| James_Joyce |
12-17-2015 07:38 PM |
You know, I was always under the impression that the collapse cascade starts at the top with a tilt (watch the video, the top floors pour off at an angle like sand) just as Azzar suggests should be the case. At the point that the top floors start sloughing off onto those below, the lower floors' structure is exposed to a vast amount of mass bearing down, becomes compromised and the whole thing starts to go straight down at nearly free fall speed. Once the floors directly affected by the plane allow for any free fall of the structure above, it's like dropping an anvil on something.
The idea that the structure would cartoonishly bend in half like it's one big steel rod being melted, or tip over like a drunkard, seems a little far fetched to me when the force of gravity is the only thing in effect here and it pulls down.
Personally I'm of the opinion that all specific arguments about 9/11 being actuated by something other than planes are distractions from the indisputable facts that Western and Israeli intelligence dropped the ball, intentionally or not, on stopping the attack and then callously exploited the event to advance various interests that are contrary to the will of the American public.
It's like trying to prove Kennedy was shot from the grassy knoll. You're better off focusing on motive, who benefitted, and other indisputable facts than miring yourself in "I know exactly what it would look like if this unprecedented plane crash into a vast tower resulting in a collapse really happened, and it wouldn't look like this." Whether or not the argument is plausible (and I think it is fwiw), when you start to claim some kind of surety as to how the collapse should have gone down skeptical people automatically start tuning you out, and rightly so. The bias is evident.
|
