Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated.
Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members
of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it. Please contact a team member if
you notice a post which violates our general rules.
A Non-Assisted Building Collapse
Submitted by StopLying on Sat, 06/27/2009 - 9:08am
I wonder why there is no neat little pile of rubble and a bunch of dust..... hmmmmm
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-06/27/content_8330067.htm
»
- StopLying's blog
- Login to post comments
Slide show update
Good one for the presentation update, Richard (Gage)! It helps to show the audience how things really behave under severe stress.
"Debunkers" will claim it's only 13 stories, not 47.
Nothing is similar to what we see at ground zero, nothing. Nothing is similar on any building collapse to what we see at ground zero, nothing.
oh contraire'....
CD is very similar. But I know what you meant I think. Nothing except CD?
Glad we have this
Good to have in our aresenal
Any broken windows?
Looks practically livable. I thought gravitational collapses pulverized everything into dust and left pools of smoking molten iron.
Compare & Contrast
Every presentation or slide show about the WTC destruction should compare to acknowledged controlled demolitions and contrast with building collapses. Great tool.
I love the clip showing WTC 7 side-by-side another C.D. Then show this!
My wording was bad...
This(the 13 story building) collapse had no characteristics of controlled demolition, as it shouldn't. But ground zero had all the characteristics of controlled demolition(also, as it shouldn't). It's just so visually obvious by the chunks of building that are left in any non demolition collapse or partial collapse. If NIST or anyone else actually had to demonstrate their conclusion using physical test models, they'd fail. They know they can tweak the computer variables to agree with one of the sets of assumptions they scripted in.
wait, so you're saying that
wait, so you're saying that what was left at ground zero was a "neat little pile"?
Different possible outcome
Let's just say it could have been a lot messier, had they come down in an uncontrolled, asymmetrical fashion.