It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How the WTC towers fell

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
I'm referring here to the architect's final schematics of the north tower that are posted on 911Research;


Is this one from the set?:




I don't see where any of them specify anything in regards to the columns. In fact, the perimeter columns appear to be larger than the core columns. What they're really doing is representing each group of three perimeter columns with a spandrel plate by a single block on the outside.

Keep in mind that those are also dated December 1963, and construction on the towers didn't begin until a few years later, after the design was revised at least once by the PA before construction began, not that these give any good structural information anyway.



Exactly. A steel-reinforced column is a different beast entirely from a concrete-sheathed column


But neither are what I'm talking about when I say concrete core. This is what I have in mind:




Basically a concrete wall with the largest box columns just outside of it, and the rest of the core structure inside of it.

What's uncanny is that Christophera made the above diagram before WTC2's standing core's dimensions were analyzed to show that the outermost columns were stripped from that gray block:





The box columns are obviously "the core of the core."


I think all of them were allegedly box columns except for one, that was an I-beam (besides the box columns that transitioned into I-beams higher up in the buildings). I've never seen all of the box columns in their correct places though, except in diagrams. That's the trouble. I wouldn't be surprised if they existed, I'd just like to see them all somewhere.




posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
the perimeter columns appear to be larger than the core columns. What they're really doing is representing each group of three perimeter columns with a spandrel plate by a single block on the outside.


Remember that the three columns were actually 1 column until they split at the 10th story. This could be the reason they are bigger in that schematic. Because I believe that plan is of the loby level?


Keep in mind that those are also dated December 1963, and construction on the towers didn't begin until a few years later, after the design was revised at least once by the PA before construction began, not that these give any good structural information anyway.


Very true.



Basically a concrete wall with the largest box columns just outside of it, and the rest of the core structure inside of it.


The only thing different would be that you consider it a concrete wall, while we are told it was a gypsum wall.


What's uncanny is that Christophera made the above diagram before WTC2's standing core's dimensions were analyzed to show that the outermost columns were stripped from that gray block:


Good catch.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Remember that the three columns were actually 1 column until they split at the 10th story. This could be the reason they are bigger in that schematic. Because I believe that plan is of the loby level?


Ah, that's true. That's probably the case then.



The only thing different would be that you consider it a concrete wall, while we are told it was a gypsum wall.


Don't you love how things simplify like that?

If I realized that to begin with, these discussions would be a lot easier, lol.

[edit on 20-7-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by gottago
I'm referring here to the architect's final schematics of the north tower that are posted on 911Research;

Is this one from the set?

Keep in mind that those are also dated December 1963, and construction on the towers didn't begin until a few years later, after the design was revised at least once by the PA before construction began, not that these give any good structural information anyway.

Here's the link to the plans. A few are dated '64, most '67, and the last revisions in '70. I think this is most probably the final bid set, updated as needed, and the PA-mandated revisions you mention were apparently those of '70, which involved the hat trusses.

I don't think they totally redesigned the towers in those three years, which is what the concrete-tube core would entail. That's starting over from zero for a massive project. They would have been fleshing out the design here, which is a very good one.



A steel-reinforced column is a different beast entirely from a concrete-sheathed column


But neither are what I'm talking about when I say concrete core. This is what I have in mind:



Basically a concrete wall with the largest box columns just outside of it, and the rest of the core structure inside of it.

What's uncanny is that Christophera made the above diagram before WTC2's standing core's dimensions were analyzed to show that the outermost columns were stripped from that gray block


If you go back through those plans linked above, and look at the colored floorplan I posted earlier, you'll see the outer rows of box columns on the long faces of the core are the most massive. They also replicate the dimensions of your diagram above.

Your diagram--the box with a cross inside--is just a schematic replication of the core structure in that color-coded floorplan I posted, translated into a concrete box. That is indeed the way in which the core operated, but in the wrong materials. Again, the largest, perimeter box columns provided the strength, the inner cross of box columns in reduced bays provided stability.

As I said before, if you're going to encase the core in a concrete shell, you've got to pour it floor by floor, essentially stacking 100+ rectangular concrete boxes on top of each other. You're adding enormous dead weight to the structure, which was designed to be flexible because of the huge wind loads. Concrete goes against logic here--a concrete tube/core would have to move over 2 yards off center, as the towers often did. You've got friction and shear at the joints between each section and wear on the floor joists and connectors as these core blocks shift.

