Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WAR: Former Bush Administration Economist Believes WTC Felled by Controlled Demolition

page: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
This is probalby covered elsewhere, but isn't it odd that here is no footage from in the towers during and after the impacts? Would there not be some HDD or tapes left? I know this at first seems a morbid question to askl that not many seem to be prepared too, but it could contain valuable clues, or were all the said tapes and HDD really all destroyed?


[edit on 29-6-2005 by AgentSmith]




posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   


Sources of the cloud dust and the aftermath

    No masonry was used in the steel construction of the Twin Towers and therefore the mainly 4-inch light concrete floors (40,000 ft2 per floor), fireproofing (5,000 tons), insulation and interior dry walls were the main sources of the dust (Table 1). The initial dust cloud caused a horrendously high concentration of airborne particulate and combustion products, which was both extensive and unforgettable. Within minutes, the air pressure generated by the collapsing tower raised a dust cloud, which bellowed up over 1000 ft (see the American International Building, 70 Pine Street, with a tip height of 952 ft in Figure 2a). In a series of seven photographs taken from the Brooklyn College Campus (seven miles from Ground Zero) over the first eight minutes after the South Towerís collapse the extent of the mixing and the size of the dust cloud are readily apparent (Fig. 2a-g). On a crystal clear day with low wind it rapidly expands, in 8 minutes, to a size sufficient to obliterate any view of Lower Manhattan (Fig. 2g). The dust cloud moved down the street like a wall of volcanic ash (Fig. 3), reaching such a height that no skyscraper (several over 800-ft in height) was visible in Lower Manhattan. After five hours the dust had cleared sufficiently (Fig. 4) for the skyline to be partially visible again, although missing the two tallest and largest buildings in NYC. The mixing indicates the settled dust collected for our study, five days later at several locations more than 8 blocks from the WTC, should be representative of the stable particulate matter in the dust cloud.


that's from one of 'their' publications .... link

this is a good time to point out how effective compartmentalisation can be. here is a bunch of eggheads with their eyeballs glaring through microscopes at direct evidence from the crime, yet they don't question whether there was enough potential energy in the towers to create a pulverisation and ensuing dust cloud of that magnitude.

and then you will have another team, that only looks at ONE scientific aspect of the event, which is not considering that the tower was turned into a fine dust that BLASTED away from the towers.

i can't seem to find the chemical analysis of the dust, anymore. it had what percentage of the dust was human tissue, plastic, drywall, etc. it turns out, that it didn't matter what it was made of, it turned into a fine dust.


only 'kooky conspiracy theorists" seem to have the ability to add two plus two.


oh, yeah, and guy who says moiiture trapped in concrete was responsible for anything. it takes energy to get the water out of the concrete. the water has a molecular bond to the concrete amalgum. to break molecular bonds you must input energy. it itself is not a source of energy(unless we're talking nulcear or quantum). the water pot doesn't boil itself. this is the whole point of discussing the law of conservation of energy.

[edit on 29-6-2005 by billybob]

[edit on 29-6-2005 by billybob]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 03:35 PM
link   
billybob,

You spent a great deal of time telling about what things aren't in this thread. How about you telling us your theories in the matter? Surely you do have opinions about how and why. Share them, please.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jafo72

One final comment. Concrete always retains some trapped moisture. This from my son, a concrete company foreman whose company makes high rise concrete buildings. Is it possible that the concrete, suddenly intensely heated by the exploding fuel, be turned into powder by rapidly expanding steam from such moisture?

Is it possible that the concrete powder is the result of trapped steam? The grinding together of the falling pieces of conctete and steel would contribute powder as well. Just another thought!



In fire, concrete does indeed spall.

The WTC floors were made with lightweight concrete aggregate, expanded shale.

The floors were 4 inches thick. if you were to put all of the floors on top of each other, 110 floors would equal approximately 37 feet. Not a whole lot considering the height of the building.


Originally posted by Sauron
Billybob, you hit that nail one shot.

Sorry for all the pictures I'm a man of few words, and these pics, say more that I could ever try to write.

