From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Oct 07 2002 - 17:29:46 MDT
--- "Ross A. Finlayson" <extropy@apexinternetsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> The World Trade Center towers probably had bombs in them. Didn't you
> see the explosions before they fell, in a controlled manner? I
> actually recall thinking to myself that very morning, hey, that
> looked like an
> explosion in one of the towers, on live television. Seismographs
> report explosions, as well as the plane crashes and the buldings
> "pancaking".
Some idiots will believe anything, apparently. No, I've looked at the
video, and nothing in it is at all in conflict with the scenario of
fire damaged structures failing under 10,000 tons of load (the floors
above). Have you ever seen reinforced concrete and structural steel
fail catastrophically? I have. It does look like a bomb went off,
specifically because those are the sorts of forces that are bound up in
prestressed concrete: the cables within the concrete are tensioned at
high loads, so when the concrete fails, the cables propel the failed
concrete outward in explosive levels of force.
Those living in the Bay area during the 1989 quake may remember seeing
the concrete pylons supporting highways after the quake. THey looked
like someone had set a bomb off inside, causing the rebar remaining to
be swelled outward.
I sure hope we are not now going to be the victim of one more Ian
Goddardesque months long rant from Mr. Finlayson.
>
> I don't believe everything I read or am told. I believe most things
> I see. I believe most things that I'm told or read, unless they are
> contradictory with my preexisting or later knowledge.
Evidently
>
> Anyways, some "conspiracy whistle-blower" pages, using news reports,
> claim the seismographs report a nuclear explosion. I find that hard
> to
> believe, although the pile was hot. Other things claim that for the
> towers to fall as they did, just like almost as if they were planned
> demolitions, would require bombs set off at various specific
locations.
> The huge water tanks at the top of the towers, which among other
> things are to keep them stable, were empty.
The water tanks in the tops of buildings are not to keep them stable.
Shows how much you know about architecture. Water tanks in the tops of
buildings are to keep water pressures stable throughout the building,
as well as to supply a source of emergency water for building sprinkler
systems. They certainly don't contribute to keeping buildings stable,
since they increase the momentum the building develops when swaying in
the wind.
I'd encourage Spike to run up a spreadsheet calculating the forces
involved in the collapse. Each collapse triggered a 2.7 richter
earthquake. Each tower was about 40,000 tons of material (not pounds).
Thats 80 million pounds of material, striking the earth at 250 mph (367
fps). Kinetic energy equals mass times velocity squared, or
10,775,120,000,000 ft-lbs/sec for each tower collapse. How many tons of
TNT is that equal to?
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:27 MST