Twin Towers Demo'ed?
From the Washington Times
Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.One of my cousins has been telling me these things for quite sometime now and at first I thought he was nutty but the more I investigate the more ominous the story becomes. It's beginning to seem naive to assume that the story we've been given is the way it went down... Literally.
Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7.
If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
My cousin emailed me a link to an article written by this Morgan Reynolds detailing more explicitly what this article from the Washington Times is referring to.
If you really want to get freaked out...
Texas A&M President's response...
This is an excerpt of the email from my cousin who is very educated in the subjects of thermodynamics and physics.
Caution... may cause lack of sleep.
A few things for you to ponder as you clear your head of the
absolute lunacy of the 'official story' about the building
failures on 9/11
1) No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire except
on 9/11. Just a few months ago, a high rise building in Madrid
burned for DAYS and did not collapse. It just doesn't happen
2) Even if the two trade towers were compromised by the jets,
the damage would not have been uniform across the support
structure. Therefore, wouldn't you expect some kind of leaning?
3) That huge fireball you saw after each plane struck the towers,
that was the vast majority of jet fuel igniting OUTSIDE the building.
You have to understand how much mass there was of steel in those
buildings. Yes, it looked really impressive when the big, bad fireball
went poof outside, but that only meant that there was only so much
left inside to melt steel.
4) Steel conducts heat pretty well. Most people don't realize that even
if you heat one part of a MASSIVE steel beam, it will conduct that heat
away to cooler parts of the steel. Now, imagine all 47 massive beams
sucking heat away to the other 109 floors.
5) The black smoke indicates an oxygen-starved fire that was not
capable of burning at the temperatures claimed in the FEMA report.
Didn't happen.
6) Even if the fires were hot enough, it would have taken a LOT longer
for the beams to heat up than the elapsed time before the first tower
collapsed. For crying our loud, the first tower fell only like about 35 or
45 minutes after impact. Do you have any idea how much energy would
be required to do that? No way.
7) Have you ever melted any kind of metal? If not, I will clue you in on
something. It doesn't maintain its strength right up until some breaking
point. It is not a quantum effect. As it heats, it begins to sag if there is
a load. It's kind of like plastic. IF the steel in the towers had failed due to
heat, we would have seen a more gradual slump before collapse. Did
we see anything like that? No. The building was solid as a rock until
seven seconds prior to collapse. At that point, one camera shows a noticeable
shaking of the ground and puffs of smoke surging from the tower. Then,
total collapse at just about the speed of gravity; regular rows of ejected
debris and puffs of smoke preceding the downward travel of the wreckage.
8) If a building collapses in on itself, the beams and support columns
are compressed. You would expect to see twisted beams, not regularly
shaped pieces, sheared neatly off in 10-15 foot sections.
9) Building 7 was not hit by a plane, yet it collapsed in the same, orderly,
perfectly vertical manner as the two towers. Why is that? Well, cuz the owner
blew it up. He admitted that he did. Case closed. THAT IS THE REASON.
Quick question for you... About how long does it take to engineer and
implement a controlled demolition, in a constrained environment like the
WTC? (So as not to damage surrounding structures) Weeks...? Months?
See, Larry Silverstein wants us to believe that in the midst of all that chaos
on 9/11, the decision was made in the afternoon to "pull" building 7 because
the other two towers collapsed and that they didn't want to risk any more
lives. He actually expects us to believe that from a flat footed start, teams of
engineers gathered to plan and implement the controlled demo of that 47
story building, and then pulled the building all in the span of a few hours.
...Not...
It was planned, and the explosives planted, weeks in advance...
Scary eh?
Posted by
Peakah |
9:38 PM
Very cool design! Useful information. Go on!
»
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:01 AM