+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 3 8 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 145

Thread: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

  1. Link to Post #41
    Avalon Member winstonsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th November 2015
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 184 times in 43 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Solon (here)
    Quote Can you comment on how the windings were damaged? How do we know this isn't abrasion during collapse or multiple handlings by grapples? Did you see this up close where you could tell if the wires are fried or just torn?
    I think if anyone tried to reproduce the effects seen on the motor by any type of experiment it would be impossible. The horseshoe shaped I-beams are certain proof that strange energies were involved, even heating such a beam to white hot temperatures would still not allow it to be bent like that without the inner radius buckling or the outer radius thinning and splitting, and that is an experiment that certainly could be tried. I did try it on a piece of curtain rod and it kinked with just a slight bend even when heated to glowing hot. The I-beams to me are evidence that something was happening at the molecular or even atomic level, a loosening of the bonds somehow, which is what the Hutchison effect seems to demonstrate.
    There must have been terra-watts of energy involved with what happened to WTC 1 and 2, and nukes are the only way I can possibly imagine to get that kind of energy, and the strange EM effects are not the result of just thermal energy.
    I don't understand your rationale. You offer a photo of an elevator motor suggesting that it was attacked by some unknown mechanism and then associate this with a giant curved I beam. The two couldn't be more different. Copper windings on a motor are very thin, easily damaged.

    Would you mind staying focused on one or the other?

  2. Link to Post #42
    Avalon Member East Sun's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th May 2010
    Location
    Cape Cod MA USA
    Posts
    1,404
    Thanks
    2,834
    Thanked 4,037 times in 1,046 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Perhaps there was ET intervention involved. Not to be ruled out, in my opinion.
    Question Everything, twice or maybe trice..........

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to East Sun For This Post:

    Curiosity (12th April 2016)

  4. Link to Post #43
    Canada Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    5th March 2016
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 times in 7 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Would you mind staying focused on one or the other?
    Both effects point to the existence of unconventional forces having affected the metals, and the Hutchison type effect would seem to be the only reasonable solution. The Military have been aware of these effects since the Philadelphia experiment, and suggested to Hutchison in 1983 that he not play around with such experiments as the effects were not understood and very unpredictable. Judy Wood has mentioned the effects, all I am doing is offering a more down to Earth explanation of what caused the effects, namely turning WTC 1 and 2 into powerful antennas. If you have a scientific reason as to why my proposal is not possible, I'd like to hear it. Perhaps some Avalon members are nuclear experts, electrical or antenna engineers and could comment?
    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/

  5. Link to Post #44
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    I found this article quite informative and explains a lot of what you see in the videos of the demolitions of the WTCs that some interpret as some kind of exotic weapon technology.

    Sol-gel nanothermites often contain other components such as fluorinated silanes, and therefore carbon and silicon. The nanothermite found in World Trade Center (WTC) dust samples contains carbon and silicon as well. Ignition of such a nanothermite results in the production of gas which rapidly expands and does pressure-volume work.

    Below are ten references to the fact that nanothermites can be made to be explosive.

    It begins: “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives…using sol-gel chemistry.”

    https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf

    2. This online article entitled “NanoScale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives” discusses the procedure by which sol-gel nanothermites are made and gives a nice TEM image of a nanothermite. https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

    3. This US Department of Defense journal from Spring, 2002 describes how:

    “All of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives.”

    It clarifies that —

    [Nanothermite properties] “include energy output that is 2x that of high explosives” and “As sol-gel materials and methodology advances, there are a number of possible application areas that are envisioned [including] high-power, high-energy composite explosives.
    http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf



    4. A high explosive creates a shockwave that always travels at high, supersonic velocity from the point of origin. This paper describes how –

    “the reaction of the low density nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3.”
    http://apl.aip.org/applab/v91/i24/p2...thorized=no%20

    Read more here,
    https://digwithin.net/2011/06/19/the...-nanothermite/

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Curiosity For This Post:

    winstonsmith (1st June 2016)

