http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X4hbIDnq5k
This film is valuable from the standpoint of the information, but it's even more valuable in demonstrating the depth and breadth of the 9/11 truth movement.
These celebrities are very courageous for going public in this way because they have a lot to lose. They can be blacklisted, and I don't mean in a formal way like during the McCarthy era, but just not offered work any more.
By the way, in the film, Charlie Sheen mentions the alleged phone calls from Barbara Olson to her husband Solicitor General Ted Olson, and how the FBI determined that they never happened. And remember, those calls are the only purported evidence of the hijackers being armed with box-cutters. You deny those phone calls, and the whole box-cutter idea vanishes.
The film also includes Willie Nelson, and I can't tell you what an icon he is in Austin, Texas, where I live.
Look at the Towers burning. Notice how high up the fires were. The lower part of those buildings weren't heated at all.
All of that mass was still there, intact, and there is no way it wouldn't provide resistance. There is no way it wouldn't slow down a straight-down vertical collapse.
Remember that at all times, the lower floors are enduring the weight of the upper floors. Just because an upper floor is burning doesn't mean that the rest of the building would have trouble supporting the weight that is above it. So, the whole "pancaking" idea is total bull shit. What about the idea that fire melted the steel girders? Impossible! Office furnishings don't burn that hot. No way would that fire have been hot enough to melt steel. For goodness sake, we see people standing close to the fire.
Jesue Christie! If it wasn't that hot as close to the fires as those people were, how could it possibly have been hot enough to melt steel?
But again, look at the buildings:
Even if it melted the steel in the vicinity of the fires (and again, we know it most certainly did not and could not) most of the building is NOT burning. Therefore, most of that steel is NOT being compromised in any way. It isn't being heated, and it isn't being stressed in any way. So, you can't use fire as an excuse for any of that steel- the vast majority of it- giving out.
So, forget about fire! It's irrelevant to most of the building. Moreover, the fires were largely out by the time the collapse began. And that means that the only thing left to explain what happened is the gravitational collapse of the upper floors onto the lower ones. But the lower floors were always supporting the weight of the upper floors. Imagine the weight of all the floors that were resting on the first floor, including the building itself, all the furniture, all the heavy safes, all the people, etc. etc. ALL OF THAT WAS ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR ALL THE TIME. I said that no matter what anybody says about how the building was constructed, ALL THAT WEIGHT WAS ABOVE THE FIRST FLOOR ALL THE FREAKING TIME.
Here is a paper that is published on the website of Mike Williams, who is Duncan MacRae's good pal. It's written by engineer, F. R. Greening, and it's highly technical.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
But, note the last sentence. He discounts the role of fire completely.
"However, it is suggested that the total collapse of both towers would have occurred even without the jet fuel fires."
So, he is completely dismissing the role of heat in weakening the steel. So, what's left? According to him: "gravitational energy released by the descending blocks of floors were quite sufficient to destroy the twin towers in the manner observed." Bull shit.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.