[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Hi Julian, thanks for you interest :) On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 18:07 +0100, Julian Hall wrote: > Ralph Smithen wrote: > > o rly?! > > > I think Tom is referring to the specific construction methodology for > the WTC which IIRC had a single solid spine up the middle. From memory > the documentary I saw said that the burning jet fuel simply melted that > spine enough the the floors simply fell inward. If the documentary you saw said that burning jet fuel melted the structural steel (a physical impossibility), then it contradicted the official story, which claims the frame was "weakened" by the fire. The towers did have sturdy cores - there is no accounting for why they did not remain after the floors detached and fell in the "pancake theory". It also seems completely impossible that they should fall at very nearly free-fall speed, as seen in available footage. What can move all that mass out of the way? Why was everything completely pulverised, rather than a crushed stack of floors sitting at the foot of the remaining core? Some blueprints are available. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html The official narrative can not explain the pools of molten metal seen in the basements of the three WTC buildings after their collapse. Thermite - or rather thermate, as Prof. Stephen Jones' experiments indicate, a patented form of thermite used in demolition - can. This is also consistent with the pyroclastic flow of the dust cloud - a phenomenon seen only where intense heat is present, like a volcano. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones > > I'm not an engineer so I'm not about to go into the feasibility of > that. I've only worked as a microwave engineer, designing components for radar systems and telecommunication equipment, but I know a little about material properties and mechanics thanks to my physics training. I have no expert knowledge of structural engineering. Thankfully, lots of people smarter than me have posted their research on the interweb :) > All I will say is that it sounds a lot more feasible than a > building with a shedload of steel crossbeams on every floor which would > require the careful placement you mentioned. There were many evacuations before 9-11 due to security drills. That all seemed very dodgy, but I can't remember the details and I have to go to a BBQ so you'll have to wait for links. These evacuations presented ample opportunity for black ops to place the explosives. > Also older buildings were > not always built to the symmetrical designs of today so the chance are > if you blow one of *them* up it will fall to one side. If however you > place an explosive at the central weak point of a symmetrical building, > chances are the equal weight upon it from every direction will cause it > to fall inward. I don't think you're correct there. Symmetrical collapse is not the norm. This is why I initially mentioned WTC7 (which was not hit by a plane). Why did it fall, and so neatly as well? > > Again though I'm not an engineer, that just seems logical. > > Kind regards, > > Julian > Kinder egg softs, 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