  7. Link to Post #45
    Avalon Member Hughe's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th November 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    757
    Thanks
    1,129
    Thanked 2,586 times in 607 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11



    Three buildings were vanished in 9/11.
    WTC1, WTC2 were the Twin towers. WTC7 was the building 7.
    (WTC1, WTC2, WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, WTC6, WTC7.)

    http://www.factmonster.com/spot/wtc1.html
    Quote One twin tower had 110 stories 500,000 tons.
    200,000 tons of steel
    425,000 cubic yards of concrete
    43,600 windows
    12,000 miles of electric cables
    Contained 198 miles of heating ducts
    97 elevators for passengers, 6 for freight


    Right after the collapse of one Twin tower at ground zero.
    Where did the Twin towers' material about one million tons?
    I never looked into it. Controlled demolition collapses a building in freefall speed.


    For free society!

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Hughe For This Post:

    Lasuh (8th June 2016)

  9. Link to Post #46
    Avalon Member winstonsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th November 2015
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 184 times in 43 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    How many times must it be said? The towers at Ground Zero did not vanish or dustify!!

    Armies of iron workers utilizing cranes, loaders, grapples, torches, thermic lances, chop saws, trucks and barges worked for months to clear the site of the steel wreckage.

  10. Link to Post #47
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    72
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,174 times in 20,635 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    How many times must it be said? The towers at Ground Zero did not vanish or dustify!!

    Armies of iron workers utilizing cranes, loaders, grapples, torches, thermic lances, chop saws, trucks and barges worked for months to clear the site of the steel wreckage.
    The length of time that the workers were on the pile provides little useful evidence as to what mechanism(s) were used to destroy the WTC towers.

    The truly immense and thick plumes of dust created in the 10 seconds that each tower was destroyed, and the miserable lack of anything remotely resembling 110 stories of allegedly pancaked stories of steel, mean much more.
    Last edited by Paul; 4th June 2016 at 00:22.

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Curiosity (10th June 2016), Foxie Loxie (4th June 2016), Lasuh (8th June 2016)

  12. Link to Post #48
    Avalon Member winstonsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th November 2015
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 184 times in 43 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Once the scrap was moved to New Jersey, other armies began the task of preparing it for recycling. Here is a very long video documenting the conditions well after the event.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U5XqVHmmhI

    Dust wasn't sold to China. The powder seen in the collapse videos is the concrete, drywall and other soft materials, not steel. Ms. Wood is mistaken.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to winstonsmith For This Post:

    Curiosity (9th June 2016)

  14. Link to Post #49
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    72
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,174 times in 20,635 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    Once the scrap was moved to New Jersey, other armies began the task of preparing it for recycling.
    Of course there was some steel scrap ... there were seven (7) buildings in the WTC complex, and only most of two of them were "dustified" (WTC1 & 2, the towers) along with a big hole in the middle of one other (WTC6).

    The steel from the remaining four and a half large buildings had to be cut up and sent somewhere. This includes the steel from WTC7, which appears to me to have suffered a somewhat more conventional demolition.

    There was not however anywhere close to 110 stories of steel at the base of WTC1 or 2, after the so-called "collapse". Not. Even. Close. I am sure that you've been studying this long enough, winstonsmith, to know that.

    See further a previous reply of mine, to you, with images: The sheer volume of concrete and steel that simply vanished on 9/11 -- Post #24

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Curiosity (10th June 2016), Foxie Loxie (9th June 2016), Star Mariner (10th June 2016)

  16. Link to Post #50
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Age
    57
    Posts
    1,274
    Thanks
    11,862
    Thanked 7,741 times in 1,233 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    There are some images http://www.businessinsider.com/the-w...ry-2013-4?IR=T on this page that give an indication of the quantity of steel involved.



    Try to imagine it in a jumbled chaotic heap following a collapse, or, for that matter, a traditional demolition. In my estimation it would be at the very minimum at least 10 stories high, more likely 15 - 20 or even more.