People have to wunder what kind on power did this below, please emember that this took place long after the planes hit the Towers.


Sauron, not all of the dust was concrete. there were a lot of other materials in the dust as well. Drywall, and ceiling tiles also contributed to the dust as well.

In addition, the concrete floors were only 4" thick and up to 100 feet across.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
The quote billybob posted on 29-6-2005 at 02:35 PM is from a study titled:
ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF ASBESTOS-RELATED CANCER BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF AIR AND SETTLED DUST SAMPLES FROM THE 9/11 ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COMPLEX

The link he listed sends you to a Google generated HTML version of the ppaper862.doc Microsoft Word Document. The actual Word Document can be downloaded from:
64.233.161.104...:SmnhgB7zIaYJ:phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/publications/ppaper862.doc+%22dust+analysis%22++911+human+collapse&hl=en&i e=UTF-8

I suggest downloading the Word version as in contains photographs not included in the HTML version.

While this study is primarily developed to find out possible dangers from the asbestos component of the cloud particulate chemistry, it contains a valuable insight into the makeup of the cloud material, and of the building in general, the probable cause of the different colored clouds, etc., so the Word document IS worth the time to read.

Sitting here, scanning up and down the threads, something else comes to mind.

If there were explosives in the buildings to bring them down, why wait for the airplanes to come along before setting them off? What advantage would be gained?

Where would the person pushing the button be? Why that position?

He or she could not know for sure when the planes would be there nor the direction from which they were coming. According to the statements by our government as to how the terrorist "Cells" work, no one would have much knowledge of what other cells were doing or thinking, except for the knowledge of the primary concept for the attack, namely, destroy the WTC. The terrorists piloting the planes had little experience flying those aircraft, they only wanted to hit the towers.

Surely, the terrorists knew about "The existence of "sky lobbies" at the 44 and 78 floors in each Tower thus made each tower essentially three buildings, one on top of another, no regular passenger elevator ran all the way to the top." Why not just blow those and let gravity take over?

Then, there's the biggest question of all. If there were people nearby to set the explosives off, why wouldn't they have cameras placed strategically all around the towers so they could really toot their own horns later to further rub our noses in it? I know I would under those circumstances!

I think that the plan was to hit the towers with the airplanes, period. Sure, they hoped to topple the towers, but really were surprised at how they came down. We'll never know for sure. Do we really know the intended target of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania? I hadn't and would welcome any knowledge and source for it if anyone knows.

I do want to thank all who are contributing constructively to this thread. I'm relatively new to this forum and have found it very thought provoking, when I overlook the defence mode of a few.

jafo72


SMR

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Had bombs gone off before the planes hit, I think they would have to be doing some serious explaining to do dont you think?
How would they tell us that terrorists went into the building and placed explosives.It's one thing to drive a truck in with a bomb.But to explain how explosives went off before the planes hit,....they would have to come up with some way of saying somehow known terrorists walked into the buildings, placed explosives during business hours,,,,see where this is going?

Now some might say, well how about the claim of the explosives in the first place.
We know that it was not just five drills but at least 35 drills over at least two months before September 11th.Drills that many floors were emptied out for hours at a time.These drills were un-announced.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Had bombs gone off before the planes hit, I think they would have to be doing some serious explaining to do dont you think?
How would they tell us that terrorists went into the building and placed explosives.It's one thing to drive a truck in with a bomb.But to explain how explosives went off before the planes hit,....they would have to come up with some way of saying somehow known terrorists walked into the buildings, placed explosives during business hours,,,,see where this is going?

Now some might say, well how about the claim of the explosives in the first place.
We know that it was not just five drills but at least 35 drills over at least two months before September 11th.Drills that many floors were emptied out for hours at a time.These drills were un-announced.


Just want to add some weight to this argument.. by posting links to the known (or unknown to some) recordings and eyewitness accounts of "explosions".

Eyewitness Reports
Firefighter Audio Tapes leaked
and
More Firefighter Audio

Edit Add:

jafo72, fix you link size, its distorting the width of the thread

[edit on 6/29/2005 by QuietSoul]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Okay, let's stop and think about this for a second.

