>No, but I know how to read, and I don't limit my reading to conspiracy web sites.
Unfortunately since you arent qualified to judge what you read you accept information based on authority.
That is a close second to voting on the truth. It seems odd you see organised control in the hydrocarbon industry yet the possibility of a Pearl Harbor type episode in the 9-11 disaster is incomprehensible.
The photographs of the rubble pile establish where it fell - obviously. Most of the so called technical explanations are of the type - "If you cant dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bull$$H!+"
Forget the stories - just look at the pictures.
Just like The Oklahoma city bombing. Rubble across the street from the truck bomb yet anyone who uses explosives knows that is inconsistent with the official explanation. Probably makes perfect sense though if an "information website"
says it is true - laws of physics be damned.
Kirk
robert and benita rabello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kirk McLoren wrote:This means nothing, Kirk. Of COURSE there was no falling until the first failure.There was no falling until the first failure.
A little logic would go a long way here.
Indeed!
And it fell straight down. If it hadnt the rubble pile would have extended in the direction of fall.Not rocket science here. Just basic evidence.
And what evidence do you have that outlines the footprint of the buildings' collapse? This quote comes from an engineering website:
"The north tower, 1 WTC, was struck at 8:46:26 am and collapsed at 10:28:31 am, standing for 102 minutes and 5 seconds. The south tower, 2 WTC, was struck at 9:02:54 am and collapsed at 9:59:04 am, 56 minutes and 10 seconds later. A combination of three factors allowed the north tower to remain standing longer: the region of impact was higher (so the gravity load on the most damaged area was lighter); the speed of the airplane was lower (so there was less impact damage); and the affected floors had had their fire proofing partially upgraded. Also, the hottest part of the fire in the south tower burned near a corner of the building and apparently led to a sudden bursting of bolts in that section, while the failures in the north tower core involved slower creep and softening effects. [1]
The two towers collapsed in markedly different ways, indicating that there were in fact two modes of failure. The north tower collapsed directly downwards, "pancaking" in on itself, while the south tower fell at an angle during which the top 20 or so stories of the building remained intact for the first few seconds of the collapse.
Subsequent modeling suggests that in the north tower the internal trusses supporting the building's concrete floors failed as a result of heat-induced warping. This placed additional stress on the bunched core columns, which themselves were losing integrity from both impact damage and heat. When the core columns gave out on one of the impact floors, this floor collapsed into the floor below. Once the collapse started, it was unstoppable; the huge mass of the falling structure had sufficient momentum to act as a battering ram, smashing through all the intact floors below. This theory is supported by witnesses from within the tower stating they heard "something like a heavy freight train approaching". There is some visual evidence that it was the core that collapsed first. It can be seen in videos that the large antenna, which was built on top of the core, starts downward a fraction of a second earlier than the rest of the building.
In the south tower, heat warping weakened the single-bolt connections between the floorplates and the initially intact external columns surrounding the impact hole, effectively creating a "hangman's drop" for that portion of the building above the point of failure. Eventually, the gravity load on these bolts increased beyond the breaking point as the joints, floorplates and columns weakened. Again, the momentum of the collapsing structure was sufficient to smash everything below it."
This is from the following link:
http://experts.about.com/e/c/co/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center.htm
So apparently, each tower fell in a different manner. That is inconsistent with a "controlled demolition", and these results have actually been modeled and tested. It's science, not conjecture.
BTW Robert - you an engineer?
No, but I know how to read, and I don't limit my reading to conspiracy web sites.
I am - and my daughter is a PE.Stay comfortable in your belief set. I'm sure you will.
There are many unanswered questions about the events of that day, and I'm NOT confident that the official story is entirely true. We saw jetliners crash into buildings; we watched those buildings fall. There's a direct, cause / effect relationship between the two events. (And I remember thinking that the buildings would come down that day, judging from my experience with elasticized steel in my wood stove.)
Condescend all you like, sir. Given the performance of our current government, it's more logical to believe that they were inept and bungling on that day than to think they were smart enough to pull off some vast conspiracy.robert luis rabello
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1ยข/min.
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
