Anyone care to answer my question from earlier on today:
"Considering whoever set the explosives were part of a mass conspiracy to make this appear to be soley a terroist act, and who needed to have the melted steel and weakening structure of the WTC story to back them up, why wouldn't they take down the buildings in the order they were hit?"
explosives will never cause metal to melt. the heat is not held long enough. during an explosion there is a flash of heat. the only explosion ever shown to melt metal is a nuclear reaction; and even then it was at ground zero. so anyone with the slightest knowledge of explosives knows the damage was not done by explosives.
people reported "poofs" in the upper floors of #7. this is expected when the foundation is compromised and the structure begins to fail. just watch videos of earthquakes to prove this.
explosives will never cause metal to melt. the heat is not held long enough. during an explosion there is a flash of heat. the only explosion ever shown to melt metal is a nuclear reaction; and even then it was at ground zero. so anyone with the slightest knowledge of explosives knows the damage was not done by explosives.
people reported "poofs" in the upper floors of #7. this is expected when the foundation is compromised and the structure begins to fail. just watch videos of earthquakes to prove this.
So you think fire did that?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
do they usually register on seisamagraphs a mile or more away as 2.1 and 2.3's w/ multiple spikes? does it usually show the most energy before or after the collapse? b/c according to the actual data the most energy was given off BEFORE it collapsed, so yes, that is one crazy concept
FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.
On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.
and another:
"it does look like the spikes occur early on, but that's mostly because the chart is so compressed. If you look at the actual spikes for each collapse ( as recorded at http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html ) then the results are very different."
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
"The order was given to pull #7...then we watched it fall"
i have a friend who's a firefighter and a hot shot. the "order to pull" is given when the chief deems the building un-saveable or when entering the building will cause death or injury to firefighters. the same goes for forest fires. when a fireline is about to be compromised; the fighters are ordered to pull back to a safer area and begin digging another fire line.
it's common sense.
The guy says the "order to pull was given then we watched it fall". Not the order to pull was given and the building fell unexpectedly sometime afterwards.
Ok, but to me saying the order to pull makes more sense when used to pull back. they probably would have said the "order was given to bring the building down". Again, the logical explanation would be it means to just pull back. Also, from what I have read the term "pull" in demolition does not mean to blow up a building, or implode a building.
Also, it isn't something that needs to be clarified. that is why it hasn't been clarified.
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
Ok, but to me saying the order to pull makes more sense when used to pull back. they probably would have said the "order was given to bring the building down". Again, the logical explanation would be it means to just pull back. Also, from what I have read the term "pull" in demolition does not mean to blow up a building, or implode a building.
I've gone both sides on this too many times to count. Ultimately, it's inconclusive.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Ok, but to me saying the order to pull makes more sense when used to pull back. they probably would have said the "order was given to bring the building down". Again, the logical explanation would be it means to just pull back. Also, from what I have read the term "pull" in demolition does not mean to blow up a building, or implode a building.
Also, it isn't something that needs to be clarified. that is why it hasn't been clarified.
you're correct. prior to any implosion; the area is evacuated. the building wouldn't be imploded with so many in harms way.
"edit" or an iron worker. or a welder; or basically anyone that works with metal.
And what of other older buildings that have remained standing due to fire?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
And what of other older buildings that have remained standing due to fire?
There wasn't structural damage done to them by planes flying into them at very high rates of speed. And before you say it, there was structural damage done to #7 which is why the combination of fire and structural damage will bring a building down.
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
There wasn't structural damage done to them by planes flying into them at very high rates of speed. And before you say it, there was structural damage done to #7 which is why the combination of fire and structural damage will bring a building down.
apparently it doesn't take much these days... must be global warming lol
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Doesn't take much? are you saying there wasn't much damage done to the buildings by the planes hitting them or much damage done when those 2 towers fell to #7??
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
Doesn't take much? are you saying there wasn't much damage done to the buildings by the planes hitting them or much damage done when those 2 towers fell to #7??
the towers perhaps... #7...highly unlikely. Is there no such thing as a partial collapse anymore? I still don't see how a fire in one location somehow spreads to the entire buildings steel framework and whoompf...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
the towers perhaps... #7...highly unlikely. Is there no such thing as a partial collapse anymore? I still don't see how a fire in one location somehow spreads to the entire buildings steel framework and whoompf...
go to this site. some good pics that show plenty of damage done to #7. and sure there are partial collapses..just not in this case. Too much damage was done to the structural integrity of these buildings.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
And what of other older buildings that have remained standing due to fire?
where do you get this? or rather; why do you say fire? it was the siesmic activity that destroyed the foundation. #7 would have collapsed without any fire. watch some earthquake videos and you'll understand. it's so bloody simple.
where do you get this? or rather; why do you say fire? it was the siesmic activity that destroyed the foundation. #7 would have collapsed without any fire. watch some earthquake videos and you'll understand. it's so bloody simple.