The towers were 110 stories above ground level, each story was 12 feet.

The floor slabs were 4 inches, carpeting, ceiling tiles, furniture and interior partitions probably took up another 8 inches spread over the floor so we wind up with a volume of approximately 11 feet per floor of air for 110 stories up.

Where did this air go when the towers collapsed?

The claim that the dust cloud represents anything other than the air displaced by the collapse is ridiculous.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

muaddib, if i was wrong about this, howard would have called me on it right away. his response to this is, "i don't agree with those calculations", not, "that is bad science".


Billybob, you are wrong. You are so far from even knowing what you are talking about is not even funny. You are taking a known law/equation, that of the conservation of energy, avoiding (or you simply don't know...) the existance of the other two laws of conservation that go along with the law of conservation of energy, and then you make up your own assumptions as to the result that will ensue when applying these laws in practical terms, two of which, as i said before, you seem to conviniently have forgotten, or didn't know at all.


Originally posted by billybob
i'll go through it again, because if you're going to continue all your super successful "debunking", LOL, you will need to understand this simple physics law. the law of conservation of energy.


First of all, as i was saying, the law of conservation of energy goes along with the law of conservation of momentum, and conservation of mass, forgot about those?.... Just as the law of conservation of energy states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, the law of conservation of momentum states that momentum cannot be created nor destroyed, it only changes just like energy. The law of conservation of mass states exactly the same, mass cannot be created nor destroyed, it just changes according to Newton's laws of motion.

Meaning, even with all the resistance of each floor falling upon the other floors, momentum will change but not enough, because the mass of each floor is not nearly enough to stop the momentum of the falling mass, which is greater. Not only that but with each floor that falls, more mass is added to the equation, until the momentum of the falling mass is stopped by the opposite reaction of the mass at the bottom floor, (mass) which is far larger than the mass of the entire structure.

Sound, is a form of energy, and just like any other form of energy, it cannot be either created nor destroyed, it already exists in a constant wave spectrum, which changes when an opposite vibrating force is applied to this constant wave spectrum, or when the interaction is between two waves.

BTW, you should know that it has been demonstrated that electrons manifest in a wave-particle duality, meaning they exist in both wave form (energy, sound) and particle form (mass), they are intrinsic, and cannot be separated. Do you understand what this means hillbilly boy?

Because of the wave-particle duality of electrons, when two objects crash there is a vibration when the waves interact with each other...and what is vibration?...sound. The mass of an object is not tranformed into a wave form, because wave and particle are intrinsic, and exist in duality.


Originally posted by billybob
the reason a tower all of a sudden falling all by itself would make no sound, and have no puff of smoke, is because 100% of the energy available would be converted from gravity into motion.


What in the world are you talking about?.... Neither of the towers collapsed all by itself, or themselves.... Each tower was hit by a plane...which causes more stress to the structure. Not only that, but the mass of the planes were added to the total mass of the structure, and the top portions of the structure were compromised already by the crash. There were also fires from the fuel burning, and all the inflammable materials inside the towers, which greatly increased stress in the structure of the buildings. All these things together brought the towers down.



Originally posted by billybob
every time there is a crash, the energy to create that sound comes from the same source as the energy of collapse, ie. gravity.


Wrong... you are contradicting yourself hillbilly boy, first you say that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, which is true, and then you claim that sound is created?..... Sound is a form of energy hillbilly boy....it cannot be created nor destroyed.



Originally posted by billybob

AND THERE WAS MOLTEN STEEL IN THE BASEMENT FOR WEEKS AFTERWARDS(it takes a great deal of energy to melt steel), ......it would be like getting into a dodge viper with a gallon of gas in it, and driving at 160 mph from NY to LA.


First of all where is the evidence of these molten pools of steel remaining in a molten state for 5 weeks without any source of power to maintain the steel in a molten form?.... where is the evidence? without evidence you are speculating.