  17. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

    Baby Steps (10th June 2016), Curiosity (10th June 2016), Lasuh (10th June 2016), Paul (10th June 2016)

  18. Link to Post #51
    Avalon Member Satori's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,132
    Thanks
    4,581
    Thanked 7,326 times in 1,100 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    How many times must it be said? The towers at Ground Zero did not vanish or dustify!!

    Armies of iron workers utilizing cranes, loaders, grapples, torches, thermic lances, chop saws, trucks and barges worked for months to clear the site of the steel wreckage.
    I'm not here to defend Dr. Wood, and no doubt there was destruction of evidence, excuse me, some clean up, after WTC 1, 2 and 7 (and a few others) were destroyed, but the debris that was removed was only a fraction of what should have been present. There would have been much, much more structural debris at the site but for the pulverization of WTC 1 and 2. On that score I agree with Dr. Wood and others who have studied the available, but unfortunately scant, evidence. I also agree with what I see with my own eyes having studied much of the available video and photographic evidence for the past 14 years.

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Curiosity (10th June 2016), Paul (10th June 2016)

  20. Link to Post #52
    Avalon Member winstonsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th November 2015
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 184 times in 43 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    It wasn't a traditional demolition. Tower seven was conventional and piled up just like a CD. The question is why would they not use the same dis-assembly method in the towers? Answer: Because you had planes involved in the psy-op to contend with. You have to CD from the top down and that resulted in the towers peeling open and wide distribution over a huge footprint--much larger than the 208 feet square originals.

    Have you studied the steel inventory of NIST to see what members they saved and where they came from in the towers? That might shed some light on just how inefficient (or impossible) Ms. Wood's weapon of choice actually was. Granted the NIST samples are only a small fraction of the debris that was recycled, but it might hold a representative accounting of where the pieces came from.

    The destroyed structure was spread well over and outside of the 16 acre site. You are looking at two towers rising above a 75 foot sub-basement that absorbed much of the pile your eyes have convinced you should be there.

    I've shown you recycling figures, photos and videos of the debris which refutes what Ms. Wood says. She cannot cite one solid piece of evidence for steel being "dustified". If this were true than the dust samples should have contained a high percentage of steel residue.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to winstonsmith For This Post:

    Curiosity (9th June 2016)

  22. Link to Post #53
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    72
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,174 times in 20,635 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    I've shown you recycling figures, photos and videos of the debris which refutes what Ms. Wood says. She cannot cite one solid piece of evidence for steel being "dustified". If this were true than the dust samples should have contained a high percentage of steel residue.
    Judy Wood showed us an immense amount of evidence, in her wonderful book Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11.

    Lists from NIST (whom I would trust as far as I could throw a steel girder) of, by your own admission, "only a small fraction" of the (they claim) the debris provide no such refutation. Only the claim of NIST that there was much more such debris provides, without even claiming any detailed, much less verifiable, evidence, even purports to refute the claim that the bulk of the steel from the two main towers was missing from the debris pile.

    Please, winstonsmith ... get real. Continuing to advance this portion of the "official story" (the fiction that the bulk of the steel in the two towers was still recognizable as steel beams, in some mutated form, as might result from "just" a conventional, or top down variant thereof, controlled demolition) just continues to obstruct our effort to understand what really happened, and continues to provide the confusion and controversy that discourages the majority of the population from even making a serious effort to understand what happened.

    Judy Wood has, and shows us in ample detail her evidence.

    NIST only claims to have seen more than the small fraction it lists, without any pretense of presenting serious evidence of such.
    Last edited by Paul; 10th June 2016 at 03:00.

  23. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Chip (10th June 2016), Curiosity (10th June 2016), lastlegs (10th June 2016), mojo (10th June 2016), onawah (10th June 2016), Satori (10th June 2016), Star Mariner (10th June 2016)

  24. Link to Post #54
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    72
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,174 times in 20,635 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    She cannot cite one solid piece of evidence for steel being "dustified". If this were true than the dust samples should have contained a high percentage of steel residue.
    And just where would Dr Judy Wood get such dust samples?

