FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
WTC South Tower - Wrong Tower Fell First
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1712
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DL said:
Quote:
Well, it doesn't look like it is designed to take the impact of an airliner, it looks like it's about to collapse...

Yeah - it's the new way - rather than having buildings around that make ppl want to damage them and blow them up, and stuff, you reverse-psychologise them by making the buildings pre-fucked-up, and thus protecting them further harm. It's all the rage in modern construction circles, I'm told. (by Billy Meier's arm specialist)

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
bornfree



Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 509

PostPosted: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:35 pm    Post subject: Re: WTC, Port Authority, Rockefeller and the WTC architect Reply with quote

[quote="DeepLogos"]A Joshua Leinsdorf article about the WTC, the Port Authority, Nelson Rockefeller and the WTC architect.... [url=http://www.leinsdorf.com/worldtradecenter.htm]Here >>[/url]
----------
BTW, this was Peter Eisenman's WTC suggestion (post 9/11-2001)

[img]http://www.thecityreview.com/nytdes3.gif[/img]

Well, it doesn't [i]look[/i] like it is designed to take the impact of an airliner, it looks like it's about to [i]collapse[/i]...

http://www.thecityreview.com/nytimdes.html

-DL-[/quote]

perhaps its meant to confuse future pilots as to exactly where to aim the plane? ...missle, pod, hologram
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Design for the WTC was provided by Minoru Yamasaki & Assoc. Emery Roth & Sons served as the architect of record. Since these people have nothing to hide, they should provide the blueprints of the WTC, for all to see. This will quell any misunderstanding regarding the facts of the collapse to be established and corrected. In fact, both companies should put the entire set of plans on the internet.
_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Design for the WTC was provided by Minoru Yamasaki & Assoc. Emery Roth & Sons served as the architect of record. Since these people have nothing to hide, they should provide the blueprints of the WTC, for all to see. This will quell any misunderstanding regarding the facts of the collapse to be established and corrected. In fact, both companies should put the entire set of plans on the internet.


Amen to that! The entire complex (7 WTC too - even the command center).

-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:52 pm    Post subject: Some basic logic IMO Reply with quote

Some basics as I see them:

Assuming this diagram is correct
Then IF the building were to weaken due to crash and fire, it would have toppled towards that corner.

Instead, it collapsed symmetrically, all the way down, as if the opposite corners were equally damaged. I think that's equally powerful as "the wrong building fell first" -- though that seems true as well, shit happens sometimes. One person gets shot 10 times and lives, another gets a slight whack on the head and dies instantly.

Quote:
The fires are irrelevant to the destruction of the towers - this has been more than well-established. Smouldering would be a more accurate desription, anyway.

Yes.

The main support structure of 47 super-thick steel columns in the center, a Core arranged in a box matrix, trussed together and branching out like a web to the outer walls, surrounded by elevators and offices, was almost completely untouched in the South Tower --- and I'd guess 90% undamaged Core in the North Tower.

Look what happened when Flight 77 hit steel and concrete. No more contiguous plane. Should we assume that in NYC the core was damaged instead of the plane? I doubt it. And if it had, I think that would have been evident immediately, not after a smoldering fire "worked on it" for an hour.

The outer parts of the building were alleged to have had some "load-bearing" capabilities, per various experts, but a glance at the design showed that the MAIN load-bearing structure was the Core. Am I incorrect about this?

The "hollow-core" was a stupid PR meme. It's like saying every suspension bridge in the world is held up by string and fairy angels, instead of huge pylons driven (and cemented?) into the earth, from which super thick cables are hung. Suspension bridges just look like they are floating in air, held up by "nothing".

The "hollow-core" was in fact built like a brick shithouse -- no, stronger than a mere brick shithouse, a marvel of engineering of counterbalanced beams and trusses. Brick shithouses are not built to withstand planes flying into them.


Whatever can be said about the implausibility of covering up "remote control", via gag orders, via trusting an internal team to carry this out for "the future of America" and "the wonderfulness of a war for global domination on behalf of the interests of Finance Capital" (quo bono), which Brzezinski and PNAC describe at length via shrouded euphemisms, put yourself in the shoes of these Pentagon/CIA Black Ops specialists: would you leave the results of such an operation to chance? Would you trust "Mohammed Atta" to be willing to DIE, and capable of suicide up to the last second? What if they chicken out and missed, or landed the plane instead?

