Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Mark Stapleton]

I had another thought.

When the summer time clocks change, there is often one week when the time difference between US Eastern Seaboard Time and UK time is six hours, rather than five.

I don't think September 11 is, or has been, within that summer time transition period when the time differences are out of kilter, Jan.

April to October uniformly in the US in 2001:

http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/e.html

The UK in 2001 was March to October, adopted by the EU in 1996.

I concur with the others in thanking you for sharing your info and experiences on this. (and links).

Edited April 25, 2008 by Mark Stapleton

[Evan Burton]

Make up your own mind:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926

[Evan Burton]

Nathaniel, Maggie

The number of floors raises an interesting issue. Is a taller steel-framed building MORE or LESS susceptible to collapse if involved in a fire?

For instance:

Let's assume same building construction, same fire, only the number of floors in each building is different.

Building A: 3 storey building (ground floor, floor 1, floor 2), fire on floor 1.

Building B: 15 storey building (ground floor, floor 1, floor 2, ..... floor 15), fire on floor 1.

Which building is more likely to collapse? Building B has a greater load on it, so is it the more likely in the above example?

[Jack White]

Nathaniel, Maggie

The number of floors raises an interesting issue. Is a taller steel-framed building MORE or LESS susceptible to collapse if involved in a fire?

For instance:

Let's assume same building construction, same fire, only the number of floors in each building is different.

Building A: 3 storey building (ground floor, floor 1, floor 2), fire on floor 1.

Building B: 15 storey building (ground floor, floor 1, floor 2, ..... floor 15), fire on floor 1.

Which building is more likely to collapse? Building B has a greater load on it, so is it the more likely in the above example?

This shows an ignorance of engineering principles. LOAD is not transferred to other FLOORS. LOAD IS

TRANSFERRED BY STEEL STRUCTURES TO BEDROCK. No floor would have a load any greater than

any other floor.

The WTC towers had a strong STEEL CENTRAL CORE WHICH SUPPORTED THE BULK OF THE WEIGHT.

Steel thickness ranged from 4 inches at bedrock level to a quarter inch at the top. In addition the

oustide wall was supported by 244 steel box columns, also tapered in the same manner. Each floor

was supported on the inside by the CENTRAL CORE and on the outside by the BOX COLUMNS. NO

FLOOR BORE ANY WEIGHT FROM ANY FLOOR BELOW OR ABOVE IT. The steel bore all the weight.

The floors were lightweight concrete and steel.

Jack

Edited April 25, 2008 by Jack White

[Evan Burton]

I openly admit my ignorance of construction engineering principles - it's not my field. That's why I asked Nathaniel and Maggie, to seek their opinion.

They are not engineers (to the best of my knowledge) but we could discuss what we think would happen.

Likewise, you are not an engineer Jack, though your opinions are noted. They may well be correct.

[Maggie Hansen]

No, I'm not an expert Evan but Jacks's reply does have the ring of truth about it. I recall hearing something similar while listening to a lecture about cantilevered structural design many moons ago.

[Jack White]

No, I'm not an expert Evan but Jacks's reply does have the ring of truth about it. I recall hearing something similar while listening to a lecture about cantilevered structural design many moons ago.

I have spent several hours, maybe as many as 8 or 10, reading papers

by architects and engineers on the construction of the WTC. I profess to

know more than the average person.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Does anyone know - is it normal to pay to have your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal? I ask because Dr Jones would appear to have paid $600 to have his article published in that journal. This might be normal procedures, but it sounds strange to me.

Peter, Jack, Prof Fetzer:

So the much vaunted peer-reviewed paper from Dr Jones actually turned out to be a letter to an obscure online journal, for which Dr Jones (or someone on his behalf) had to pay $600 to the journal in order to be published?

Ah! Smells like credibility..... not.

[Evan Burton]

Well, this is interesting. I'm watching the programme "World Trade Center - The Rise and Fall of an American Icon" on the History Channel, and they were describing the collapse. It mentioned how the impact point on the south tower (75 - 58) was some 10 or more storeys below the earlier impact on the north tower (94 - 98).