There is a possibility of small pools of aluminum found, but aluminum does not stay in a molten state for 5 weeks either, without having some form of energy that maintains it that way. All you have as evidence is the supposed account from a site, which i am sorry to say, it is not reliable.

Second of all, you are trying to compare oranges with apples with the analogy you made....



Originally posted by billybob
there has to be a massive external source of energy to account for all the work that was done(work in the physics sense, my little messiah of dune).


Let me guess...two airplanes crashing into the towers and the fires are not external forces?..... Or in the case of WTC7, the collapse of the towers, or at least WTC2, (or whichever it was, can't remember if it was wtc1 or wtc2) which caused significant damage to WTC7 and the ensuing fires which lasted for about 7 hours....those are not external forces either?.....



Originally posted by billybob
do you understand the law of conservation of energy, now? because all the physicists in la la land understand it.


i think I have clearly shown that I understand it better than you do hillbilly boy.


Oh one more thing, if i chose the name Muaddib, it is not because i believe to be a messiah.... i chose it because I am a fan of the book and the sci-fi movie Dune....not because of any dellusions of being a messiah....

---edited to fix errors and add comments---


[edit on 29-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   
So concrete won't vaporize or turn into powder without a significant amount of energy added to it, what exactly do you call 230,000+ pounds of airplane travelling at more than 500 mph? I'd call that a pretty significant addition of energy. Or several hundred tons of steel falling ontop of it? A pretty significant addition of energy. Show me ANY concrete that can withstand 230,000+ pounds of airplane crashing into it for longer than MAYBE a second with out either crushing into a tiny powder, or just vaporizing, or can withstand a couple of hundred tons of steel collapsing into it without vaporizing or turning into dust, and I'll buy your theory. Until then, I'll listen to the experts.


SMR

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Here we go again, insulting people when others dont buy into their lack of proof.
Was it really necessary to cal Billybob hillbilly boy ? Seems someone is getting angry when someone doesnt suscribe to their junk.
Lay off the insults Muaddib


Explosives were set of to ensure that the buildings fell.
WTC lease holders recieved a nice chunk of money from those fallen buildings.
Planes hit certain areas of the building(s) and did not compromise the rest of the building(s) in order to weaken them.Had it just been a plane, the section(s) they hit would have taken at most, the top sections of building off before stopping.The rest of the building(s) structure was intact and strong enough to to stablize the top portion(s)

If it had been only the planes crashing into those buildings, close to 50% of each building would still be left standing today awaiting retrofitting.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Where did this air go when the towers collapsed?

The claim that the dust cloud represents anything other than the air displaced by the collapse is ridiculous.


Air? You're wondering where the air went?? Where did all the concrete, desks, people, carpet, telephones, doors, desks, wood, machinery, plastic, rebar and rational thought go when the towers collapsed? Oh, that's right, it was all pulverized into dust particles, most of them less than 10 microns in size.

I was in Taiwan in 1999 when a major earthquake occured. I was there at the scene of a 20-storey hotel in Taipei that collapsed. The top 16 floors collapsed on top of the bottom four floors. No pulverisation. No dust clouds. No explosive, parabolic jettisoning of glass, concrete and steel. No molten steel. No mysterious squibs. Steel beams mostly in tact. No pancaking, no flapjacking, and no maple syrup. The top section first collapsed straight downward partly crushing the lower floors and then fell over across the street breaking into large chunks, just as the top sections of the WTC towers would have if they had collapsed naturally in the first place. Why did this happen? Because the lower section held once the potential energy of the top part was spent. They rescued survivors from the building. Most of the magical air that you worship so much was still trapped in the building.

Do yourself a favour...wait, I know you won't because it's not your job/inclination to seek the truth...observers, do yourselves a favour and read about the potential energy impossibilities that are inherent in a gravity-only collapse and pulverization theory. There's plenty of studies out there by scientists that aren't sponsored by the U.S. government.