Look what happened in 1993. John Michael Anticev of the FBI and his "informant" Emad Ali Salem trusted those "terrorists". All the stupid ass patsies had to do was drive the freakin Ryder truck (that FBI provided) into the WTC basement and park it RIGHT NEXT TO THE FREAKIN' COLUMNS, like Salem told them (like FBI told him). Set the timer and go.

Look what happens when you trust Arab amateur-terrorists to carry out simple instructions on an important mission. They failed. They screwed up by parking it too far away, and Bill Clinton had to put up with long delays on his War on Terror, he did not even get to pass his pre-PATRIOT Act.
They had to do a repeat in OKC before he could rip the Constitution to shreds (partially), prior to Bush taking it a step further.


After "Arab terrorists" goofed up one time, do you trust them again? No, you eliminate risk of failure.


I think Guiliani's enough of a Bush insider (and seemingly TOTALLY on script throughout), I see no reason to exclude him from the operation. Fascists don't mind of their colleagues get killed, if it's for "a good cause", worthy sacrifice. That's not to say he was in it for sure, but I don't see any strong reason to exclude him. BushCo NEEDED Guiliani to play his role as the "strong mayor" fighting terror, terrorism, and terrorterrorterrorterrorterrorterror.

Designing a building with demolition explosives built-in, that's kind of like letting rattlesnakes loose in the house to protect against robbers. Implausible as a normal design feature (if so, is EVERY tall building in the last 30 years built with explosives inside and it's a secret?). I think a building is easy enough to demolish by planting explosives. (Possibly they engineered in "nooks and crannies" in which explosives could be planted at some future date, rather than having to drill and bust concrete to plant them.)

I imagine that the building maintenance areas where wiring, ethernet, plumbing, and such is placed is separate from the office areas. Tenants might see a few maintenance contractors going in and out (as reported, the alarm system had been shut off for maintenance of the network or electrical systems the prior week or so), but maintenance crews in the hallways would cause no one any alarm. You see that all the time.

What about "house" maintenance people? Would they talk? Maybe the whole maint. team was "outsourced". Did Securacom (Jeb's company) outsource maintenance too?

I dont know, but it's very plausible hypothesis. SOMEHOW explosives had to be put into place. The Towers HELD after the impact. The fires were crap and were almost out. Something else had to cause the collapse.

The difference between some speculative MAX temp. that the thick steel beams could have possibley reached in an hour (I thought Kevin Ryan said tests showed 650), vs. the MIN temp. necessary to to melt (soften) the steel core (symmetrically) sufficiently to bring about collapse (symmetrical), to me this conclusively rules out jet fuel as a primary or secondary cause of collapse. This must mean that something else -- C4, nuclear, soundwave, some other exotic tool by Tesla, fast-moving heat-resistant concrete termites -- was needed to bring them down. And to me, it does not matter specifically what, in terms of forming a flawless argument for Joe Public.

(See, not THERMATE Mr. Jones, radioactive concrete termites, like Spiderman!)

I'll add this: While it's technically feasible that someone could have shot JFK with "Oswald's" rifle, and supposedly they finally found someone who could after 40 years, it's a huge stretch to say that proves Oswald did, esp since he reportedly could not hit rabbits. Nor anyone else from that implausible window. No honest person sticks with the least likely long shot when a much more plausible and proveable account exists -- that members of FBI, CIA, Mafia, Operation 40, and the entire Op Mockingbird media complex (international, incl. New Zealand) were involved.

Looking at the list of tenants:
What the War on Iraq proves:
Fascists have no problem with killing 3000, 6000, 130,000 "useless eaters" for anything they can justify as a worthwhile abstract goal.
Back to top
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1712
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gary said:
Quote:
....fast-moving heat-resistant concrete termites....

ROFLMAO! Laughing

That's what I love about this board, even the really informative posts are commonly capable of raising a belly-laugh.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 847
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Fintan: Meanwhile, one reason put forward for the early collapse of WTC2 was that the firefighters had gotten to the lower of the damaged tower floors. That development sealed the immediate demise of the tower.


I alighted on this mental page some weeks back... I found the timing of transmissions of firefighters in the South Tower to be particularly interesting:

Code:
   [9:52am]
   "Battalion  Seven  ...  Ladder  15,  we've got two isolated
   pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines.
   Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones [dead people]."
   Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"
   Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."
   Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
   Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."
   Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
   Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
   Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"
   Battalion  Seven  Chief:  "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need
   two engines up here."