    The 9/11 crime scene was blanketed in a major cover-up, from day one. Only Dr Steven Jones claims to have obtained dust samples, and those lack a reliable and verifiable chain of custody. In my present view, the nano-thermite he claimed to find in that dust has been one of several limited hangouts that has obfuscated the search for a full understanding of who did it, why they did it, and how they did it.

    Besides, Dr Judy Wood is a mechanical and materials engineer, not a chemist. She showed us the evidence, in a treasure trove of high resolution and highly revealing images, of what she saw with her eyes, allowing us to see as well, if we chose to look.

    If the story that NIST told us, of disposing of about a quarter million tons of steel (100,000 tons of steel in each tower, plus the steel in the other five WTC buildings that were demolished on or after 9/11) was true ... why did the cover-up of evidence from the World Trade Center ?

  25. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Chip (10th June 2016), Curiosity (10th June 2016), onawah (10th June 2016)

  26. Link to Post #55
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    I think anyone that doesn't buy the official story and has done reaserch is well aware that there was more than just convention and tradition demolitions techniques used to bring those buildings down.
    That fact that evidence of high tech nano thermatic Incendiaries and explosives, that only the USA military produces were used, should leave any researchers open to the question, what else might have been used?

    However, Judy Wood's has not produced any "physical evidence" that supports some exotic weapon caused the iron to vaporize and the concrete to turn to dust.
    On the other hand, we know military grade nanothirmite CAN vaporizer steel, and high tech explosives CAN turn concrete to dust without making a lot of explosive noise.
    While we must keep an open mind to any and all possibilities including exotic weapons, the obvious logical conclusion based on the physical evidence is high tech demolitions were used to bring these buildings down.

    We also must ask the question, "why does Judy Woods focus on building #6 as evidence to support her theory?" I think we'll find the answer to be something like this, there was so much focus on building #1#2 and #7, that building #6 ended up with very little attention, and so few pictures of the damage were taken or made public that could be used for an opposing argument. This left #6 the perfect target to draw such hypothesis around.

  27. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Curiosity For This Post:

    Chip (10th June 2016), DaveToo (4th December 2018), onawah (10th June 2016)

  28. Link to Post #56
    United States Avalon Member Curiosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st November 2015
    Age
    63
    Posts
    281
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 868 times in 225 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    She cannot cite one solid piece of evidence for steel being "dustified". If this were true than the dust samples should have contained a high percentage of steel residue.
    And just where would Dr Judy Wood get such dust samples?

    The 9/11 crime scene was blanketed in a major cover-up, from day one. Only Dr Steven Jones claims to have obtained dust samples, and those lack a reliable and verifiable chain of custody. In my present view, the nano-thermite he claimed to find in that dust has been one of several limited hangouts that has obfuscated the search for a full understanding of who did it, why they did it, and how they did it.

    Besides, Dr Judy Wood is a mechanical and materials engineer, not a chemist. She showed us the evidence, in a treasure trove of high resolution and highly revealing images, of what she saw with her eyes, allowing us to see as well, if we chose to look.

    If the story that NIST told us, of disposing of about a quarter million tons of steel (100,000 tons of steel in each tower, plus the steel in the other five WTC buildings that were demolished on or after 9/11) was true ... why did the cover-up of evidence from the World Trade Center ?
    Hey Paul how ya doin my friend.
    In regards to your comments on nanothermite. This implies the possibility of fraudulence and planted evidence.
    First thing we would ask is, why would anyone plant such evidence? The obvious answer to that would be to detract from finding the truth. In this case, that the USA gov did it withe some extraordinary means. But wait, US military grade Nano-thermite points to just that. So that doesn't make sense.

    Also, I seem to remember a great deal more information was available on the collecting and testing of dust samples. I'm sure it was more than one person, one sample.

    This is the first time I've heard speak of the chain of custody and validity of these samples being questioned.
    From my recollection there were multiple people involved with multiple samples collected from multiple areas throughout the destruction zones and where ever the dust fell. And they're all prepared to testify under oath.
    Last edited by Curiosity; 10th June 2016 at 05:20.

