From: Ross A. Finlayson (extropy@apexinternetsoftware.com)
Date: Mon Oct 07 2002 - 19:29:34 MDT
On Monday, October 7, 2002, at 04:29 PM, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> --- "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.
>
No. I figure he can speak for himself.
There are sources claiming that the airplanes didn't demolish the towers.
It looked like a bomb went off about thirty or forty stories above the
second plane entry about ten or fifteen minutes before it fell. Boom,
it went.
>>
>> 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
>
I call them like I see them.
>>
>> 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
>
The seismographs I saw have the spikes in the graphs before the
recording of the towers' passage. Seismograph experts claim them
consistent with very large underground explosions exclusive of the
recording of the towers falling floor-by-floor into the parking garages.
Sometimes water tanks are used to keep a building stable. Maybe you
haven't seen the show where the U-shaped water tanks reduce the sway in
a building.
Often they're used for water pressure. I heard the tanks were empty.
It was hot. The fires were pretty much out. Fuel oil doesn't burn at
1700 degrees.
What's the "Big Lie"?
Why would people not accept the official line? Is it, it being the
concept that the WTC attacks were internally guided, a form of urban
myth? Is it the conception that the mass media and government would and
could lie to further their various aims or that they have in the past
and would again? Why has pretty much everyone heard of it?
Why do people find this evidence?
Some people will believe anything apparently.
You mention rebar in concrete. Steel-reinforced concrete is made by
welding together a steel cage of rebar and pouring concrete in forms
around it. Concrete is a good insulator.
Perhaps we could make scale models and see how they react. Take a stack
of a hundred bricks cemented together, and drive a truck into them. The
bricks fly in all directions. If the structural support went out a
third of the way down the building, I guess I could see how the top
third of the building would collapse under gravity through the lower
floors. It's other people that tell me that that would not be possible.
I appreciate your candor.
Ross
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:27 MST