[9:58am]
   Ladder 15 OV: "Stuck in the elevator, in the elevator shaft,
   you're going to have to get a different elevator. We're chopping through
   the wall to get out."

[9:59:05am] SOUTH TOWER COLLAPSE BEGINS

In Tower One, with no elevators in service, firefighters were still little more than halfway up when the 'mayday' call went out to evacuate; the last survivors out had started down from the ~43rd floor. Some were above, or disregarded the call.

But in Tower Two 'Battilion Seven', having gained a 40 floor head start via a freight elevator that worked after the building was hit at 9:03, had reached floor 78, just under the impact point... he describes 'isolated pockets' of fire. He had or would have reached in minutes, the imact level, the level in which the first artifacts -- some say 'explosive artifacts' -- of collapse were observed.

'Ladder 15 OV', also in Tower Two is (to my knowledge) the only firefighter to gain access to the top of an elevator car, the only one that had been working. His last stated intention was to punch through the sheetrock shaft wall... which would have likely given him an opportunity to observe part of the building's steel box girder core structure. Such as it was on 9/11.

Seasoned firefighters are trained to recognize and identify explosives. Explosives seen is sure to elicit an urgent and different response to mere 'explosions heard'.

If one was holding a button in one's hand, aware that the steel core was rigged with cutting charges (or the whatever core had visible nasty somethings) ... or as regards the fellow above, the impact floor contained things that might be out of place... upon hearing that last radio transmission, which was audible to many responders in the area, I feel one would have a sudden desire to push it, right then.

Just seconds later... *if* someone with a button was listening, maybe someone did. "Cover Fires implausibly 'approachable'!" "Fireman in the hole!" et. al.

There was one other 'breaking out of the elevator' incident on 9/11, using a window washing squeegee to gain access to a bathroom through two layers of drywall... this doesn't figure into my 'final curtain' scenario because none in the car had radios; I think it happened after the inside doors were wedged open (not top of car), and it appeared later in print as a story.

At the time, no one expected the towers to collapse; or the core to collapse so completely. Or did they?

Quote:
"Then Steve Mosiello, Chief Ganci's executive assistant, came over to the command post and he said 'We're getting reports from OEM that the buildings are not structurally sound', and of course that got our attention really quick, and Pete said, 'Well, who are we getting these reports from?' And then Steve brought an EMT person over to the command post who was I think sent as a runner to tell us this and Chief Ganci questioned him, 'Where are we getting these reports?' And his answer was something, you know, we're not sure, OEM is just reporting this." [Chief Albert Turi; NYT interview#9110142, 10/23/2001]


And he notes specifically afterwards that "within ten seconds of this conversation" collapse began. Granting as little as 40 seconds for the events described in quotes, this exchange might have occurred soon after Ladder 15 OV announced his intent to break out of the elevator shaft.

Allowing a couple more minutes for a runner to 'run', the runner is dispatched in a time window soon after Battilion 7 Chief radioed his position on 78 and described the (significantly?) low incidence of fire.

So just who -- at OEM -- if that was indeed the source, came to the conclusion that the buildings were unstable? And when?

Speculation: What if the runner's message was a result of hearing someone was approaching the impact level... was intended to trigger a 'mayday' condition that would have been reached Battilion 7 Chief; an urgent mayday on channel issued by a fellow firefighter likely to turn him back down the stairs, away from his exploration and fire-quenching effort... starting a complete evacuation of fire personnel from Tower Two?

But then... after the runner was dispatched... Ladder 15 OV announces he is commencing an attack on the sheetrock elevator shaft wall, (wouldn't take long with an axe)... time for the final curtain?


Quote:
[also Turi #9110142] "And I thought to myself that, based on other high-rise fires that had burned out of control, that we would probably have some type of localized collapse up on the upper floors, especially in the core area of the building, which I mistakenly thought was block construction. After further investigation, of course, after the fact, it wasn't block construction. The elevator cores were encased in sheetrock actually." [INTERVIEWER: For the record, would you tell us what block construction is?] "Yes. Block is usually like a four-inch cement block that's laid and that's what encloses elevator shafts. In the construction of the Trade Center, due to the high speed and the travel distance of the elevators, they used a sheetrock construction over steel so there was more give for the wind forces created by the elevators. They felt that it would probably have knocked the block over."