Did the city of LA collapse during the earthquake? hmm
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Did the city of LA collapse during the earthquake? hmm
no but some buildings did i would think and the interstate sure as hell collapsed.
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
no but some buildings did i would think and the interstate sure as hell collapsed.
Completely different types of structures. Why would the US govt move so many important things into a building that is so susceptible to mild ground tremors?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
This is probably all an elaborate Copperfield stunt... If bet if we move the mirrors the WTC towers are still there lol...
David Blaine must be behind this somehow...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
overall this has been a very level headed thread considering the topic.
I'm not here to prove what's right or who's or what is wrong. I'm (like many) am just giving this whole 9/11 thing another kick to see if anything else surfaces or any additional lightbulbs go off.
I can see it both ways when I look directly at it. When I start looking around at other world matters, I am not seeing anything overly encouraging.
Deep down, honestly, I hope 9/11 was just a freakish event that happened exactly as it went down. History seems to lean towards the conspiracy scenario. Maybe that's just it.
The recipe or "line" of control is moved in a forward direction by mirroring proven examples from the past. Hence the Hitleresque style some see today.
The is no easy way to maintain a position of power. Occasionally shit has to intentionally hit the fan to set forth a procedure or process of action.
I personally don't like how my reality is becoming a military endeavor imposed on me, and how I must live my life according to it. Even though we are not physically in Iraq we are still subject to military standards and actions being imposed over there.
In 2007 you could have a swat team at your house with machine guns in about a 30 mins flat if you really wanted to. That shouldn't be. That scenario is pretty messed up in all reality.
reminds me of a post I read the other day about why can't we all just seem to chill out.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Ok, so with your experience maybe you could answer the following questions:
1. Since you have blown up bridges, etc. how long in advance in needed to prep for a job, say a bridge?
2. Having seen demos on tv that have failed to take a small building down (like a casino) on the first try, how much PE4 and/or other explosives would be needed to take down structures like the WTC? How could they (whoever set the explosives) be certain that the buildings would come down?
3. Realizing that at a usual demolition of a building there is always a fire crew on site, and considering the amount of firefighters that were on site that day that lived, wouldn't some of them have recognized this as a controlled explosion? Wouldn't some of them have come forward?
4. Considering whoever set the explosives were part of a mass conspiracy to make this appear to be soley a terroist act, and who needed to have the melted steel and weakening structure of the WTC story to back them up, why wouldn't they take down the buildings in the order they were hit?
No problem:
1.Minimal to no time necessary to prep FOR the job, you've got the kit you need? explosives,a means of directing the blast (strong tape/ mine tape is good enough), what form of initiation you going for? good to go.
To prep the bridge for dem? size of bridge? feet on the ground? 10 good soldiers, average size bridge (lets go with 50 metre, pier), prepped ready for demolition in an hour or so. No problems!
2. Well i'd say the building dems you've seen failing on TV are being specially demolished/imploded/whatever, eyes on safety to surroundings. This would make placement of charges and minimal use of explosive imperative, so failure would be a strong possibility. The Twin Towers? well you've argued blue, mainly with yourself, that it fell down messy, chopitdown posted a useful article stating that the Towers could not possibly have EVER done anything but fall straight down, so no problems with worrying about surroundings too much, plus you dont even WANT this to look like a clean bring down. Prep all the critical areas to the max your tactical level will allow. Success guaranteed i'd say. You wouldnt need an amazing amount of explosive.
3. Been reading posts, thoughts and opinions from the Roland TDK model amongst others on this very subject, interesting stuff, but the questions have all been asked by sincere people, and shot down mostly by smart-mouth nothing, but by some pretty arguable points also, as is the trend in this debate.
4. I can see no real reason unless you've really got your eye on the tactical ball, which you probably would have. A decent shout for the officiallistas tho.
Just my answers to questions posed and no indication of anything i believe to have happened on the day, i think decent enough reasons to question tho. Believe me when i say if someone wanted this doing, on the sly, they have the clout, special forces would get it done, minimal fuss. No big deal for them i would say actually.
some buildings collapsed and some didn't. confirming my point.