The whole "pancake" theory is patently ridiculous and has never been observed in construction since mankind stopped making buildings out of thatch...oh, except in the case of controlled demolition, Heck, even buildings destroyed by conventional controlled demolition don't pulverize into pure dust, nor do they make rapidly expanding dust clouds that cover half of a metropolis. If you want to see what conventional demolition looks like, check out the videos of the WTC7 collapse. And the magical displaced air theory explaining squibs 15-20 floors below the level of destruction and all the other anomalies is even more ludicrous. Pfft! You guys deserve the sack, I swear.
If I was your boss I'd me mighty pissed. The only people you're convincing here are yourselves. Is it clock off time yet?



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Yeah, you're right they don't, because an implosion is done from the ground up to control the dust cloud. That's why the buildings fall like they do, because they cut the bottom out from under it. The WTC came down from the top down. Even if the rest of the building wasn't compromised, the bottom of the building wasn't meant to stop tons and tons of building as it was falling in a downward motion. It was designed to support the building swaying in the wind, which would impart a SMALL amount of motion, and while it was standing. Once the inertia started the building falling downwards, the lower floors didn't have any way to stop the inertia of the fall. It's one thing to support a non-moving building, and another to STOP several hundred tons once it's in motion, and for every floor it fell it fell faster, which would add more inertia to it, which would make it harder to stop.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Here we go again, insulting people when others dont buy into their lack of proof.
Was it really necessary to cal Billybob hillbilly boy ? Seems someone is getting angry when someone doesnt suscribe to their junk.
Lay off the insults Muaddib


First off, if he hadn't used that patronizing tone, and hadn't tried to belittle me, while trying to use his crackpot knowledge of science, I would have actually responded in a more civil manner....but he asked for it....

Second......junk?.... Can you please enlighten us to which part in my post is junk?....... and of course, you have to prove it....with science....

[edit on 29-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Humm..... wecomeinpeace....you are trying to justify something that happened to two structures with 110 floors, plus the other buildings, the mass of the planes, the burning jet fuel, etc.... with what you saw a building with 20 floors do when part of it collapsed due to an earthquake?.... Humm.....


So, according to you, there is no difference at all between the fall of two buildings with 110 floors each, each tower was hit by a plane, were set on fire with jet fuel plus all the flammable items inside the buildings, plus the collpase of wtc7, and the other buidings which also collpased that day....... You want to compare what happened in 9/11 with what you saw happen to a building of 20 floors which was partially destroyed by an earthquake?.......

You have got to be kidding....


[edit on 29-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Yeah, you're right they don't, because an implosion is done from the ground up to control the dust cloud. That's why the buildings fall like they do, because they cut the bottom out from under it. The WTC came down from the top down.

Exactly. Finally someone is making some sense. WTC7 was conventional, bottom to top demolition, thus no dust clouds, only squibs as the main supports were blown out and the building collapsed in an instant. WTC1 & 2 were unconventional, top down demolition, thus the outward explosions and pulverisation.


Even if the rest of the building wasn't compromised, the bottom of the building wasn't meant to stop tons and tons of building as it was falling in a downward motion. It was designed to support the building swaying in the wind, which would impart a SMALL amount of motion, and while it was standing. Once the inertia started the building falling downwards, the lower floors didn't have any way to stop the inertia of the fall.


Yes, they did. It's called energy transferance. Every collision loses energy as it is transferred into heat, sound and lateral kinetic vectors. Momentum is transferred into the receiving object and whatever it is connected to (in this case, the Earth). The potential energy of the upper portion of the towers was insufficient to collapse the towers completely into rubble without another energy source. But it was insignificant when compared to the energy required to pulverise them into dust. In a universe where the flapjack theory were valid, bullet-proof vests wouldn't stop bullets, trucks would be turned to dust when they hit concrete walls, and you could smash 20 concrete blocks with only the energy from your hand muscles and gravity.


It's one thing to support a non-moving building, and another to STOP several hundred tons once it's in motion, and for every floor it fell it fell faster, which would add more inertia to it, which would make it harder to stop.


