when they kept the video running, I would say it was just a thin layer of jet fuel expelled from one floor only, caught edge-on by the camera.
The quick "fade to black" part of the theory was that the video did not actually keep running, because the terrorists made a semi-live "Wag the Dog" type video error during the 17-second time delay. Which the terrorists, in charge of this "shock and awe media propaganda narrative", corrected by the quick fade-to-black, when they spotted the unfortunate SNAFU "nose out" problem developing.
