The two look VERY different. Myanmar's collapse debris field was contained largely within its footprint - it didn't look like a mushroom, with debris arcing up and out from the point of destruction, as the North Tower did. It more resembles the collapse of WTC7 - but there was no 7.7 earthquake in Manhattan on 9/11 contributing its destructive energy to WTC7.
The twin towers were a top - down demolition with massive "pyroclastic-like" flows and lateral ejections from the beginning. WTC 7 was a classical demolition obviously with an overkill of explosives( freefall for 8 stories!) and when (the rest of) WTC arrived at the bottom also massive (hot, demarcated) clouds. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA , e.g. min 1.5
You do not have hot demarcated clouds in "cold" demolitions like with the French system verinage. See:
The entire mass of the building in Myanmar stayed contained plus there was 90% of the building's mass turned into kinetic energy falling all at once. In the north tower all you had were the top 12 lightest floors that were turned into kinetic energy, and as it came down the mass in the tower was not entirely contained. And NIST WTC TOWERS FAQ 31 said it collapsed ''essentially in free fall''. Newton and Einstein both said free fall means zero resistance, therefore near free fall would mean near zero resistance.
sorry for the double, a comparison in between the towers and this "tower" is not possible, because the towers were a atypical top-down demolition , an if the Myanmar building (a bit more than 30 stories) is a demolition, it would be a classical one from the bottom. Strange that no other high buildings in Myanmar toppled (this pancaking is very suspicious). The upward velocity graph would really be interesting .
A bit strange that the Myanmar building did not topple to the side (normal with earthquakes), instead went through the path of greatest resistance. . How fast "pancaked" it down? David Chandler will know this soon and solve the case.
Also, the initial clouds after the building was nearly down (hot and demarcated in the beginning, not so in verinage, "cold"demolition) are suspicious.
A bit strange that the Myanmar building did not topple to the side (normal with earthquakes), instead went through the path of greatest resistance. . How fast "pancaked" it down? David Chandler will know this soon and solve the case.
Also, the initial clouds after the building was nearly down (hot and demarcated in the beginning, not so in verinage, "cold"demolition) are suspicious.
Your comment is straight up disinformation. Presumably it is a vain attempt to blur the striking difference which is apparent to anyone who is not blindfolded.
it is not a question which side one is on. We always want to have the truth and there are some serious questions to answer! Look e.g. also for the Teheran building!
Take a clear plastic tube fill it with a dozen raw eggs, put tape on the bottom so they don't fall out. Drop the tube vertically from 4 feet onto concrete, my money says all the raw eggs will break? This represents the Myanmar Tower collapse...Take another dozen raw eggs, put 10 in the tube, place the tube vertically on the concrete and drop 2 raw eggs onto the top of the stack of 10 raw eggs that are in the tube. My money says you will get less broken raw eggs? This represents collapse of the North Tower. If I'm right I'd love to see this on YouTube.
That is an amazing video. I watched before I read and didn't see the differences. But then I read first and watched and definitely saw, and understood, the differences. I have no doubt that the two WTC Towers and #7 were brought down by explosives that created an implosion, just like I knew 38n years before 9/11 that bullets do not make right turns.
NOTICE:- THE DECELERATION FROM THE NORMAL 1g UPWARD FORCE. - 9/11 DIDN'T DO THAT...AND BUILDING 7 HAD 8 STORIES OF SYMMETRICAL LEVEL FREE FALL...
THE NORTH TOWER HAD 10% OF ITS FLOORS FALLING ONTO 90%. OF ITS FLOORS...HERE WE HAVE 90% OF THE FLOORS FALLING ONTO 10% OF THE FLOORS, AND THE 10% STOP THE 90% FROM FALLING...
THE REASON THESE 2 STRUCTURES FALL OVER AFTER THEY STOP FALLING DOWN IS BECAUSE THE CENTER OF NORMAL FORCE IS OUT OF BALANCE. (aka center of gravity)
THE REASON THEY STOPPED FALLING DOWN? TOO CHEAP TO USE MORE EXPLOSIVES THROUGHOUT THESE TOWERS, WHICH WOULD REMOVE MORE NORMAL 1g FORCE, AND THUS ALLOW MORE FALLING.
Bob - I have made several public statements that there were indeed planes that hit the Twin Towers. And you and I have agreed to debate this, but I haven’t had the time to assemble all of the evidence that I have, which is massive.
AHA! THERE it is!!
Thanks, Richard.
The two look VERY different. Myanmar's collapse debris field was contained largely within its footprint - it didn't look like a mushroom, with debris arcing up and out from the point of destruction, as the North Tower did. It more resembles the collapse of WTC7 - but there was no 7.7 earthquake in Manhattan on 9/11 contributing its destructive energy to WTC7.
Yes, Building 7 had none of the massive dustification we saw in the twin towers. Something very different--looks like "normal" demolition.
The twin towers were a top - down demolition with massive "pyroclastic-like" flows and lateral ejections from the beginning. WTC 7 was a classical demolition obviously with an overkill of explosives( freefall for 8 stories!) and when (the rest of) WTC arrived at the bottom also massive (hot, demarcated) clouds. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA , e.g. min 1.5
You do not have hot demarcated clouds in "cold" demolitions like with the French system verinage. See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTVXH9dJjhU
beginning at minute 2
The entire mass of the building in Myanmar stayed contained plus there was 90% of the building's mass turned into kinetic energy falling all at once. In the north tower all you had were the top 12 lightest floors that were turned into kinetic energy, and as it came down the mass in the tower was not entirely contained. And NIST WTC TOWERS FAQ 31 said it collapsed ''essentially in free fall''. Newton and Einstein both said free fall means zero resistance, therefore near free fall would mean near zero resistance.
sorry for the double, a comparison in between the towers and this "tower" is not possible, because the towers were a atypical top-down demolition , an if the Myanmar building (a bit more than 30 stories) is a demolition, it would be a classical one from the bottom. Strange that no other high buildings in Myanmar toppled (this pancaking is very suspicious). The upward velocity graph would really be interesting .
downward velocity of course
Make sure you ignore the seismic data.
Veeeeeeery interesting!!! --- Artie Johnson
A bit strange that the Myanmar building did not topple to the side (normal with earthquakes), instead went through the path of greatest resistance. . How fast "pancaked" it down? David Chandler will know this soon and solve the case.
Also, the initial clouds after the building was nearly down (hot and demarcated in the beginning, not so in verinage, "cold"demolition) are suspicious.
A bit strange that the Myanmar building did not topple to the side (normal with earthquakes), instead went through the path of greatest resistance. . How fast "pancaked" it down? David Chandler will know this soon and solve the case.
Also, the initial clouds after the building was nearly down (hot and demarcated in the beginning, not so in verinage, "cold"demolition) are suspicious.
Anyone else see almost no difference? Whose side are you really on? My guess is both of them were controlled demolitions.
did you even read the article??? it explains it every detail.
Your comment is straight up disinformation. Presumably it is a vain attempt to blur the striking difference which is apparent to anyone who is not blindfolded.
it is not a question which side one is on. We always want to have the truth and there are some serious questions to answer! Look e.g. also for the Teheran building!
Experiment of kinetic energy.
Take a clear plastic tube fill it with a dozen raw eggs, put tape on the bottom so they don't fall out. Drop the tube vertically from 4 feet onto concrete, my money says all the raw eggs will break? This represents the Myanmar Tower collapse...Take another dozen raw eggs, put 10 in the tube, place the tube vertically on the concrete and drop 2 raw eggs onto the top of the stack of 10 raw eggs that are in the tube. My money says you will get less broken raw eggs? This represents collapse of the North Tower. If I'm right I'd love to see this on YouTube.
That is an amazing video. I watched before I read and didn't see the differences. But then I read first and watched and definitely saw, and understood, the differences. I have no doubt that the two WTC Towers and #7 were brought down by explosives that created an implosion, just like I knew 38n years before 9/11 that bullets do not make right turns.
2 failed demolitions to study.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/9280162082029971/?s=ifu&__cft__[0]=AZWQXD4eipxv9g9k_YzvZkOc3eFyXFIc0Xacop51YYtfGMmhIgy554AT3TKQ3w2zC9t8__Ba0LQlHyP8Fb6hlLY322C9nSfvX9kHDtDf-DrOvkc0tL3F5mw30wmFT_eAnUFimO8samnAFbK_xgQB0Hg38aw7MwpQHDfuAmUYIi_dBiYF3y-A6ijUi-SyOzzzIe-EIPWzPY97-3rGTJj7m-pt
NOTICE:- THE DECELERATION FROM THE NORMAL 1g UPWARD FORCE. - 9/11 DIDN'T DO THAT...AND BUILDING 7 HAD 8 STORIES OF SYMMETRICAL LEVEL FREE FALL...
THE NORTH TOWER HAD 10% OF ITS FLOORS FALLING ONTO 90%. OF ITS FLOORS...HERE WE HAVE 90% OF THE FLOORS FALLING ONTO 10% OF THE FLOORS, AND THE 10% STOP THE 90% FROM FALLING...
THE REASON THESE 2 STRUCTURES FALL OVER AFTER THEY STOP FALLING DOWN IS BECAUSE THE CENTER OF NORMAL FORCE IS OUT OF BALANCE. (aka center of gravity)
THE REASON THEY STOPPED FALLING DOWN? TOO CHEAP TO USE MORE EXPLOSIVES THROUGHOUT THESE TOWERS, WHICH WOULD REMOVE MORE NORMAL 1g FORCE, AND THUS ALLOW MORE FALLING.
Bob - I have made several public statements that there were indeed planes that hit the Twin Towers. And you and I have agreed to debate this, but I haven’t had the time to assemble all of the evidence that I have, which is massive.