Hi Jones,
Interesting that we have never heard from the original team of structural
engineers that designed and supervised construction of the Towers.
They may be willing to pay fifty bucks to the demolition team to find out
how they did it.
They put some real high grade steel in the job that must have been 300%
overdesign considering the pics of the erection.
Oh well, I kinda put the whole thing in the category of a mean little kid
kicking over somebody's sand castle on the beach. The destruction, for what
ever reason or whoever can never touch the pride of achievement of the team
that built the towers..
However, that act of malice cannot match the self destruction of the
industrial base of our nation. That should be our concern.
Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jones Beene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: S. Jones makes claims about 9/11 attack
John Coviello wrote:
H.V: Do buildings that suffer structural failure collapse so quickly and
cleanly? If not, then the events of 9/11 require alternative
explanations..
Yes...if the buildings had been designed to be demolished.
Yes, but of course it does not *have to be* part of the design,
necessarily, but it would be interesting to hear if it was indeed part of
it. That may end up being a red herring - and there are too many of those
floating around - such that it becomes a big distraction away from the ONE
salient fact mentioned by Harry and many others. Steve Jones, a t least in
this endeavor, is a giant leap more diligent (and brave) then people are
giving him credit for.
In the end this was almost a "free fall" - such as happens in controlled
demolition and that cannot be presumed to be the result of pure
coincidence, since no other building of this type has EVER gone down from
fire, or in a similar fashion. But two other points - one scientific
validate that suspicion.
One key question is had an actual "demolition permit" "from the City of
New York already been granted a few years earlier (to the previous owner).
That's one of many claims on the 'conspiracy sites' which need to be
looked into. I have even seen it on one of the sites, but it did not look
official. It might indicate that someone had legitimately actually proceed
to rig it earlier, and then a new owner came along who just would not
remove that prior work.
In which case that new owner should be pushed off the tallest remaining
WTC building by the relatives of the deceased.
PLUS take a stop watch and run back one of the numerous videos of the
collapse at normal speed. This is very enlightening.
There is no bending or buckling - as should happen when steel softens -
plus get out your stop watch.
According to the normal computation of gravity free-fall, the time it
takes for any object (such as the top floor of WTC) to fall a given
distance is given by the Kinematic Equations and Free Fall... available
from such sites as:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/1DKin/U1L6c.html
Such an object will experience a downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s (which
is often approximated to 10 m/s/s). Like any moving object, the motion of
an object in free fall can be described by these equations. The height of
WTC building was 420 meters, and plugging this all in and we get ~9
seconds.
The News reports are in agreement with what you can time yourself - that
once the collapse started, it went down in 10 seconds flat !! IOW this is
ALMOST unimpeded free fall !
Think about that for a minute. This top floors of the structure went down
almost as fast as if there was nothing underneath - because in effect -
there was nothing.
It is as if the top floor fell straight down through thin air with only
minor impediment, which arguably just could not happen in that short time
frame without something else going-on. In the case of WTC 7 the time is
almost identical to free fall - as if the solid structure below which had
not been harmed in any significant way (like a jet crash) except for fire
of a temperature which all agree will not only soften steel after many
hours - the fire was just not that hot.
Almost every demolition expert not on government payroll says that what we
would expect - timewise - and the neatness of the end product debris - is
identical to there being a controlled demolition - perhaps a 10% longer
time span than free fall - and straight down with no leaning. You will
have unavoidable lateral movement unless you keep it to free fall range.
This is what controlled demolition is designed to prevent - lateral
movement.
All anyone is saying is bring in the independent prosecutor and let him
have at it. If Monica is worth the distration of one - aren't the families
of 3000 deceased, entitled to the same consideration?
Jones