The core depicted in the linked plans is what was always described: 47 steel box columns in an innovative core-and-perimeter steel-frame design.



The box columns are obviously "the core of the core."


I think all of them were allegedly box columns except for one, that was an I-beam (besides the box columns that transitioned into I-beams higher up in the buildings). I've never seen all of the box columns in their correct places though, except in diagrams. That's the trouble. I wouldn't be surprised if they existed, I'd just like to see them all somewhere.


Yes you're right, all but one was an I-beam. The most massive ones were at the perimeter of the long sides of the core.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
the PA-mandated revisions you mention


I'm talking about the PA itself doing the revision. Hell, for all we know, the original structural documents could have featured the concrete core before they were handed over to the PA. There's an MSNBC or etc. article featuring WTC SE Les Robertson from right after 9/11, and that article even says the towers had a steel and concrete core. Either way, we don't know what the plans were that were actually used.


I don't think they totally redesigned the towers in those three years, which is what the concrete-tube core would entail.


I really doubt it would take three years. My opinion.

Have to go to work but I'll be back later, only got half through the post.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
Hopefully this general exposition shows that the destruction of the WTC can be convincingly explained in its essentials without resort to exotic and unknown devices that scare off the public and derail and divide the truth movement.


But what if an exotic device unknown to you was in fact used?

You are investigating the WTC destruction not in the interest of determining what happened, but in the interest of advancing the "truth" movement which you assume will be harmed by the truth of what brought the towers down, if in fact it was unknown, exotic devices that might "scare off the public."

W'hell yes the public should be scared.... because these things could be used against them again... All the more imperative then to find out what actually happened.... Knowledge is Power!

On that note, let Donald Rumsfeld remind us...



The Unknown

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing



There is so much we don't know about what went down that day. There is probably not a soul on this planet who knows the whole story. Too often people fall into the false dichotomy of either the officially sanctioned Al Qaeda did it "A to Z" or it was an inside job courtesy of Cheney & Co. While there is plenty of evidence to implicate both sides, I would venture that there were other parties involved, perhaps Russians, Isrealis, British (yes, 230 years later, & I still do not trust the British), unreconstructed Nazis? Who knows. The web of informants, double- & triple-agents is likely so convoluted as to be forever unfathomable by the denizens of this web itself, not to mention by us.

But we do have the physical evidence in the form of pulverized towers, toasted cars and so on, which anomalous destruction points to extraordinary means: black-ops technology, the nature of which we as mere private citizens would otherwise have no evidence for finding out.... Now that we can see what it did, I would like to know what actually did it.... The "truth" movement be damned.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0ivae

Originally posted by gottago
Hopefully this general exposition shows that the destruction of the WTC can be convincingly explained in its essentials without resort to exotic and unknown devices that scare off the public and derail and divide the truth movement.


But what if an exotic device unknown to you was in fact used?

But we do have the physical evidence in the form of pulverized towers, toasted cars and so on, which anomalous destruction points to extraordinary means: black-ops technology, the nature of which we as mere private citizens would otherwise have no evidence for finding out.... Now that we can see what it did, I would like to know what actually did it.... The "truth" movement be damned.


You're absolutely right I left aside our Keats of Armageddon's "unknown unknowns." Though I mentioned them, it was specifically not the point of the OP, which was to explain the known mechanisms of destruction, to anchor the destruction of the WTC in a comprehensible framework supported by evidence. A baseline, if you will.

I know very well of all these anomalies and referred to them in the OP, but again, that was not the point of the OP, which was clearly stated, and which I just recapped above. The OP was purposely limited, because these questions have been repeatedly argued in other threads, and would only serve as distraction here.

All fine and well to say, "truth movement be damned," let's hunt in the dark for something you freely admit no one will ever know, but I've been on that hunt for some time, and this post is a summation of what I've learned along the way that is as solid a proof as we're ever going to get, barring some unforeseen revelation.

Be my guest to wander in the night woods with a misguided sense of being a noble truth warrior, but I think your presumption that we all should, or better must follow, and at all times, is naive, misguided and egotistical.


