[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 21:53 +0100, Adrian Midgley wrote: > Ralph Smithen wrote: > > Not the entire weight. From the article: > > "The central core took the majority of the gravity loads of the > > building." > > > > > WP is quite good at some things. Where it is not good are where there > are barking mad conspiracy theorists trying to write a version of > history into something they think is going to be accepted as a reference > for it. Barking mad conspiracy theorists, vandals, COINTELPRO-type operatives, earnest experts, political dogsbodies... > > Does the article still assert that today? Yes :) > The chap who designed it (and I appreciate that psuedonymous editors may > be preferred sources) seemed to think that he had the loads coming > largely through the skin. Me, I'd rather hang the beams off their ends > than their middles. Link? > > > No need to call upon Lady Luck. Some good person leaked the > > blueprints :) > > http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html > > > > > I think they were _published_ actually, as part of the enquiry evidence. > Link? As you can see, the above are only architectural. I'd love to see the construction blueprints - the snippets in the NIST report didn't do it for me. > > > 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? > > > I didn't see anything attached to the fuselage. [snip] Where did you get the video from? > > As for a flash, 1) I didn't see it, and 2) weapons conventionally blow > up after hitting a target they are to penetrate, not before 3) 0.5mvv is > very large, a flash seems an unecessary embellishment. The flash is from the building, seemingly in front of the module attached to the aircraft. Again, I'd like to know where you got the video where this is not apparent (in slow motion). > > from fire fighter transcripts, they had the fire under control. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape.htm > > From a consideration of the area of the building and the equipment > available in the NYFD, Link? Whose consideration?! > there had never been the possibility of > controlling a large fire high up in that building from the time of > construction into the future. That's certainly true for a given value of "large". :P -- 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