9/11 Weekend - New hypothesis to Explain 9/11 - Part I

[Peter Lemkin]

[QUOTE=Malcolm Pryce;59612.

His work on the amount of energy needed to make the ground shake [as reported and felt by many] is however interesting and needs explanation. I'm now inclined to believe that along with pre-planted nanothermate [likely done during the retrofitting of the fire coating on the steel - which was done just before the incident on exactly the floors hit and above], there were also large bombs - likely just conventional explosives - at a few locations in the two towers.

However, his ideas on a missile rather than a plane [along with many others who posit this] hitting the Pentagon; as well as some of his analyses into how the official version is not credible are worth the trouble IMO...ditto Judy Wood and many others who's attempts to explain the unexplained may fall far short of the real answers.
.

The ground in NYC at street level can shake from the subway rumbling underneath! Many of the streets are equivalent to elevated causeways over the subways and trains which run below. 1.5 million tons of materials dropping from as much as a quarter mile will shake the earth. No mystery there.

The trouble with irresponsible theories is that they taint the legitimate research into what actually happened. And then all who disagree with the official narrative are lumped together as crazy nut job conspiracy theorists. Judy Wood is factually wrong on some of her so *science* and this is not helping with the appearance of credibility and legitimacy. Junk science is not what we need here. Mini nukes, likewise does not even match most of the observables.

Sure you can come up with an energy input which would destroy the towers and build a theory around it. But the cause has to MATCH what was observed... all of what was observed and explain it related to the proposed energy input.

For example... there are claims of eutectic burning in steel. This needs to be explained. But the steel where this is seen is not the core columns which supported the towers, or the truss members at the lower reaches of bldg 7... but they appear to be relatively lighter steel, perhaps bracing or columns even from quite high up. If this is so how would THAT explain the collapse of the towers? It's an observed anomaly which requires an explanation. But it may not relate to a cause as much as a consequence.

Speculation is fine... but it needs to be grounded in the detailed mappings of the observations and the engineering and physics which govern the behavior of materials.

Orling, IMO, you are no expert - instead you are a Sunsteinian cognitive dissonance agent or a fool. I challenge you to read Mark H. Gaffney's two books on 911. The first, while written for the layman, has copious footnotes that are at the level of professional architects and scientist to follow-up on. He proves beyond any doubt that not only the official version is wrong [and knowingly so] but your unzip theory is sorely wanting compared to nanothermite plus large explosive charges in a few strategic places. What remains in my mind is if you 'just don't get it' or are here to try to purposely refute the best evidence. Watching your behavior on this Forum over the past two years or so has confirmed IMHO my worst fears and those I got from AE-911 Truth when I asked them about you. There are a thousand [literally] ways I could challenge you and your 'theories', but answer if you can just one - how do YOU explain molten steel for up to 3-4 months after the event?!.....hot zippers, I suppose. As anyone can see, I challenged you from your first posts and from time to time [mostly not wanting to waste my time on nonsense]; now I challenge you to a duel; to expose you as either a fool or a tool of those who work to cover up the truth on 911....which is it? It can be IMHO none other than those two. I'd give more leeway if I didn't think that our posts attempt to 'temper' any real grasp and anger at what really happened. Your 'reasoned moderation' is IMHO a foil to deflect the truth and try to advance the Big Lie. The bull you post above is just that. I'm not an architect, but I am a scientist, and you can not support your bull**** any further here. I see no difference in the 'end game' of your 'theory' and that of the USG. Both dangerous and fatal to our polity, society, future and a way out of the oncoming fascism.