You are investigating the WTC destruction not in the interest of determining what happened, but in the interest of advancing the "truth" movement which you assume will be harmed by the truth of what brought the towers down, if in fact it was unknown, exotic devices that might "scare off the public."


Again, I'm very aware of all the anomalies and have spent most of my time here examining them on numerous threads. In fact they have been my overriding concern, so I take real exception to these accusations, most of all that I am "not interested in determining what happened." Frankly that's a flagrant insult coming from the purest ignorance.

I hate to do this sort of thing, but I see you have 93 points. You obviously know nothing of my posting history here, nor did you even bother to find out before posting such an affront. "Knowledge is Power" Indeed it is; I suggest you inform yourself before you accuse me of deception. Go to my profile and review my posting history and read all my posts concerning 9/11, which will take you quite some time, even if you're a speed reader. You will find that few on this board have been more deeply involved in examining and articulating these issues than I have.

Finally, anyone who comes to grips with 9/11 is rightly scared; they'd be a fool not to. Is it wrong to recognize that fear, to understand how it is blocking an understanding of the event, as any trauma does? Is it misleading to for once concentrate on what we can prove, to explain the physical proofs of destruction in a logical framework, to appeal to reason? You may think it is censorship, but I look at it as common sense, if any headway is to be made.

And none of it is exclusive of the question of anomalies; in fact they are of necessity complimentary. But a baseline understanding is essential, and learning occurs one step at a time. You don't confront a layman who asks about the stars with string theory and say, "Here's the latest speculation, wrap your head around this! A detective gathers the evidence and works to understand the chain of events to understand the crime. And he goes to court with what he can prove.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   
points?...is this a popularity contest? & did I accuse you of deception?

No.... I read your summary & found it helpful in proposing some plausible explanations for much of what was observed. But then came that last paragraph, which effectively betrays an overiding interest in advancing the truth movement, with concern given to the psychological effect that certain explanations might have on the general public.... hence a public relations issue. On this basis would you exclude, or at least push into the backround, a hypothesis considered a socio-psychological hazard, regardless of its explanatory merits?

I am merely suggesting that you guys...yes you are much more deeply in it than I am... should get your epistemological priorities strait. That is: recognize that the technologies that are known are but a subset of the set of technologies which are mostly unknown to us, but were presumedly available to the perpetrators of the destruction of the towers. So if you have ruled out the official explanation, then procede with raw observation of the results of whatever happened...in other words, empirically procede by falsifying what you are sure could not have caused the observed results. In this manner you will narrow down the set of possible causes, never perhaps to your complete satisfaction, since there are those unknowns.... But, on the other hand, you can get a better idea about those unknown technologies than you would have had otherwise without the benefit of observing their "work" in this case. This, Karl Popper's falsification methodology, is perhaps not always the best way to conduct scientific investigation, but in the present case I think it is the only way.

Of the all of 9/11 investigating that I've seen thus far, Judy Wood seems to me the one proceding in the manner described above, so yes I give her a good deal of credit, even if you all think she's crazy... it was her toasted car page that originally turned me from a LIHOP to a MIHOP sympathizer.
On the other hand she is sympathetic to no-planes....now that I don't quite get... while I might for now refrain from completely ruling it out, nevertheless the evidence to the contrary seems quite overwhelming.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0ivae
points?...is this a popularity contest? & did I accuse you of deception?

No, and yes. I cited points because it shows you know nothing of my posting history and you did accuse me of deception and pushing an agenda, and I take full exception to it and stand by my previous post as to why.


No.... I read your summary & found it helpful in proposing some plausible explanations for much of what was observed. But then came that last paragraph, which effectively betrays an overiding interest in advancing the truth movement, with concern given to the psychological effect that certain explanations might have on the general public.... hence a public relations issue. On this basis would you exclude, or at least push into the backround, a hypothesis considered a socio-psychological hazard, regardless of its explanatory merits?


Again, I'm trying to get a baseline. Something verifiable, some simple proofs people can wrap their heads around. I see no "explanatory merits" in trying to explain 9/11 to someone who knows next to nothing about it, other than the memory of the day and the official story beat into them, by starting with beam weapons and speculation. Like I said, you go to court with what you can prove. It's not censorship, it's common sense.