The "mistakenly thought was block construction" caught my attention, whether it hearkens back to a personal revision based on hearing another [informed] voice.

Behind the panels in that shaft: 'any' steel, structurally important steel? Something in the elevator shafts that might make a firefighter cry 'double-mayday'?

I can see that core layout and construction and detailed shaft layout being critical at this point to keep speculation on a rational track.

Either there was an "Eiffel Tower" inside each tower... or a concrete/rebar core... or there is the worthy "...if the cores were made of sausage, and the planes were carrying massive loads of maple syrup. This would have initiated a chain reaction of sugary delight..." [uttered by our man 'Fletch'; it has been a long time since I re-read something a dozen times, retaining its full effect. I cannot decide whether to bury or praise him. Probably both to be safe.]

I am open to consider the "concrete core" angle... it does supply an additional motive for demolition -- the battle cry of those who insist there were real "Eiffel Tower cores" with the attendant task of lots of cutting charges, could also be a notion to dispel the idea that construction was 'shoddy' or 'not to spec' in some way to avoid wrongful death suit complications -- 'crete/rebar does seem to fit the dust factor explains the momentary 'spire' -- I'd welcome any who may know old timers involved with construction to do interviews -- subject to open revisitation and second sourcing of course.

(bandwidth challenged at the moment) fair question: how many videos has the 'spire' shown up on?

This is a bit like living inside of "Carmina Burana"
Move along folks, this way to the egress.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:29 pm    Post subject: Freepers helped before Reply with quote

Might find interesting. Endless debates on Free Republic before they banned Libertarians like "einstein".

First I was reading Schoenman (Socialist) here, about how WTC93 was orchestrated with patsies
http://www.takingaim.info/wtc93.html

and I googled the title of an article he mentioned and found a similar post on of all places Sean Hannity's forum, and DETAILED full articles and discussion on of all places Free Republic.


on WTC1993 and OKC
including Original long articles from NYT and LAT on Emad Ali Salem
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3c830e34de.htm

on the Media and whether Chomsky is a Libertarian or Commie
Chomsky's proof [Free Republic]
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b3baabe7d4e.htm

Pentagon Report: Destruction in OKC caused by 5 Seperate Bombs
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b1aa4cb0517.htm

Listing of previous threads
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b20b28f4ff1.htm

I know this will probably take too long to read the entire thread.

One other thing that was anthropoligically interesting, is how Freepers were ON TO THIS during the Clinton era. Then there seems to have been some changeover in membership and they began to "circle the wagons" around the guv'mint after Bush's election, to the point that now criticism of the right wing guv'mint and Republicans is considered SHOCKING, by newer members.
Back to top
StillDiggin



Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 88
Location: Michigan

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

When we refer to the towers as falling in the wrong order, this is based on the span of time between "impact" and "collapse."

In the spirit of this forum's topic, I would like to ask a sub-question.

If we were to base the statement with respect to the "plan," would it still hold true?

In other words, did the perpetrators plan for the south tower to "collapse" first, or did something go wrong? And if so, what was it that went wrong?

Conversely, if this order was part of the plan, why would the south tower need to fall first?

_________________
Prediction: 9/11 Without Tinfoil - Part 327: WE'RE ALMOST THERE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rumpl4skn



Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 8:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

StillDiggin wrote:
Conversely, if this order was part of the plan, why would the south tower need to fall first?

I've stated this before, but I'll repeat for the sake of this discussion:

Since my feeling has been all along that the WTC Emergency Center was the control center for the tower demolitions (and why it too had to go later that day), then the order of CD had to be WTC2 then WTC1.

Bringing down WTC1 first may have obscured the view from WTC7 to WTC2, plus WTC1 may have damaged WTC7's 23rd floor (subsequently, it did not - damage to WTC7 was reportedly from the 18th floor down.)

IMO, the 3 buildings had to go in that order - 2, 1 then 7.

I also feel that part of this op was to create a built-in debate. So, why not have the plane strikes go in opposite order to the collapses - a subtle, yet potentially meaningful detail that would arise in everyone's minds after the fact? (The masses minds, that is.)

