[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

latest false flag attack?



for anyone interested, the page I pointed at previously contains links both
to the official explanations for the fall of WTC7, which include many
references to evidence, and public documents that clash with certain
aspects of that explanation:
http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/#WTC71

the especially interesting question about WTC7, which has been obscured
here a bit, is not *that* it fell, but *how* it fell. (very quickly,
near-symmetrically, into its own footprint, and in free fall for at least a
brief period of time, which NIST first denied because of how unusual it
would be, and then admitted, as the page above documents.) Unlike WTC1 and
2, which had central structures of various sorts and were tall, thin
buildings, and in the official explanation had damage via burning debris of
various sorts down those central structures that is said to partly account
for a symmetrical collapse, WTC7 was shorter and wider, had no central
structures, and had not even allegations of symmetrical damage of any sort.

*some*--but not all--of the reasoning and facts provided by both James and
Peter is not the same as that provided by NIST in its reviews.

NIST and its engineers had to work very, very, very hard to find a way to
mesh the available evidence with any structural analysis that could explain
how--again, not *that*--it fell.

here is a link to what I believe is the most recent article, peer-reviewed
in a standard engineering journal (the house organ of the ASCE), by one of
the senior NIST engineers with a very detailed explanation of how WTC7
fell. I am not an engineer, but only someone who reads things in as much
detail as possible. I continue to be struck by the number of times models
need to be adjusted in order to get anything like the collapse in its
observed form to work out, the novel nature of the models, the amount of
uncertainty that remains--and then, as the 9/11 Consensus Panel questions
suggest, the amount of available evidence that has to be jettisoned or
downplayed (or, in the skeptics' opinion, misrepresented) in order to get
any model at all to work. This includes the official explanation of how
damage to the top and side of the building could cause it to collapse into
its own footprint, which is at the very least, not a behavior engineers
expected, no matter how long it burned.

McAllister et al, "Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and\
Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse," Journal of Structural
Engineering, 2012
http://booksc.org/book/40940290/b7468e

- z


>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 3166 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20180922/74e21bd7/attachment.txt>