  29. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Curiosity For This Post:

    Chip (10th June 2016), Paul (10th June 2016)

  30. Link to Post #57
    Avalon Member winstonsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    11th November 2015
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 184 times in 43 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Paul said: "And just where would Dr Judy Wood get such dust samples?"

    She would get them from the same place others got them. Then she could be challenged on the chain of custody like Dr. Jones' detractors love to do.

    Obtaining more samples may not be necessary. RJ Lee and the USGS both did detailed studies of the powder. Do either of these show high levels of what one would expect to see after steel was "dustified"? I'm not a chemist and I have no idea what the normal background amounts should be. I've not heard any arguments that they DO support Dr. Wood's hypothesis.

    I'm not making the claim, so it is not my obligation to produce the evidence. It is Dr. Wood's burden to produce scientific evidence. Photos are not chemical analyses.

    Photos and videos showing many pieces of heavy machinery extracting thousands of individual members from a twisted rubble pile support the fact that the towers were not dustified. Same goes for the imagery from the New Jersey side. Same goes for the reports of sales to China and India.

    Or are we going to blindly accept the possibility that this was all staged, a Hollywood production designed to create the illusion that the towers were recycled? if so there is no end to the cover-up possibilities. Remember what William Casey [maybe] said: “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

    These are the times we live in. Endless argument about something that hasn't been proven. One set of images and text against another.

    I spent plenty of time as working as a detective before taking my seat in the jurors' box. At this time I must dismiss Dr. Wood for failure to establish a proper foundation for the claim that the steel was sent on the winds.

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to winstonsmith For This Post:

    Curiosity (10th June 2016)

  32. Link to Post #58
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Age
    72
    Posts
    27,723
    Thanks
    28,846
    Thanked 129,174 times in 20,635 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    At this time I must dismiss Dr. Wood for failure to establish a proper foundation for the claim that the steel was sent on the winds.
    By your definition of "proper foundation", apparently so.

    By my definition of "proper foundation", Dr. Judy Wood has made her case well, however you have failed to establish a proper foundation for your claim that the steel, including most of the 200,000 tons in the two towers, was recovered from the vicinity of the World Trade Center complex.

  33. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Paul For This Post:

    Baby Steps (10th June 2016), Curiosity (10th June 2016), Foxie Loxie (10th June 2016)

  34. Link to Post #59
    Avalon Member Satori's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th May 2010
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Age
    69
    Posts
    1,132
    Thanks
    4,581
    Thanked 7,326 times in 1,100 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Quote Posted by winstonsmith (here)
    Paul said: "And just where would Dr Judy Wood get such dust samples?"

    "Remember what William Casey [maybe] said: [B][I]“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
    Thank you for this post. However, I think a more apropos statement would be: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when the American people do not know what to believe."

    I do not think that the measure of success or completion of a disinformation program requires that Americans, or people from any country, need to harbor nothing but false beliefs. Creating a haze of confusion and a distrust of information, true or false, will work.
    Last edited by Paul; 11th June 2016 at 00:29. Reason: fix quoting

  35. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Satori For This Post:

    Curiosity (10th June 2016), DaveToo (4th December 2018), Paul (11th June 2016), winstonsmith (11th June 2016)

  36. Link to Post #60
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,036 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Dr Judy Wood: Most comprehensive research on what happened to the buildings on 9/11

    Looking at that picture of the steel frames:



    ... I would expect, since those buildings "collapsed" right in their footprints, quite a pile of Mikado sticks to extricate from said "footprints"...

    ... yet we can only see some of the ground level columns still standing ABOVE said ground level.





    ... not much of a Mikado game left excepted for building 7.

    Since some here claim to exhibit some engineering skills, here are some questions:
    • what would be the volume occupied by 200,000 tons of steel beams when neatly stacked and...
    • when not so neatly stacked?
    • How would that volume fit, in height, with the constraint of the towers foot print dimensions?
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  37. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Curiosity (10th June 2016), Paul (11th June 2016), Shannon (13th June 2016), Sierra (15th June 2016)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 3 8 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts