Right?
Deep down, everyone must see the truth by now. That there exists a concerted, organized effort to enslave all of humanity through medical tyranny or by any means necessary.
Most are afraid to admit it. Which is reasonable, because it is terrifying. But if we don't all wake soon, the real terror begins.
The next time I'm talking to someone asleep, I'm going to say this and see what happens.
In some ways the knowing puts them deeper under the spell. It's like a giant wave of pure fear rising up, and it really does crush and tumble you, for a time, if you face it and keep looking long enough to "realise" it.
It's hard for them, for anyone.
I remember asking a structural engineer once "If you cause damage to one corner of a symmetrical building will it collapse symmetrically?" and he said no, it would topple unevenly. Then I pointed out what happened on 911, and this was just a year after, and he just started shaking his head rapidly and didn't say anything else to me that day and never returned to the subject ever again. Too much for him.
It 'might' topple in many many ways, but if the weight is enough it will indeed topple symmetrically, yeah.
I can imagine it in theory too, with a frangible material - remove enough material and what remains is simply crushed. Or a shape/form that relies on complete integrity for a great proportion of its strength like a cylinder, demonstrated by standing on a coke-can and denting the side. But I'm not sure these cases apply to the three world trade centres (for the towers most of the strength was in the core, which would have been essentially undamaged by a 'plane). Video: https://files.catbox.moe/pprq2z.mp4
The controversy rages on...
False. The outer shell was just as much the strength of the twin towers as the 47 inner columns. They built them that way for that exact reason. The architect was interviewed discussing it.
I don't know about Building 7's structure.
Ok, I will give you that, kind of. Perhaps I misunderstood the line (from the engineer/architect) "the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building" (insomuch as the lateral stiffness is delegated to the skin alone). But follow along here: the floors would anchor to the core and the skin, and one would expect them to share that load about equally, yes? but there remains the weight of everything inside the core, yes? which would be bourne by the core alone, so it would be reasonably to say that the core carried more of the weight than the skin, would you agree?
So in effect more of the total weight carrying is bourne by the core than the skin, although maybe not more of the total strength (which includes also twist stiffness etc which by design was only bourne by the skin, which was damaged).
Maybe I am splitting hairs, but presumably the skin was more damaged than the core, and the theory was the floors detached from the core and pancaked down, so under those circumstances, wouldn't there still be a core left standing above the pile of destroyed building? (maybe not all the way to the top, but some of it)
I would still wonder about that core not remaining, everything went down. So the controversy remains...
Yes, I had a similar experience.
These are not stupid people. They just don't WANT to believe it, and so they shut down their critical thinking.