No, it wouldn't. Energy is lost with each successive collision. If the weakened floors gave way, each successive floor hit below it would cause energy transferance and thus slow and finally stop the collapse. Make a model yourself, I don't care, make it out of match sticks and glue instead of concrete and steel if you like. Then drop a brick on it. See what happens to the momentum of the brick once it has collapsed a few levels. It will crush some of it and then come to a stop and/or fall off to the side. Try it with milk cartons, knock yourself out, have some fun, and discover the simple truth.

[edit on 2005/6/29 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Where did this air go when the towers collapsed?

The claim that the dust cloud represents anything other than the air displaced by the collapse is ridiculous.


I was in Taiwan in 1999 when a major earthquake occured. I was there at the scene of a 20-storey hotel in Taipei that collapsed. The top 16 floors collapsed on top of the bottom four floors. No pulverisation. No dust clouds. No explosive, parabolic jettisoning of glass, concrete and steel. No molten steel. No mysterious squibs. Steel beams mostly in tact. No pancaking, no flapjacking, and no maple syrup. The top section first collapsed straight downward partly crushing the lower floors and then fell over across the street breaking into large chunks, just as the top sections of the WTC towers would have if they had collapsed naturally in the first place. Why did this happen? Because the lower section held once the potential energy of the top part was spent. They rescued survivors from the building. Most of the magical air that you worship so much was still trapped in the building.


Interesting story, wecomeinpeace. But a few corrections are in order.

First of all, it was only a 12 story building, not a 20 story building. Secondly, the survivors were in the top of the building, not the bottom.

Thirdly, this was a concrete and steel structure that was built by different construction standards and techniques.

Are you trying to compare buildings built in an Earthquake prone region of the world to the WTC towers?

www.yam.com...

I don't think that the two situations are comparable in the least.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
It ain't worth it anymore. No matter how much evidence we could find, or how many experts that had nothing to gain from this we talked to, it would never be a good enough explanation. You guys think what you think, I'll think what I think and I'm not gonna argue about it anymore. As someone else said, I think in another thread, I'll just go off and be a mindless sheep and believe everything I'm spoon fed by the government so I won't have to think.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Exactly. Finally someone is making some sense. WTC7 was conventional, bottom to top demolition, thus no dust clouds, only squibs as the main supports were blown out and the building collapsed in an instant. WTC1 & 2 were unconventional, top down demolition, thus the outward explosions and pulverisation.


You did not understand what he said... He did not claim that the WTC was destroyed by control demolition, nor was it destroyed from the bottom to the top... in fact, he is talking first about controlled demolitions, which I explained before. There are several charges put throughout all floors, which explode in rapid succesion from the top to the bottom, but the explosions are so fast, that the buildings actually collapse from the bottom to the top. The top floors do not have enough time to fall first.




Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Yes, they did. It's called energy transferance. Every collision loses energy as it is transferred into heat, sound and lateral kinetic vectors. Momentum is transferred into the receiving object and whatever it is connected to (in this case, the Earth).


Again....wrong....please do read about the wave-particle duality of electrons.... i explained it above....

BTW....energy is never lost, it transforms....



Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
No, it wouldn't. Energy is lost with each successive collision. If the weakened floors gave way, each successive floor hit below it would cause energy transferance and thus slow and finally stop the collapse.


Wrong again... we already discussed this, in this same thread....

Anyways, could you please refer to the law of conservation of energy?


The Law of Conservation of Energy

Energy in a system may take on various forms (e.g. kinetic, potential, heat, light). The law of conservation of energy states that energy may neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore the sum of all the energies in the system is a constant.


Excerpted from.
library.thinkquest.org...

BTW.....as stated already, each floor that consequently collapsed, added mass to the total mass of the building. Once the top of the towers started to collapse there was nothing to stop them from collapsing entirely, because of the total mass of debris is far greater than any resistance the mass of each floor can provide, except the ground floor.

[edit on 29-6-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   
--edited for double post--- For some reason i am having a very hard time trying to post. This has been happening for a while now, and this is the only site where i am getting these poblems.

[edit on 29-6-2005 by Muaddib]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join