Wow... this thread is a bukkake of stupid...
I'm going to put my cards on the table here. Go ahead, shoot me down.
Building 7 was demolished. Buildings don't fall like that. Period.
Demolition simply severs strategic structural elements. Most of the work of demolition is done by gravity. Controlled demolitions IS a building falling.
On the towers NIST started with a conclusion and worked backward. They do not practise good science.
They started with a hypothesis and worked forward. This is called the scientific method. It has been around for some time, and has a track record of working rather well.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
Can NIST’s findings be used in court?[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]As part of the act,
no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages[/SIZE][/FONT]
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs.htm
Good night!
Hang in there Jess.
I would be curious myself to hear what Lash has found out. I suspect I know, but perhaps Lash will post it in a new thread or something...
I don't believe the tower demolitions were as difficult as some paint it to be. They didn't have to be universal or intricate as in a traditional CD.
C4 plastic explosive is one of the most hardy explosives in existence. It is also rather powerful. Do you know how well it would perform in the WTC?
Not very well. For one, the fires would destroy it. That would make setting off explosives fairly difficult.
In addition, a significant volume of explosives is required? Do you know what the total amount of C-4 required would be, simply to sever the columns of a single floor?
I don't either, because I forgot the number, but Huntsman worked out the correct amount. You couldn't hide it in your backpack, put it that way.
And as we know, collapsing a single floor is no good because the rest of the building would just stop it... so you're talking a LOT of explosives.
Unless you're aware of an explosive MORE powerful and MORE durable than C4?
In addition, I notice you claim explosives could be put on the core. Perhaps this would work. Unfortunately we know this did not happen on 9/11. The core of the structures can been seen, still intact, after the floor trusses and exterior columns have collapsed. If the collapse had been initiated by destruction of the core, quite obviously this phenomenon would not be visible.
Also the kinetic energy of the plane crash the designers envisioned was actually greater than the kinetic energy of the planes that hit the towers.
KE=0.5 x mass x velocity squared
The plane they imagined was going 600 mph (as admitted by NIST) the plane that hit the northe tower was going 480mph. Note the squared in the above equation. The KE ends up much higher.
600 MPH is the maximum cruising speed of the 707, at a crusing altitude of 30,000ft plus. Not only is it illegal for a 707 to fly at this speed at low altitude, but it is also more than likely physically impossible for a 707 to fly at 600 MPH at an altitude below 2,000ft.
The excess lift generated by the wings in dense air could potential generate vibrations that ripped the airframe to pieces.
When they said something right there had happened in the lobby - what are they referring to?
A bomb near the lobby. There you go, a better explanation.
They are referring to two things: firstly, damage to lobby and elevators (and people) due to a fireball caused by jet fuel travelling down elevator shafts and igniting.
Secondly, they are referring to damage to marble panels and smashed glass caused by movement in the structure of the WTC. It was this movement of the building which led FDNY chiefs to the conclusion that the building's structure was unsound, collapse was possible, and all personnel should evacuate.
Jessica's "bomb in lobby" explanation fails to account for flash burns and kerosene - two distinctly reported features of the event in the lobby, which also correspond to multiple accounts regarding the elevators at many levels of both towers, from sub basement levels to the very upper floors.
As I posted earlier the MO of al quaida has always involved explosives. You think they would bother to check.
You were dishonest then, and you are being dishonest now. In your account you completely ignore Operation Bojinka. Al Qaeda has long had an interest in undertaking a co-ordinated attack involving multiple airliners.
UK,
So why are you not out investigating what it was they were covering instead of attacking people who are looking into it. You are after the truth aren't you?
Russell
Because we already know what they were covering. NORAD wanted to make it look like they would have shot down UA93, had the passengers not intervened. Not only is this stance uncertain, but it is actually fairly unlikely (however I would maintain the aircraft out of Andrews AFB may have intercepted UA93 successfully).
-Gumboot
