C. H.
response to twin towers criticism
Mon Jun 5, 2006 02:54
Dear Mr/Ms.
I respond to your criticism without hostility or contempt, and I understand your feelings and it is a logical thing to say (did you see the holes in the buildings, and so forth) but I ask you to read what I say, in no particular order, so please bear with me as I respect your point of view. If you think I am wrong, I respect that as well. But I have severe reservations.
1) Yes, there were "huge" holes in the sides of the buildings. This would be so if it were an apartment complex, made of concrete and iron bars. This does not answer why the collapse happened for the following reasons:
a) The Empire State Building was hit with enormous force buy a B-class (B52,B27 etc.) bomber. 4 floor - 4 - were totally destroyed. The building was made to far inferior materials and design by modern architectural standards (it uses a good deal of iron). It did not collapse, after MANY hours of high-temperature burning, which took considerable time to put out, due to the height.
b) The Twin Towers were not an erector set. They were made of the highest quality materials ingeniously designed: especially the high quality steel, which like all steel, only begin to compromise at extremely high temperatures: over at least 1500.F. Jet fuel, most of which was rapidly expelled and dispersed in the first few moments on the impact, can only reach nearly 8-900.F. Time has nothing to due with it. You can place steel in 500.F fire for a year, it will not melt or yield. The buildings were multiple-redundant structures designed, due to the unique fact they were so tall, to withstand, by force alone, hurricanes that do not exist on earth of sufficient strength, IMPACT BY A FULLY FUELED 747 JUMBO JET and even IF we accept the fact that the steel was affected by the heat, it would have had to take DAYS for the steel to burn over 1500.F to make it unsound. This is like saying your car melted because the heater was set on high for 45 minutes.
c) NO STEEL BUILDING, LET ALONE A SKYSCRAPER, HAS EVER BEEN BROUGHT DOWN BY FIRE. Any demolition crew can tell you how many months of planning it takes to bring down even a two-dozen story building with the most powerful and carefully placed explosives available. Many, many steel high rise and skyscrapers have been subjected to high-temperate fires for DAYS without collapsing. Which logically leads to:
d) Impact. If this is true, the first building, struck at the near center, ought to have collapsed first. There is no proper explanation for the second building, which was struck at the near top, ought to have collapsed completely, if at all. EVEN IF WE INDULGE THE THEORY THAT THE BUILDING "PANCAKED" THEIR WAY DOWNWARD, AT LEAST THE CENTRAL STEEL TUBE STRUCTURE WOULD HAVE REMAINED ALMOST UNAFFECTED. Nor should it have fallen in such a neat, near perfect way. Any demolition crew would water at the mouth to attain that kind of precision. TWICE! Any tall object, from a flagpole to a tree, is going to fall, as one falls a tree, where the axe strikes from. To continue, both building, according to fundamental laws of physics, should have collapsed immediately.
Summary:
Steel, of that strength and alloy, would annihilate aluminum, which is what happened.
The fuel could not have compromised the integrity of the steel, or the redundant design of the building.
If a B52 can smash into the Empire state building, effectively taking out 4 FLOORS of the building, but not affecting the metal infrastructure, and burned for days, are we to believe that a flimsy aluminum plane that has NEVER taken down a building in the history of architecture, is supposed to do the same act TWICE in less than two hours?
The Pentagon:
So, a plane can take down a superbly designed, gravimetric skyscraper made of metallic alloys designed to take on more impact than a navy cruiser, can only destroy a tiny portion of a concrete building?
Holes do not take down building. If you watch how they built the twin towers, it was nothing but steel assembled in ingenious redundant patterns designed not only to maximize its integrity, but to withstand hurricanes that are only theoretically possible, and earthquakes, and being hit by jumbo jets, and to be able to withstand fires nearly 3 times the possible temperatures conceivable, except by a thermonuclear weapon or a very determined destruction squad with enough cordite, mathematical modeling and months and months of preparation? If a plane hit the T.T when they were only a steel shell, the bars that comprise it would not have given way and the plane would have been vaporized and nearly passed through it as a bullet against a steel wall.
I respect your opinion. I hope you have not taken what I have said as a "ad hominem" (personal) attack - it is not. I confess that my feelings are deeply affected by the fact that I believe I have been told lie after lie by the authorities, and the fact that I am a native New Yorker. But still, many things just do not make sense. There are firefighters, police and other people of great credibility who are true patriots, saving lives, who say that something just isn't right about the story. I can not speak for them, but if you look for the information it can be found.
I apologize if I wrote at too great a length. It scares me, what is going on, and I am not sure who I am the most scared of - those I should or shouldn't trust.
respectfully
C.H.
I respond to your criticism without hostility or contempt, and I understand your feelings and it is a logical thing to say (did you see the holes in the buildings, and so forth) but I ask you to read what I say, in no particular order, so please bear with me as I respect your point of view. If you think I am wrong, I respect that as well. But I have severe reservations.