And it is not my overriding interest to further the truth movement at the expense of truth, that's nonsense. I am above all interested in finding out the truth. Building a compelling baseline, though, will aid on both fronts--you've got something to stand on to build the case for the anomalies, and you've got a coherent, though incomplete picture. The two sides you see are in fact illusory; they're compliments, and work together.


I am merely suggesting that you guys...yes you are much more deeply in it than I am... should get your epistemological priorities strait. That is: recognize that the technologies that are known are but a subset of the set of technologies which are mostly unknown to us, but were presumedly available to the perpetrators of the destruction of the towers. So if you have ruled out the official explanation, then procede with raw observation of the results of whatever happened...in other words, empirically procede by falsifying what you are sure could not have caused the observed results. In this manner you will narrow down the set of possible causes, never perhaps to your complete satisfaction, since there are those unknowns.... But, on the other hand, you can get a better idea about those unknown technologies than you would have had otherwise without the benefit of observing their "work" in this case. This, Karl Popper's falsification methodology, is perhaps not always the best way to conduct scientific investigation, but in the present case I think it is the only way.


Well, I've been at it for a good while, and what I've done here is coming at it from the opposite direction. Explaining the observed results, as much as one can, through known mechanisms. That to me seems most logical, as begins with what we know. Absolutely you soon reach a point where the unknowns come into play, but in doing so you have created a compelling framework for that further investigation.


Of the all of 9/11 investigating that I've seen thus far, Judy Wood seems to me the one proceding in the manner described above, so yes I give her a good deal of credit, even if you all think she's crazy... it was her toasted car page that originally turned me from a LIHOP to a MIHOP sympathizer.
On the other hand she is sympathetic to no-planes....now that I don't quite get... while I might for now refrain from completely ruling it out, nevertheless the evidence to the contrary seems quite overwhelming.


Sigh. Judy Wood and no planes. Well there you're out on the fringe of the fringe. IMO JW has done some real good in documenting anomalies, though in certain areas (like claiming that burnt-out cars that had been towed to the FDR drive were actually fried out in situ) is clearly false. Sloppy evidence gathered overzealously. Does not help her cred. There's a thread from one of her supports on the forum right now, check it out, and here is a post from bsbray11 that methodically demolishes her proposals: JW's DEW research 'worthy'
The come-back from her supporter? But DEW is a mystery, therefore your points are irrelevant. Oh please! You don't suspend physics and logic even with DEW. Her stuff doesn't add up. Period. So that in a nutshell is why everyone steers clear of JW and no planes. And why I posted what I posted.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
Sigh. Judy Wood....
Her stuff doesn't add up. Period. So that in a nutshell is why everyone steers clear of JW and no planes. And why I posted what I posted.


How doesn't it add up? Much of what I've seen disparaging her investigation amounts to little more than ad hominems of the 'she's a nut-case' variety.
Beam weapons may sound loopy & sci-fi, but they do exist to some degree.
Decades of research & development have gone on under our noses and yet with our tax dollars.

So, the fact that somebody from an Air Force research laboratory, being more in the know about those (to us) unknowns, would state that he "on a personal level" finds "Dr Wood's investigation interesting and worthy of further consideration" would give her research some credibility, would it not?

Yes I would question some of her leanings and yes she has made mistakes in putting some of her evidence in the proper context. But who among us gets it right all of the time?

As the Air Force guy confirms, it is a legitimate lead and she is pursuing it more vigorously than anyone else at the moment. So more power to her.

One more thing on the unknowns: indeed much of the operational & technical details are classified. Nevertheless, there is a good deal of information available to us, which Dr. Wood has assembled here
I haven't had the time to peruse these links, but it looks like a good place to start in narrowing the explanatory gaps.



posted on Jul, 24 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I posted these pics under the thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

But here they are again









And lastly, the sun silhouetting the core of the building




Comments? Change of Opinions? Feedback?



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0ivae

Originally posted by gottago
Sigh. Judy Wood....
Her stuff doesn't add up. Period. So that in a nutshell is why everyone steers clear of JW and no planes. And why I posted what I posted.


