[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Hi Tom, thanks again for taking the time to respond :) On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 15:35 +0100, Tom Potts wrote: > On Friday 24 August 2007 11:38, Ralph Smithen wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 09:50 +0100, Tom Potts wrote: > > > On Thursday 23 August 2007 19:36, Ralph Smithen wrote: > > > > Why did WTC7 collapse? > > > > > The stupidity there was simply cheap and nasty underengineering - the > > > insulation was pathetic and so failed. > > > > Did you watch the PBS video clip where Silverstein admits that "they > > made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse"? > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awcqSy_UsXs > > Please note that this is an admission of controlled demolition. > > Also, one should notice that it is extremely unlikely that a collapse > > due to evidently asymmetrically distributed small fires should cause the > > building to fall neatly into its footprint. > Not true - these things are designed like that - not to fall down but thats > the way it works: you take the horizontal stress away at on side (fire) and > the stress on the other sheers the building across so a hole floor goes > almost instantaneously. o rly?! You should explain that to all these demolition engineers, wasting their time carefully placing timed cutting charges in the mistaken belief that this is necessary to prevent a condemned building from toppling into those adjacent. > > Here's a clip from the BBC of the Windsor building (a 32 story > > steel-framed building in Madrid) conspicuously failing to collapse after > > being utterly devastated by fire in February 2005. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th2bnG_7UyY > but it didn't have 'this'll never happen so we'll spray a bit of foam on that > will blow off with a sparrows fart' insulation on it. The real tragedy of the > implementation in the WTC towers was that if a fire had started the > chimneying effect in the building spaces would have blown the insulation off > anyway. I assume here you're referring to WTC 1 & 2 (from the BBC Conspiracy Files programme I've seen). Prior to their spectacular collapse, there were plumes of dark smoke indicative of an oxygen-starved cool fire. You can see in publicly released footage poor souls waving for assistance from the entry hole. This is not consistent with the ferocity of a fire enhanced by the chimney effect (which the buildings were specifically designed to preclude). > > The BBC article is headed by "Madrid skyscraper faces collapse", yet in > > the body it reveals that the fire is out (2 hours before the article was > > published). Hmmm. > It looks a different design - major column up the middle that goes to the top > and everything hangs off it so you have to have a really big fire to waste > the central column. Interesting you should mention that. According to the "pancake collapse" theory, the central core of the towers should have remained standing. You can even see that in the graphics used to lend weight to this "theory", if you block out the verbiage and use your eyes. Some blueprints were leaked. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html > Remember you've got reporters reporting here - no chance of any knowledge of > structural engineering so logic such as: its a tower on fire and the shoddily > built wtc fell over so this one which is built in Spain where they build a > lot of functional buildings and know what they're doing will fall over too... > And little chance of correcting themselves either A few years back, I cycled from Santander to Gibraltar along the east coast. There was a lot of ongoing construction, mostly it seemed the donkey work was being done by Columbians. They inevitably took over a local bar to dance salsa into the night so I took to finding them if I could in any town I pitched my tent near (as I like a bit of a dance). They'd be amused by your faith in their expertise ;) > > It is unfortunate that at the time the US were looking for an excuse to go > kick bottom and you may find that the complete lack of any evidence of > collusion by Iraq and using that as part of the litany of lies used as an > excuse to invade may make you wonder whether they would actually stage > something as horrific as 11/9. > The answer is yes they would - however as the problem is more complicated than > organising a preprandial drink in a brewery you can be safely assured they > didn't actually do it. But they would re-write history to say they did it if > they felt something was to gain from that. > Tom te tom te tom I think you may underestimate the cunning of Pentagon planners. For instance, if you believe the plan for Iraq was to bring freedom and democracy to its citizenry, then it all looks like an immense balls up. Alternatively, you could lend credence to globalist think tanks that wanted to balkanize the country into three regions locked in civil war so a continued presence and the construction of massive bases could be achieved, in which case it's all ticking along nicely. Regards, Ralph. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html