Wtc Misrepresentations: New Book, Requesting Feedback
May 17 2012, 01:20 PM
Group: Student Forum Pilot
Joined: 3-May 12
Member No.: 6,812
I am a new poster here. Hello to all participants and readers
This is the draft version of a book on the WTC collapses:
1: Science vs Subjective Viewpoints
2: WTC Collapses Misrepresented
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapse in the WTC Towers
....2.2: Purpose of the NIST Reports
....2.3: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentation
....2.4: NIST WTC7 Misrepresentation
....2.5: NIST WTC2 Misrepresentation
....2.6: Bazant Misrepresentation of Collapse Progression
....2.7: Block Mechanics
....2.8: AE911T Misrepresentations of the Collapses
3: Toward Accurate Collapse Histories
4: Reassessing the Question of Demolition
5: Collapses Misrepresented as a False Choice
6: Testing the Thesis for Validity
The same table of contents is on my website, second menu down, here.
Thank you for any questions or feedback to help improve the book.
May 19 2012, 08:58 PM
Joined: 23-December 09
Member No.: 4,814
I am not trying to find a middle ground. I am hoping one day to know what actually happened. We can only use a few things to make sense of the event...
1. Accurate observations - which can be used to extract data which can be analysis with math and physics and engineering
2. The design of the buildings- specs and so forth and the engineering principles for mechanics and structure
3. Physics, chemistry ... science.
No one can see the initiating event in all three towers. Observations lead us to conclude WHERE it was and that was inside and we can't see inside! We can only see POST initiation and analyze that movement. Post initiation observation... using the 3 items above leads to the conclusion that the POST initiation phase *the collapse* did not require CD.. explosives or incendiary devices and there is no evidence of them. What is deemed to be evidence... ejections are not from explosives be an attribute of a gravity driven collapse.
The collapses WERE gravity driven... the cause was structural failure. The likely place was the T trusses which support the core... as the core was the first think to noticeably *go bye bye*. We don't know the cause of the structural failure of the T trusses.
When I refer to drinking the kool aid... I am referring to people who accept the interpretation of others as to what the ejections are, or that the concrete was pulverized in mid air... or that heavy steel girders were ejected 600 feet at 70pmh or that the dust was 4-12" thick for miles around lower Manhattan... and so on. Believing this and repeating it is drinking kool aid.
I've stated that I have a theory about b7... that we can't see inside the area where I suggest the collapse was initiated. Of course a device could supply the energy that I suggest was provided by the diesel fuel.
But what is the evidence of a device? None!
Instead we are given all sorts of motives... insurance, destroying SEC records... MOTIVE is not evidence.
When people mention explosions... I agree there were explosions! I hear them a few days ago when a boat caught fire and there were explosions. Fires often cause explosions!
I offered an explanation... theory for the witness testimony. So you tell me OSS.. what do you think William Rodriguez most probably heard? And why my explanation that it was an electrical explosion caused by the plane strike is wrong or so speculative that it should not be considered?
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 23rd May 2013 - 02:19 AM|