How doesn't it add up? Much of what I've seen disparaging her investigation amounts to little more than ad hominems of the 'she's a nut-case' variety.
Beam weapons may sound loopy & sci-fi, but they do exist to some degree.
Decades of research & development have gone on under our noses and yet with our tax dollars.


But did you go to that thread and actually read bsbray's response before writing this? He's just put up another that is just as well-reasoned. I'm not going to repeat his arguments here. If you cannot grasp the simple exegesis he gives, linked to the actual evidence of the aftermath, explained coherently in the logical framework of an engineer, with pictures even, then I really can't help you. In fact, it's exactly this kind of hazy thinking that I wrote the OP for--to ground people in some reality about 9/11.


So, the fact that somebody from an Air Force research laboratory, being more in the know about those (to us) unknowns, would state that he "on a personal level" finds "Dr Wood's investigation interesting and worthy of further consideration" would give her research some credibility, would it not?


No it would not. It's a personal statement, bland in the extreme, and may have been written as purposeful disinfo, simply to encourage this line of fringe theories to discredit the truth movement in general.

Seeing as how the evidence and JW's theories don't add up, I'd suspect the latter. In any event, I wouldn't go to the bank with it, as her groupies are. It means next to nothing, and they're desperate to publicize it. What does that tell you?



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Many do not know of the tragic incident of July 28, 1945 -- the day a B-25 bomber, lost in fog, rammed into the Empire State Building in what was then the world's tallest building.

At 200 miles per hour, the unarmed trainer bomber screamed down 42nd Street and banked south over 5th Avenue. The pilot tried desperately to climb, but it was too late. At 9:40 that Saturday morning, the B-25 slammed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building.

www.esbnyc.com...

Oh, wait that building is still standing......................................

Makes me wonder some more




posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 02:47 AM
link   
dear gottago, basically I'm saying don't rule things out simply because they're beyond the pale & could make bad PR for the 9/11 truth movement...
The events of that day were far beyond the ordinary, so to investigate implausible but possible causes is a legitimate pursuit by those who pursue it.

Better to keep all options open, save the ones that physics wouldn't seem to allow. Since we have incomplete knowledge of the physical principles of DEWs, we are not at liberty to say 'it doesn't add up' simply because there are unspecified variables.... It may be empirically frustrating and infuriating when people make this point, and it is perhaps rhetorically lazy as well; but it is nonetheless a valid point.

So why not live & let live?

Now, I'm going to take us back....back to the beginning



Originally posted by Intheshadwos






That is absolutely transfixing... thank you "Intheshadows". A splendid segue into another theory that in some ways is perhaps more "out there" than the "space beams" theory. That is the explosive charges built into the buildings at the time of their contstruction theory...

So how does this add up?



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   


At 200 miles per hour, the unarmed trainer bomber screamed down 42nd Street and banked south over 5th Avenue. The pilot tried desperately to climb, but it was too late. At 9:40 that Saturday morning, the B-25 slammed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building.



Not a valid comparison - B25 weighed only fraction of what 767 did

My reference book lists max weight of B25J as 36,000 lb which includes
bombload, guns, ammo and crew. 767 weighs 10 x that , also B25
was traveling about 1/3 of the 767, triple speed - energy increases 9x
767 hit building with close to 100 x energy of B25

Fuel load of B25 max of 2000 gal, 767 had 10,000 (fueled for
trancontinent trip)

Empire State was built to different specs than WTC, dense grid of columns
every 30ft vs tube structure of exterior columns and main support in
center of building. B25 was shredded on impact - even then one engine
punched all way through building to land on roof of adjacent building.
One elevator (with operator) had cables severed to crash in basement.
Fuel load of building in 1945 was much lower - no synthetic (plastics)
which burn much hotter (50-100% more energy per pound). Fireproofing
consisted of 4 in concrete/masonary over all steel vs 1/2-3/4 in of spray
on which was peeled off by impact exposing steel. Exterior of Empire
State is 8 in of quarried limestone vs 1/4 in steel panels



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0ivae
Since we have incomplete knowledge of the physical principles of DEWs, we are not at liberty to say 'it doesn't add up' simply because there are unspecified variables....


Simple question: do you or don't you think that an energy beam from space could effectively be intelligent enough to know to completely destroy some columns but leave all the others perfectly intact?