1) Yes, there were "huge" holes in the sides of the buildings. This would be so if it were an apartment complex, made of concrete and iron bars. This does not answer why the collapse happened for the following reasons:
a) The Empire State Building was hit with enormous force buy a B-class (B52,B27 etc.) bomber. 4 floor - 4 - were totally destroyed. The building was made to far inferior materials and design by modern architectural standards (it uses a good deal of iron). It did not collapse, after MANY hours of high-temperature burning, which took considerable time to put out, due to the height.
b) The Twin Towers were not an erector set. They were made of the highest quality materials ingeniously designed: especially the high quality steel, which like all steel, only begin to compromise at extremely high temperatures: over at least 1500.F. Jet fuel, most of which was rapidly expelled and dispersed in the first few moments on the impact, can only reach nearly 8-900.F. Time has nothing to due with it. You can place steel in 500.F fire for a year, it will not melt or yield. The buildings were multiple-redundant structures designed, due to the unique fact they were so tall, to withstand, by force alone, hurricanes that do not exist on earth of sufficient strength, IMPACT BY A FULLY FUELED 747 JUMBO JET and even IF we accept the fact that the steel was affected by the heat, it would have had to take DAYS for the steel to burn over 1500.F to make it unsound. This is like saying your car melted because the heater was set on high for 45 minutes.
c) NO STEEL BUILDING, LET ALONE A SKYSCRAPER, HAS EVER BEEN BROUGHT DOWN BY FIRE. Any demolition crew can tell you how many months of planning it takes to bring down even a two-dozen story building with the most powerful and carefully placed explosives available. Many, many steel high rise and skyscrapers have been subjected to high-temperate fires for DAYS without collapsing. Which logically leads to:
d) Impact. If this is true, the first building, struck at the near center, ought to have collapsed first. There is no proper explanation for the second building, which was struck at the near top, ought to have collapsed completely, if at all. EVEN IF WE INDULGE THE THEORY THAT THE BUILDING "PANCAKED" THEIR WAY DOWNWARD, AT LEAST THE CENTRAL STEEL TUBE STRUCTURE WOULD HAVE REMAINED ALMOST UNAFFECTED. Nor should it have fallen in such a neat, near perfect way. Any demolition crew would water at the mouth to attain that kind of precision. TWICE! Any tall object, from a flagpole to a tree, is going to fall, as one falls a tree, where the axe strikes from. To continue, both building, according to fundamental laws of physics, should have collapsed immediately.
Summary:
Steel, of that strength and alloy, would annihilate aluminum, which is what happened.
The fuel could not have compromised the integrity of the steel, or the redundant design of the building.
If a B52 can smash into the Empire state building, effectively taking out 4 FLOORS of the building, but not affecting the metal infrastructure, and burned for days, are we to believe that a flimsy aluminum plane that has NEVER taken down a building in the history of architecture, is supposed to do the same act TWICE in less than two hours?
The Pentagon:
So, a plane can take down a superbly designed, gravimetric skyscraper made of metallic alloys designed to take on more impact than a navy cruiser, can only destroy a tiny portion of a concrete building?
Holes do not take down building. If you watch how they built the twin towers, it was nothing but steel assembled in ingenious redundant patterns designed not only to maximize its integrity, but to withstand hurricanes that are only theoretically possible, and earthquakes, and being hit by jumbo jets, and to be able to withstand fires nearly 3 times the possible temperatures conceivable, except by a thermonuclear weapon or a very determined destruction squad with enough cordite, mathematical modeling and months and months of preparation? If a plane hit the T.T when they were only a steel shell, the bars that comprise it would not have given way and the plane would have been vaporized and nearly passed through it as a bullet against a steel wall.
I respect your opinion. I hope you have not taken what I have said as a "ad hominem" (personal) attack - it is not. I confess that my feelings are deeply affected by the fact that I believe I have been told lie after lie by the authorities, and the fact that I am a native New Yorker. But still, many things just do not make sense. There are firefighters, police and other people of great credibility who are true patriots, saving lives, who say that something just isn't right about the story. I can not speak for them, but if you look for the information it can be found.
I apologize if I wrote at too great a length. It scares me, what is going on, and I am not sure who I am the most scared of - those I should or shouldn't trust.
respectfully
C.H.
- Update 2 & Photos From 9/11 Truth Conference in Chicago — Jesse's blog, Sat Jun 3 23:24
- there was no plane - and something please help me with — Christopher Hume, Sun Jun 4 02:32
- Watch this film — jd, Mon Jun 5 17:02
- Do you understand the construction of the WTC? — Ray, Mon Jun 5 10:37
- response to twin towers criticism — C. H., Mon Jun 5 02:54
- Complete 911 Timeline — The Center for Cooperative Research, Sun Jun 4 21:33
- United States Intelligence Activities — Executive Order l2333, Sun Jun 4 03:00
Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]
