TFTRH #35 - Mike Santangelo: 9/11 Truth vs. B.S.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Source: https://youtu.be/SufzsmKXo8w


Mike is a member of the 9/11 Truth community. He thinks there might have been explosives used on 9/11 to cause the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. He does NOT think that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, and considers that, like some other common 9/11 beliefs, to be "B.S."

We talk about how you decide what is B.S. and what is not. We also discuss the current state and possible future of the 9/11 Truth movement. We delve into the weeds of Mike's beliefs about the physics of the collapses, and I give him my take on those weeds.

Note: We were having connection issues so switched from Skype to Phone after a few minutes, so much of this video is a still image.

9/11 TAP (Truth Action Project) - https://www.911tap.org/
Dr T-Ruth article on Disinformation and infighting. -https://www.911tap.org/dr-t-ruth/1057-dr-t-ruth/762-mis-information-and-dis-information
Purdue News: 1 Gallon of Gas = 83 sticks of Dynamite - https://www.purdue.edu/uns/html3month/1999/990604.Kingman.gasoline.html
FBI's overview of their 9/11 Investigation - https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/911-investigation
 

Joe Hill

Member
40:14 Discussion about damage in North Tower lobby. There is no indication damage was caused by any explosive event, be it jet fuel or explosives. The nature of damage indicates it was stress fracturing, or the walls/windows being knocked slightly out of square. I suppose vibration from the impact of a heavy object falling down an elevator shaft is possible, but plane impact the more probable cause imo. There were reports of stuck doors in lower levels of the tower, indicating walls were knocked out of square. In any event, large plate glass panels broken on a diagonal, with half still in it's frame, the other half shattered on the ground, and adjacent panels still intact, is not evidence of explosive cause.
 

Joe Hill

Member
36:10 Mike Santangelo: "The NIST Report on Building 7 states that neither the damage from collapse of World Trade Center One, nor the fuel tanks in the bottom, played any significant role in collapse."
Sadly, Mick did not challenged the notion that damage played no significant role in collapse. It's as if both sides accept NIST's conclusion without question, choosing instead to argue whether or not fire could cause the collapse of a relatively intact Building 7.
NIST made an error of logic, assuming there was no damage in areas which could not be clearly seen due to smoke or poor photographs. They recorded as damage only what could be clearly seen as damage, even though visibility of the damaged areas were poor. Their studies then, were based on only one side of "possibility coin", completely ignoring the other.
There is plenty of evidence to indicate damage was much worse than stated by NIST, initiating motion of the perimeter frame being the most important. Neither NIST nor Hulsey were able to come close to that motion in models. Both NIST and Hulsey started with an "undamaged" building. That motion, and ensuing motion throughout it's collapse, shows the mysterious dark vertical line on the south face was actually a top to near bottom breach of the perimeter frame. The structure could not have made those motions without a vertical gap in the frame.
There is evidence the falling spire of North Tower perimeter wall that breached the frame at column 19, also penetrated deep into Building 7, deep enough to breach core cross members as well, at least in the lower third of the building (based on arc of the falling spire and entry depth at the top). Losing core cross members would cause a loss of horizontal support across the building at the levels they were breached. Neither party considered that damage either.
I have yet to see any discussion by engineers and building professionals how this type damage would impact the building. Based on the motion of perimeter frame collapse, the two "halves" were leaning into one another. The east half had to be leaning to the north in order for it to lurch suddenly north at onset. The west half had to be leaning south in order for it to resist the north motion of the east half, and eventually fall south. Clearly, the perimeter frame was not functioning as one connected unit during collapse, but two, with a vertical axis.
An analysis of the visible north part of the structure at onset can be found here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-the-north-face-of-building-7-was-pulled-inward.10796/
 
Last edited:
Top