In this case I don't see it. What was the earthquake a 2.4? I've been in a 2.4 it's nothing...barely noticeable. I'm not so sure this building leveling earthquake you speak of took place on 9/11 or had an any appreciable effect on #7.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The foundations of the twin towers were 70 feet deep. At that level, 47 huge box columns, connected to the bedrock, supported the entire gravity load of the structures. The steel walls of these lower box columns were four inches thick.
Videos of the North Tower collapse show its communication mast falling first, indicating that the central support columns must have failed at the very beginning of the collapse. Loizeaux told AFP, "Everything went simultaneously."
Loizeaux said, "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."
SEISMIC 'SPIKES'
Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.
While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.
However, the Palisades seismic record shows that-as the collapses began-a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth.
These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
In this case I don't see it. What was the earthquake a 2.4? I've been in a 2.4 it's nothing...barely noticeable. I'm not so sure this building leveling earthquake you speak of took place on 9/11 or had an any appreciable effect on #7.
As I mentioned earlier, NY1 had reported before it collapsed that it was still on fire and in danger of collapse due to said fire along with the structural damage it suffered. Throw in the "earthquake" and to me it seems as though you have a pretty good formula for collapse.
"The leads are weak!"
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
In this case I don't see it. What was the earthquake a 2.4? I've been in a 2.4 it's nothing...barely noticeable. I'm not so sure this building leveling earthquake you speak of took place on 9/11 or had an any appreciable effect on #7.
some buildings stand and some buildings fall. that is true, of course. reason being, it depends on where the waves of energy are coming from and if it hits the right frequency to shake it up a bit. you get a nice tune, you get a nice shake.
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
As I mentioned earlier, NY1 had reported before it collapsed that it was still on fire and in danger of collapse due to said fire along with the structural damage it suffered. Throw in the "earthquake" and to me it seems as though you have a pretty good formula for collapse.
well I guess they just let it burn until it fell... not like anything in there was worth saving...lol
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
explosives will never cause metal to melt. the heat is not held long enough. during an explosion there is a flash of heat. the only explosion ever shown to melt metal is a nuclear reaction; and even then it was at ground zero. so anyone with the slightest knowledge of explosives knows the damage was not done by explosives.
people reported "poofs" in the upper floors of #7. this is expected when the foundation is compromised and the structure begins to fail. just watch videos of earthquakes to prove this.
So you think fire did that?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.
On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.
and another:
"it does look like the spikes occur early on, but that's mostly because the chart is so compressed. If you look at the actual spikes for each collapse ( as recorded at http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html ) then the results are very different."
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
i have a friend who's a firefighter and a hot shot. the "order to pull" is given when the chief deems the building un-saveable or when entering the building will cause death or injury to firefighters. the same goes for forest fires. when a fireline is about to be compromised; the fighters are ordered to pull back to a safer area and begin digging another fire line.
it's common sense.
Ok, but to me saying the order to pull makes more sense when used to pull back. they probably would have said the "order was given to bring the building down". Again, the logical explanation would be it means to just pull back. Also, from what I have read the term "pull" in demolition does not mean to blow up a building, or implode a building.
Also, it isn't something that needs to be clarified. that is why it hasn't been clarified.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
I've gone both sides on this too many times to count. Ultimately, it's inconclusive.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
i can prove fire will do that. ask a blacksmith.
"edit" or an iron worker. or a welder; or basically anyone that works with metal.
you're correct. prior to any implosion; the area is evacuated. the building wouldn't be imploded with so many in harms way.
And what of other older buildings that have remained standing due to fire?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
There wasn't structural damage done to them by planes flying into them at very high rates of speed. And before you say it, there was structural damage done to #7 which is why the combination of fire and structural damage will bring a building down.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
apparently it doesn't take much these days... must be global warming lol
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Doesn't take much? are you saying there wasn't much damage done to the buildings by the planes hitting them or much damage done when those 2 towers fell to #7??
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
the towers perhaps... #7...highly unlikely. Is there no such thing as a partial collapse anymore? I still don't see how a fire in one location somehow spreads to the entire buildings steel framework and whoompf...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
go to this site. some good pics that show plenty of damage done to #7. and sure there are partial collapses..just not in this case. Too much damage was done to the structural integrity of these buildings.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
where do you get this? or rather; why do you say fire? it was the siesmic activity that destroyed the foundation. #7 would have collapsed without any fire. watch some earthquake videos and you'll understand. it's so bloody simple.
Did the city of LA collapse during the earthquake? hmm
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
no but some buildings did i would think and the interstate sure as hell collapsed.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
Completely different types of structures. Why would the US govt move so many important things into a building that is so susceptible to mild ground tremors?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Which never happened.
