[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 11:56 +0100, Michael Mortimore wrote: > On 9/1/07, Ralph Smithen <ralph_smithen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 19:06 +0100, Adrian Midgley wrote: > > > Julian Hall wrote: > > > > I think Tom is referring to the specific construction methodology for > > > > the WTC which IIRC had a single solid spine up the middle. > > > That was not how they were built. > > Hi Adrian, where did you get that information from? > > > > >From Wikipedia: > [snip] > Hi Michael, thanks for your considered response :) > From the same page: > "The building's core housed the elevator and utility shafts, > restrooms, three stairwells, and other support spaces. The core in 1 > WTC was oriented with the long axis east to west, while that of 2 WTC > was oriented north to south. The core of each tower was a rectangular > area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contained 47 steel columns > running from the bedrock to the top of the tower.[6] The columns > tapered with height, and consisted of welded box sections at lower > floors and rolled wide-flange sections at upper floors. All of the > elevators and stairwells were located in the core." > > The core was hardly solid. The columns weren't even solid. You're quite right. I suppose I conflated solid with sturdy in hastily responding to Adrian's brief comment :( > > "The perimeter columns supported virtually all lateral loads, such as > wind loads, and shared the gravity loads with the core columns." > > This tells us 2 things. Firstly the core didn't support the entire > weight of the building Not the entire weight. From the article: "The central core took the majority of the gravity loads of the building." > and that the only thing stopping the core > columns falling over is the presence of the rest of the building. That is, the perimeter columns provided essential support in the presence of strong lateral loads. > Chances are, the only structure connecting one column to the next > would have been the floor beams, so there's no more reason to expect > them to remain after the floors "pancaked" than you would expect the > perimeter columns to remain. No need to call upon Lady Luck. Some good person leaked the blueprints :) http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html > > Now if I wanted to make people think that some terrorists flew a plane > into a building, I would get some guys to fly a plane into the > building (I bet it wouldn't be that hard to persuade a terrorist group > to do it for you for a couple of quid). Look at the Northwoods document. There they wouldn't trust patsies to fly the plane right - they proposed to use appropriately marked drones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods Now look at video from a "reputable" source of the planes hitting the towers; there's only 1 of the first plane (to my knowledge), but at least 4 of the 2nd. Play it in slow motion. Do you see the anomalous module attached to the fuselage, and the flash immediately prior to impact? > Why bother to rig the building > for a controlled detonation? It was predominantly a psychological operation. They wanted to scare the hell out of people, to get them ready to relinquish their liberties. The Patriot Act (which eviscerates the Bill of Rights) would never have passed without this "new Pearl Harbour" (to quote PNAC). Also, from fire fighter transcripts, they had the fire under control. You couldn't just have the wreckage of the drone sat in the building where the police may lay their hands on it! [Incidentally, just to show how much more sheep-like we are here in Blighty, when they passed the 2004 Civil Contingencies Act (also a pretty scary bit of legislation), all they had to do was kick up a stink about fox hunting, of all things! Watch the birdie!] Look at how girders are ejected from the demolition zone as the towers collapse. They fly *up* and out. The way they were completely annihilated from top down shows mind-blowingly sophisticated use of explosives. WTC 7 was also rigged for conventional demolition. This building held the NYC headquarters of the Secret Service, CIA, etc. and infamous bunker. It's been suggested that this building was brought down because it held evidence in white collar crime investigations like Enron, and that possibly the attack was coordinated from the bunker. It's destruction of evidence, like blowing up an embassy before it's overrun by foreign troops. All 3 collapsed buildings subsequently had pools of molten metal in their basements. Look at videos of their collapse, you can see puffs of smoke from charges going off. Has anyone watched any of the interesting documentaries I originally posted? Much more palatable than dry legislation, rambling yet relevant historical records and the output of think tanks :) Here's a brief list again (most are available on google video): The Money Masters Zeitgeist Anything by Alex Jones, e.g. Terrorstorm Orwell Rolls in his Grave America: Freedom to Fascism 911 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy - a good refutation of the BBC's Conspiracy Files program by an ex-MI5 whistleblower Outfoxed One Nation Under Siege If some torrents are available here: http://thepiratebay.org/user/lkobescak/ Once more, I beseech all those who cherish freedom to carry out their own research and to fight the New World Order! Peace, 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