Quote from Turok:
Bit:
>you should consider the very likely possibilty of
>demolition. all the visual evidence points at that:
Actually, the very thing that could convince me of demolition is missing, mising , missing -- and that is the visual evidence of the organized explosives required to slice the outer columns.
Those few random windows blowing out in the videos are neither enough to do the job, nor in the right location for the failure sequence.
JB
Yup.
And it's even worse than that for the `squibs.' Video of some of these
`squibs' is around which shows that the period during which the maximum amount
of material is ejected occurs towards the
end of the duration of the
`squib.' They appear to be born small and then later grow large.
This is completely the wrong picture for the demolition theory, since high
explosives create shock waves having a large overpressure, followed quickly by
relative vacuum. So `squibs' that are associated with high explosive cutting
charges should eject all of the material that they are going to eject right
away.
That is to say nothing of the very clear photographic and video evidence that
the columns of the perimeter tube buckled inward sharply in the moments
immediately before collapse, without the appearance of any `squibs'
whatsoever.
I seem to recall reading a newspaper article a few years ago in which it was
described how a helicopter pilot had reported witnessing this effect on the
morning of 9/11, and concluded correctly on seeing it that it would not be
long before the towers would collapse.
The more I consider the idea, the harder I think it is to make the demolition
theory mesh with the detailed observations in the moments before the
initiation of the global collapse.
Consider for example, the collapse of WTC 1.
A conspiracy theorist who knew his stuff might propose that, at the moment of
collapse initiation, thermite acting on the core columns near the impact level
had finally weakened the core sufficiently for it to begin to unload via the
action of the hat truss, onto the south perimeter wall. And it could then be
argued, I suppose, that this event is what led to the visible bowing and
eventual collapse of all of the south perimeter columns: so there are no
`squibs' visible at that point, simply because the main action was at that
moment in the core, and didn't involve any high explosives.
But there are very serious problems with such a scenario I think, among others
that the bowing was progressive and had been visible on the south wall for
some time.
Remember that the failure region on the south wall is
opposite to the
impact region for Flight 77, on the north wall, and that this makes perfect
sense if the fires were what was driving the bowing of the perimeter tube
columns. Remember the fires moved over time from their initial major locations
near the impact region on the north, and that they headed through the tenant
spaces towards the south side over time. They ended up mainly on the south
side in the moments just before collapse.
But thermite burns
very unpredictably. So how could the fiendishly clever
conspirators possibly arrange for the core to unload onto the
south
wall?
In any case, in the actual collapse, it is quite clearly
the south wall
that unloads onto the core, not vice versa. The load from the south wall
is transferred to the core and the east and west walls via the hat truss, at
the point when the instability of the south columns has progressed across the
south face. We can tell that this is the case, because the next event is
that the perimeter columns become unstable right across the east and west
faces, and then the whole upper section of the building tilts rigidly to the
south,
with all four faces moving at once, until finally it falls downward.
And that's all she wrote.
I'm going to be taking a short break from this thread due to time constraints, but I will be back
with further comments for Bitstream, and hopefully some of the other posters.
Best of trading to all!
