[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Saturday 01 September 2007 23:58, Ralph Smithen 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: > > "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." > > The official "pancake collapse" of the floors cannot explain why this > core did not remain. Nor the pools of molten metal observed by rescue > workers. Nor the utter pulverisation of the buildings, and subsequent > pyroclastic flow of dust clouds. Nor the massive explosion in the > basement witnessed shortly *before* the plane hit. Nor... Its worth remembering that its only a few years since many geologists have accepted the fact of pyroclastic flow. And also non-heated solids acting as fluid. I remember the shock when a load of rubble was tipped into a river valley and even the proponents of pyroclastic flow were amazed at the river of rubble that flowed and flowed well beyond their wildest dreams. This partly answers the loss of the core - the debris acts as a fluid to cut through it like a knife through butter. I used to work down the pit and we used pressurised water to cut through stone. With the height involved the simple drop is sufficient to powder anything, and indeed melt metal. I seem to remember from school that a lead bullet at 200m/s has enough kinetic energy to melt itself on impact. And thats without warming it in kerosene flames first. Also a lot of modern constructions are pre-stressed as the building goes up - take the weight off and they pull themselves apart. > > Please look into this. If we don't recognise and raise awareness of > false flag attacks, we're inviting more of the same! I am not denying the existence of false flag attacks and would admit that the US would happily use them as an excuse to cause trouble. However the US would never be so stupid to attempt one of this complexity - too many things to go wrong, too many loose ends to try and tie up. They may even have (accidentally) funded it by a back door somewhere but they didn't organise it. The US is run by big money - it wouldn't try and kill itself. Tom te tom te tom -- 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