David Blaine must be behind this somehow...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
What never happened?
~peace~
While allowing yourself to be their Option.
‹^›_‹(ô¿ô)›_‹^›
Please visit daily: www.theanimalrescuesite.com
I'm not here to prove what's right or who's or what is wrong. I'm (like many) am just giving this whole 9/11 thing another kick to see if anything else surfaces or any additional lightbulbs go off.
I can see it both ways when I look directly at it. When I start looking around at other world matters, I am not seeing anything overly encouraging.
Deep down, honestly, I hope 9/11 was just a freakish event that happened exactly as it went down. History seems to lean towards the conspiracy scenario. Maybe that's just it.
The recipe or "line" of control is moved in a forward direction by mirroring proven examples from the past. Hence the Hitleresque style some see today.
The is no easy way to maintain a position of power. Occasionally shit has to intentionally hit the fan to set forth a procedure or process of action.
I personally don't like how my reality is becoming a military endeavor imposed on me, and how I must live my life according to it. Even though we are not physically in Iraq we are still subject to military standards and actions being imposed over there.
In 2007 you could have a swat team at your house with machine guns in about a 30 mins flat if you really wanted to. That shouldn't be. That scenario is pretty messed up in all reality.
reminds me of a post I read the other day about why can't we all just seem to chill out.
I found this article mildly amusing:
"and a helmet which translates a soldier's voice into any foreign language"
http://www.infowars.com/articles/military/weapons_robocop_armor_for_soldiers_developed.htm
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
No problem:
1.Minimal to no time necessary to prep FOR the job, you've got the kit you need? explosives,a means of directing the blast (strong tape/ mine tape is good enough), what form of initiation you going for? good to go.
To prep the bridge for dem? size of bridge? feet on the ground? 10 good soldiers, average size bridge (lets go with 50 metre, pier), prepped ready for demolition in an hour or so. No problems!
2. Well i'd say the building dems you've seen failing on TV are being specially demolished/imploded/whatever, eyes on safety to surroundings. This would make placement of charges and minimal use of explosive imperative, so failure would be a strong possibility. The Twin Towers? well you've argued blue, mainly with yourself, that it fell down messy, chopitdown posted a useful article stating that the Towers could not possibly have EVER done anything but fall straight down, so no problems with worrying about surroundings too much, plus you dont even WANT this to look like a clean bring down. Prep all the critical areas to the max your tactical level will allow. Success guaranteed i'd say. You wouldnt need an amazing amount of explosive.
3. Been reading posts, thoughts and opinions from the Roland TDK model amongst others on this very subject, interesting stuff, but the questions have all been asked by sincere people, and shot down mostly by smart-mouth nothing, but by some pretty arguable points also, as is the trend in this debate.
4. I can see no real reason unless you've really got your eye on the tactical ball, which you probably would have. A decent shout for the officiallistas tho.
Just my answers to questions posed and no indication of anything i believe to have happened on the day, i think decent enough reasons to question tho. Believe me when i say if someone wanted this doing, on the sly, they have the clout, special forces would get it done, minimal fuss. No big deal for them i would say actually.
No they did not.
some buildings collapsed and some didn't. confirming my point.
In this case I don't see it. What was the earthquake a 2.4? I've been in a 2.4 it's nothing...barely noticeable. I'm not so sure this building leveling earthquake you speak of took place on 9/11 or had an any appreciable effect on #7.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Videos of the North Tower collapse show its communication mast falling first, indicating that the central support columns must have failed at the very beginning of the collapse. Loizeaux told AFP, "Everything went simultaneously."
Loizeaux said, "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."
SEISMIC 'SPIKES'
Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.
While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.
However, the Palisades seismic record shows that-as the collapses began-a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth.
These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
As I mentioned earlier, NY1 had reported before it collapsed that it was still on fire and in danger of collapse due to said fire along with the structural damage it suffered. Throw in the "earthquake" and to me it seems as though you have a pretty good formula for collapse.
"The leads are weak? Fuckin' leads are weak? You're Weak! I've Been in this business 15 years"
"What's your name?"
"FUCK YOU! THAT"S MY NAME!"
some buildings stand and some buildings fall. that is true, of course. reason being, it depends on where the waves of energy are coming from and if it hits the right frequency to shake it up a bit. you get a nice tune, you get a nice shake.
~Ron Burgundy
well I guess they just let it burn until it fell... not like anything in there was worth saving...lol
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")