9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

http://gordonssite.com/id4.html


I've just added this new page to my site.
Hope you enjoy it.

Gordon Ross.

Andrew Johnson wrote:

There are still several other pieces of evidence which I yet to see successfully explained:

3) Inflated aircraft tyre under scaffolding with no apparent crater damage

An inflated tyre causing a crater?
Now that would require an explanation.

Gordon

I'm having difficulty getting onto the NIST site so have not been able to download the article to read again. The Scholars will be releasing a detailed response to the NIST factsheet but this concerns only the more obvious inconsistencies in their argument. Quotations from NIST are given in italics....

Over here soggy. Better to stay here rather than fill the rest of the board with your nothingness. I've submitted it to the world - how much more do you want. I'm told that when you stick your head above the parapet you get shot at. But you have no ammunition. Who can take the challenge? http://gord...

Take the challenge soggy.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/index.html

Are you big enough? Or are you just going to repeat someone else's flannel for the rest of your puff?

Gordon

Low rise buildings are sturdier than high rise, because they don't have the same weight above them. A fact that is unlikely to have escaped the designers, who would then presumably specify that the size and shape of the support structures should reflect this? If you want to criticise something, hea...

You have come in useful after all, soggy. You have supplied a link to my site which gives a detailed analysis of the controlled demolition of the collapse. Exactly what your buddy, aggle, was asking for. Not quite finished yet, but its getting there. It does include lots of that irrelevent Santa Cla...

If you stand for election you have the right to have your election address delivered to every household in the constituency, usually by the Post. Might be worth checking this out for by-elections and particularly local elections where there is no deposit to lose.

Gordon.

I don't know of a single qualified structural engineer that finds any of this evidence inconsistent with...... How many structural engineers do you know? What did they say in particular regarding the survival of the perimeter structure corners till a late stage of the collapse? How did they explain...

Does Ockham mention anything about evidence? Like maybe, "of those possibilities which match the evidence, the simpler is the more likely." Unfortunately your theory does not match the evidence available. Such as, + Survival of the core structure until an advanced stage of the collapse. + ...

Look at the top of the remaining core. Where is the bit that used to be above this? So now we examine the options. I've identified only one. There was a complete and total horizontal disassociation of the core. Now perhaps you have another option. So let's hear it. How did the bit that is not there,...

How did you determine the condition of the remaining core? That is not in question. The relevant part is the condition of the unremaining section, and it was unremaining. Not there. Gone. In order for that to be the case the two parts, remaining and unremaining, must have been disassociated. If you...

Sorry how did the explosives survive again? Being as how they they were not in the impact area, they were unaffected by impact. And how did you determine the core was cut horizontally again? That was the easy bit. Check the photograph to see how big the remaining core was. Check the original size. ...

Well done Gordon you have done more to demolition your own theory than I ever could . Being as how your ability to demolish my theory is non existent, that would not be difficult. You should also remember that this thread is concerned with your theory, or to put it more correctly, your ill-formed, ...

It was “A core failure did not start the collapse” Over the last couple of days you have led this tortuous attempt to get me to change this statement for you. It has not, it still stands. No. I have made no attempt to get you to change that statement, since I do agree with that point. I have attemp...

So getting back to the point of this thread. You now acknowledge that only part of the core remained, and must therefore accept that there was indeed a core failure involving total and complete disassociation of the upper core section. Nist do not post on here. You, however, posted a theory here, an...

It's not going to come as a complete surprise to the people on here to learn that the actions of the authorities sometimes betrays their impartiality. Take the Poll Tax. Thatcher needed to break the resistance, and one of the tactics she wanted to use was to paint the anti poll tax movement as viole...

No Gordon this is not true. How can you possibly say we saw the core move? The external perimeter simply sagged under the extra weight. Because we saw the antennae move before the perimeter. If the perimeter sagged with the core intact, that would not have happened. We have agreed that the collapse...

Not according to NIST, the movement was the external supports sagging under the massive weight above. If the external supports - the perimeter structure - failed before the core then we would see movement of the perimeter structure before the movement of the core structure. The opposite occurred. I...

you are starting to contradict yourself. You said Quote: You are correct, however, when you say that the core failure did not initiate the collapse. After you said. Quote: There is no way to account for this phenomenon without a core failure prior to initiation of the collapse of the perimeter. The...

NIST’s theory may not be perfect but it far more credible that cutting the cores at the precise point and in the precise direction the plane hit. You are not really paying attention are you? I have stated categorically that the disassociation took place well below the aircraft impact levels. I have...

If Nist say the core did not fail then how do they account for it not being in its original position after collapse initiation. Aman Zafar's photograph shows quite clearly that the upper section of the core is not there. The only way it could be not there is by a total horizontal disassociation of t...

I think what you are saying is that I have explained these phenomenon of the collapse but have not explained how the charges were placed? Correct me if I am wrong. I must be clear on one very significant point. You talked of the chances of the aircraft impacting the area where the core charges were ...

Surely any controlled demolition of the internal core would have brought the 30 odd floors above straight down, not tilted it. If the core columns were cut, this would allow some downward movement. That would be limited by the action of the hat truss, and to some extent, the floors. In the extreme ...

On this site you will find his photograph, WTC18. This removes any doubt that there was a core failure involving complete horizontal disassociation of all of the core structure, and furthermore shows that a failure took place below the aircraft impact level. http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm G...

Now could you please answer the questions I asked as to why this core did not fail if it was prerigged with explosives? This is where you make your error. There was a core failure and this is evidenced in several ways. The most obvious is that the core moved downwards before the perimeter structure...

You are being a little simplistic in your ideas of how the collapse could be caused. Note that I said a portion of the core. There is no doubt that there was a failure in the core since this alone would have allowed the antennae to move downwards before the roofline. A core failure must have been in...

stateofgrace wrote:Aman Zafars photographs don't show the core, this video does.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but his photograph's WTC17 - 19, show quite clearly that the core was upright after the collapse front had passed to ground level. Is that the only "new" information that you have found?

Gordon.

How about you explaining why one of the cores was still standing as the building collapsed.

I think you will find that a portion of both core structures remained upright after the collapse front had progressed to ground level.
Why do you feel that speaks against a controlled demolition?

Gordon.

1/2 X mass X velocity^2 = a huge amount of energy Sounds simple. But, 1/2 X mass1 X velocity1^2 = a huge amount1 of available energy 1/2 X mass2 X velocity2^2 = a huge amount2 of unexpended energy Actual energy used = huge amount1 - huge amount2 = Energy used for all demands in the collapse. Gordon.