In other words, out of all the rubble and steel debris left over, don't you think it odd that there aren't any partially vaporized columns, that don't just show evidence of ambient temperatures?


Don't you think it's awfully funny that almost all of the columns left behind at Ground Zero failed at the bolts or ripped evenly in half?

How does that look in any way like an energy beam did it, to you?



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intheshadwos







Was this picture taken right after construction? If not, where are the floors? Where are the partition walls?

Also, that's a great view of those heavily reinforced mechanical floors.

[edit on 7/26/2007 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0ivae
Better to keep all options open, save the ones that physics wouldn't seem to allow. Since we have incomplete knowledge of the physical principles of DEWs, we are not at liberty to say 'it doesn't add up' simply because there are unspecified variables.... It may be empirically frustrating and infuriating when people make this point, and it is perhaps rhetorically lazy as well; but it is nonetheless a valid point.


DEW may seem to be a complete mystery, but certain propositions can be judged by an examination of the evidence and a decent knowledge of physics. DEW is one of them. The full gamut of observed effects and the forensic evidence simply do not support a DEW weapon. It's that simple. Again, bsbray's right on target with his analysis, I encourage you to give it some real attention.

You see, simply because we do not know how a DEW would function, we do know what effects it would cause, and they are not there. It is what it says it is, a directed energy beam. This is pretty straightforward to understand, and to understand how an intense energy beam would act is also not that difficult. How it is actually produced is another story, but largely irrelevant to proving it was not used.

We don't have evidence of steel columns "melted" or "fried" in the way a DEW would cause this to happen. We have plenty of evidence of explosive destruction and severed columns, though. And good ol' thermate, too. How can a beam weapon selectively sever columns, leaving them intact? How can it blow out structure at joints and junctures? It simply can't. It also can't replicate the chemical and heat reactions found on many steel members. These require other chemical compounds to interact with the steel, not simply an energy beam. You can't produce sulfidation from a high-energy beam either. Just can't.

If DEWs were used anywhere, it would have been the core. But a DEW isn't going to create a 2.3 Richter scale seismic event. That's a massive explosion, a bomb. Excited atoms don't make mini earthquakes. They don't make things explode, unless they're pointed at explosive things. But then if the explosive is already there, what's the DEW good for? You wouldn't use a DEW to set them off, because you need orchestrated precision detonations to achieve a controlled demo, and DEW would make a total mess of that.

Molten pools of steel, the concrete dust, point to other mechanisms, but not beam weapons. Much of the destruction, the cascade, was some form of good ol' conventional charges, but obviously advanced, and this caused the dust. It was a big rolling bomb. You can see the charges going off in waves, even with flashes. For the molten steel in the sub-basements, personally I lean to some flavor of pocket fusion nukes, because there's already enough evidence from the relevant agencies to conclusively prove they've been under intensive development for over 30 years. There is also evidence that they've been used before, and called conventional.

Their use would explain the anomalies and they and would be perfect to take out the cores, also the tops, but the neutron radiation blast, though short-lived, should have dropped people in their tracks. For me that's the sticking point--I really don't know how that was contained. I have some ideas, but I don't know how valid they are in practice. So it is a mystery, but DEW is not part of that mystery.


So why not live & let live?

Well of course, but with the understanding that physics and the full body of evidence aren't suspended just for DEW.


A splendid segue into another theory that in some ways is perhaps more "out there" than the "space beams" theory. That is the explosive charges built into the buildings at the time of their contstruction theory...

So how does this add up?


That last one is so out there it almost looks brilliant, but other than the dust, it doesn't solve the anomalies either. Back to square one.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Was this picture taken right after construction? If not, where are the floors? Where are the partition walls?


It must be an optical illusion, from the floors being too thin by comparison to register as having their own pixels. I can't see perimeter columns either.


Here's a high-resolution pic showing light against the core: www.studyof911.com...


Do you have any idea what those lines are through the core where we can see light come through, Griff? They divide the core into a larger "leg" and a smaller "leg" from the camera's vantage point, and these "legs" switch position above the mechanical floor. I just thought that was interesting and can't really figure out what that is.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you have any idea what those lines are through the core where we can see light come through, Griff?


Maybe a hallway to get to the elevators? Only thing I can come up with.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join