_________________
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."


Last edited by Rumpl4skn on Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:44 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 847
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 7:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am with you also, having arrived from a different vector:

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Since my feeling has been all along that the WTC Emergency Center was the control center for the tower demolitions

Minor point of grammar, calling WTC7:23 the "control center for the tower demolitions" may be leaning too far in the direction of implicating those who were there en mass... I am sure you are merely identifying it as a location, but benefit of any hasty mobs with pitchforks a-ready... I think even implicating two individuals may exceed reality: once the pilots had done their part, only one solitary person was required to complete the day's operation. The one with the buttons. Placement and relative timing of each demolition already complete, literally no more than three buttons. With easy deference to the most trivial modern technology, fits easily in the pocket. No larger than, say, a guitar tuner. :)

Rumpl4skn wrote:
Bringing down WTC1 first may have obscured the view from WTC7 to WTC2, plus WTC1 may have damaged WTC7's 23rd floor (subsequently, it did not - damage to WTC7 was reportedly friomn the 18th floor down.)

I add that at time for first demolition, the dynamics of tower collapse could not be known; for all a button pusher knew some anticipated effect might exceed its bounds. Therefore it is safest to detonate the tower furthest from button pusher's location.

North Tower was hit from North, South Tower from 'South': Might towers topple and collapse along vector of impact? Original planners not certain; if be so, let them topple 'towards each other' or 'within the complex'

Rumpl4skn wrote:
[Reason South Tower was hit at angle] WTC7 was spared any damage from flying debris from WTC2

Quite valid, considering velocity on impact, 'open floor design'; and in hindsight the physics (if not complicity) proven by the flaming engine fragment ejected from the South Tower.

(Has anyone done a mass/velocity calculation on Atta's (correction: Satam Al Suqami's) passport? Embedded dark matter? :)

Though not necessarily first, I ventured a motive why South Tower collapse was initiated at that precise moment (9:59): radio transmission from Firefighter stuck in elevator "in the shaft, punching through wall to get out" -- or Battillion Seven on floor 78 possibly close to getting a visual compromising part of demolition setup; their radios audible to dozens of responders in the area. (see page 3 of this thread or [1] for detail) hand in had with the (suspicious?) precognitive notion of an unknown person "at OEM"

I believe it possible that the hypothetical button pusher was interested in seeing as many civilians and firefighters evacuated safely as possible, so long as there was not a clear danger of immediate compromise, such as demolition evidence being discovered and mentioned over the radio.

North Tower fall (10:28) occurred before evacuation was complete; perhaps there is a similar hint in the dialogue or correlated data that attempts to explain the moment.

For North Tower, second collapse, 'AirSea' helicopter is purported to have noted instability in the EOC log [2]: "10:26:34 DOES APPEAR THAT TOP OF TOWER POSS LEANING AT THIS TIME, AIR SEA 14, IS BUCKLING, LEANING TO SW, APPEARS TO BE BUCKLING IN SW CRNR, 1-191+" (many sources, funny/inconsistent timestamps in this log. (Caveat emptor, consider this a possibly-modified 'official' source of information')

I would be interested in seeing corroborative reports of this instability; some have claimed it was not visible, but with faraway cameras, angle and tower confusion...

Am I tempted to suggest that the North Tower collapse was a 'true' collapse? No. By my current reckoning the end result still seems to imply 'active' disassembly. Even if the tower was destined to fall anyway, if rigged for demolition then demolition it must be, to ensure the intended result: destruction complete enough to ensure fast cleanup. Even if evacuating firefighters are not 'all clear'. To avoid another miraculous coincidence... perhaps a necessity.

To inject a personal remark -- they do say murder is easier the second time around.

Rest in peace, Melissa.

[1] http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7687&sid=d24852e76b616f6d55569fda862d58c4#7687
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/EMSLog.pdf

__
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Christophera



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 1851
Location: Santa Barbara

PostPosted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hocus Locus wrote:
I add that at time for first demolition, the dynamics of tower collapse could not be known; for all a button pusher knew some anticipated effect might exceed its bounds. Therefore it is safest to detonate the tower furthest from button pusher's location.

North Tower was hit from North, South Tower from 'South': Might towers topple and collapse along vector of impact? Original planners not certain; if be so, let them topple 'towards each other' or 'within the complex'


I do believe loco is suggesting we think that a tower with its bearing shear walls 61% destroyed on one side, should fall the other direction.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1410743

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

_________________
"If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got"

Info specific to WTC 1 via the documentary, "The Engineering and Construction of the Twin Towers". WTC 2 had differences in its concrete core.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.