THE RUBBLE PILES
you have to be able to think logically.
how high do you think the towers' rubble piles should have been? had explosives not blown up the subbasements? had not the towers' been subjected to a very sophisticated demolition?
somewhere between 10-20 stories. if the building could have completely collapsed. without explosives, the towers would probably have experienced a suspension of collapsing....not enough energy/nor structural weakness to effect a complete collapse.
how high were the actual rubble piles? less than 6 stories, to the best of my recollection. and why was that? because the basements had been blown out and most of the debris descended into subbasements that may have been 8 stories deep.
oh, and of course, the concrete was atomized. turned into dust. there was virtually no significant concrete residue in the rubble.
how high do you think the towers' rubble piles should have been? had explosives not blown up the subbasements? had not the towers' been subjected to a very sophisticated demolition?
somewhere between 10-20 stories. if the building could have completely collapsed. without explosives, the towers would probably have experienced a suspension of collapsing....not enough energy/nor structural weakness to effect a complete collapse.
how high were the actual rubble piles? less than 6 stories, to the best of my recollection. and why was that? because the basements had been blown out and most of the debris descended into subbasements that may have been 8 stories deep.
oh, and of course, the concrete was atomized. turned into dust. there was virtually no significant concrete residue in the rubble.
posted by albertchampion at 9:38 PM
2 Comments:
oh, and of course, the concrete was atomized. turned into dust. there was virtually no significant concrete residue in the rubble.
Not true. A fact that even the 'conspiracy guru' himself Steve Jones now recognizes. It is in no way surprising that the concrete floor slabs were fractured into small pieces. But the majority of the concrete was not 'atomized'. That is untrue.
The video of the collapse is quite clear. The collapse initiated at the points of impact. The video of the towers shows the lower portions of the towers to be stationary as the collapse begins above. In fact much of the video clearly shows towering portions of the central cores still standing as the dust cloud begins to disperse. They quickly follow the rest of the building down.
It's sad that someone who appears to be rather intelligent as yourself is so caught up in this nonsense.
1. observe the aerial photos of WTC 6. DO YOU REALLY THINK THOSE CRATERS WERE CAUSED BY THE NORTH TOWER DEBRIS? if you do, you are as much as a fruitcake as mr aluminum.
Why not? WTC5, right next to it, suffered almost identical damage on a slightly less extreem scale. Was that building mined with explosives too? Why could the observed damage to WTC6 not have occured as a result of falling debris?
more to the point, those craters were created before the fall of the south tower, the furthest away from WTC 6.
You keep insisting this but you have no evidence to back up your claim. The aerial photos that show the damage are all taken after the north tower had collapsed. Who's operating on faith here? Not me.
Post a Comment
<< Home