simultaneous held in 38 cities in 6 countries by Agency the "Architects and Engineers for 9/11-Truth" on Feb 19, a press conference from. The occasion: now have over 1,000 architects and engineers signed the petition, in which a new investigation of the collapses of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC 7 building is required.
Especially the latter has all the signs of an explosion. Building 7, 47-storeys and 174 meters high that crashed nearly one in free fall. And over a distance of 30 meters even exactly in free fall. This is only possible if eliminate the resistance that the building maintains, was previously - so if the steel beams were severed. In addition, the collapse was symmetrical and with a typical demolition "breaking point" ("kink") in the middle.
The "kink" to ensure that the building in his own footsteps collapses and is not the direction of surrounding buildings. And since all the features speak for a blast it's no surprise unlikely that has the remains of WTC 7 completely eliminated and thus deprived of an investigation. ("No steel from WTC 7 was recovered for examination." NIST report NCSTAR 1-3, page iii, xliv and 115 )
Did I say "all features" a blast? But since it is one that will not match the explosive thesis and is therefore being constantly used by the representatives of the official version: It lacks the typical for a blast explosion noises. Thus, the writes for the investigation of the collapse competent "National Institute for Standards and Technolgy (NIST) on its website on FAQ (FAQ):
investigators have considered the possibility that an explosion had caused the collapse of WTC 7 or supported
Yes, was this possible? carefully examined. NIST concludes that it is not in the building came to detonations and has no evidence found that would support the existence of a detonation. Also can be in the audio tracks of video recordings to hear of the collapse of an explosion noise and were no reports of eye witnesses. Based on calculations of the investigators, had the weakest explosion, the failure critical support of the building would have been necessary, resulting in a noise level of 130-140 decibels (db) at a distance of at least half a mile. This noise level corresponds to a rifle-shot, or when next to an engine of a jet is present and is ten times louder than when you are in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
Around the building for a plan to prepare demolition we have walls and / or to clear panels replace steel beams and fire protection and, without being detected. To prepare a carrier containing Measures like the use of cutting torches, which produces toxic and smelling smoke. An induced intentionally tear usually requires, explosive devices on most if not all, to bring inner steel beams, not only in one or a limited number of carriers in the building. "
we see from the fact that the NIST, the blasting include thesis never "studied carefully" has, because that would be so, to secure the remains and to undergo a forensic examination. Just by using the argument of the lack of explosion noises said to have been refuted the explosives theory. Occupies one has it but only the lack of own scientific Approach to the problem. For here is a sense from a position of disbelief ("arguing from incredulity ) argued out. For faith, that the cutting of steel beams ten times as loud as a rock concert should be, is still no proof that no steel supports were severed by human interference of. For the fact remains that WTC7 was in free fall - what had to admit to the NIST:
And because steel beams not even just from just for the heck decide spontaneously collectively give up, even if it be above them burn (s) zlig will have been nachgeholfen artificial. Thus, they fail in one second all, they had to be cut exactly the same time. And that's only with explosive agents. And if the NIST to such a logical conclusion would be able, one would go the next logical step. And that is, one would see if there is blasting methods that are quiet. Lo and behold, there is.
quite some time, the method is known to cut through steel beams using thermite. In a U.S. patent on February 6 2001 is It said: "is that their detonation excessive noise and debris
" The biggest disadvantage of explosives [and cutting charges, explosive shaped charges] produces ["debris"] The noise and debris can be a serious danger. pose to the health and safety of those who use a cutting device ["cutting device"], which is based on conventional explosives. (...) thermite-based cutting devices are based on a cutting flame that virtually no shock wave and a relatively low pressure produced. thermite-based cutting devices do not present the same risk to health and safety represents, such as cutting devices based on explosive charges.
But even conventional explosives can be used for a case without a loud bang. In a German patent from 1997 states:
"A bendable pyrotechnic cutting cord (1) with a V-shaped depression of the charge made possible by, teilevakuierbare vent (7) greatly reduced acoustic stress during blasting. (...)
The invention is based on the task to minimize the acoustic load propose a cutting line .(...)
By this, at a free end of the cutting line 1 on the pressure balance aperture 7 created a partial vacuum is the intensity of the blasts upon ignition of the explosive charge 5 significantly reduced , so that the "explosion" distinguishable in the environment is no longer from other sounds is. "( See also )
The objection that there could have been in WTC 7 not due to lack of explosion noises been a blast, is thus disproved. Completely ludicrous is the argument by NIST as In the final movement is expressed Again.
"A brought about by design usually requires demolition, explosive devices on most if not all, to bring inner steel beams, not only in one or a limited number of carriers in the building."
After the official version of NIST itself but the entire collapse is due to the failure of a single steel beam collapsed as a result, the entire building. This issue is addressed remarkably even on the same FAQ page: "Some people have said that the failure of a carrier do not result in a symmetrical collapse like this, should."
own version of it would therefore have been sufficient, according to "one or a limited number of carriers" to make explosives. How can that be an argument against the thesis of the explosion, when the official version but even based on this premise?
It contradicts itself so churning and turning the world as it pleases. For those who stay in the real world with its universal laws of nature and acting that can only come to the conclusion that WTC 7 was blown up. This means that the official 9/11-Version as untrue proved.
(Thanks to " Sitting Bull " for any relevant information.) note
(Thanks to " Sitting Bull " for any relevant information.) note
0 comments:
Post a Comment