They described how because the impact point on the south tower was lower, the damaged area had to support more load than the north tower and thus collapsed first.

Okay, this is a programme on the History Channel, but it backs up what I thought would be the case - more floors above means supporting greater load.

I'll see if I can find an engineer to explain if this is correct or not.

[Cliff Varnell]

Well, this is interesting. I'm watching the programme "World Trade Center - The Rise and Fall of an American Icon" on the History Channel, and they were describing the collapse. It mentioned how the impact point on the south tower (75 - 58) was some 10 or more storeys below the earlier impact on the north tower (94 - 98).

They described how because the impact point on the south tower was lower, the damaged area had to support more load than the north tower and thus collapsed first.

Okay, this is a programme on the History Channel, but it backs up what I thought would be the case - more floors above means supporting greater load.

Please demonstrate how the massive vertical steel tri-cores pancake

collapsed in free-fall speed into their own footprint.

This is like claiming that a lamp-post out on the street could pancake

collapse into its own footprint!

I'll see if I can find an engineer to explain if this is correct or not.

Anyone who questions the official lie is attacked.

It takes extraodinary guts for people to come forward on this.

The 9/11 Lie Machine is ever ready to slander and smear anyone

who dares challenge their belief system.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/o...24thur2-24.html

[Erick A. Bovik]

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/...s-have-now.html

There is a magazine which is the trade publication for those who blow up buildings for a living. They published an article on the WTC towers. Perhaps those who seek the truth will read the article.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%...209-8-06%20.pdf

http://www.implosionworld.com/

Erick

[Evan Burton]

Many competent people who are unembedded in the government or entities dependant on them, have already spoken to this - you make it sound like this new....

Many? 14 out of how many? 1000? 5000? 10,000?

Competent? Like Dr Jones, who pays an obscure journal to publish his letter, because he knows his theories would be torn to pieces by his peers?

What about competent people who have not ties - like Dr Frank Greening, retired?

That is also why you and LC-911 find it essential to be at the tail end of every 911 thread - to put in that 'dash' of doubt. Why don't you start a thread on how the official version is correct?

I always want to ensure that any misconceptions, disinformation, or blatent inaccuracies (like a 20 min intercept for Payne Stewart) are corrected. I want to ensure people hear all sides, are provided with reference and sources they can check, so they can determine for themselves what is correct and what is not.

One doesn't have to be a building engineer to get the basics of this and see the impossibility of the official version. High school physics will do fine. Even common sense. Had you been reading all the cited items and websites, films et al I and others have posted you'd realize that won't wash. Core columns were massive and supported most of the weight load and never got hot enough to loose their ability to. Doesn't explain any of the events seen, nor manner of collapses, and not worth any more time on it.

So you raise yourself above many highly qualified professionals? Who say the collapse was a unique and complicated event, involving a huge number of factors? That is awfully conceited - even for you.

Watch Gage's presentation. http://911blogger.com/node/10025

Oh yes - Richard Gage. The same Richard Gage who thinks thermate + semi-silent huge explosives were used to destroy the towers. The Richard Gage who showed videos of controlled demolitions, but altered the soundtracks to omit the sound of explosions.

There is that nasty credibility problem again. Facts are stubborn things for truthers, aren't they?

[Maggie Hansen]

So you raise yourself above many highly qualified professionals? Who say the collapse was a unique and complicated event, involving a huge number of factors? That is awfully conceited - even for you.

So unique it happened 3 times in one day?

[Evan Burton]

So you raise yourself above many highly qualified professionals? Who say the collapse was a unique and complicated event, involving a huge number of factors? That is awfully conceited - even for you.

So unique it happened 3 times in one day?

You place yourself above the majority of professionals, too?

Anyway, I spoke to some engineers and they said my question was a bit difficult. The higher building I used in the example would have had thicker beams, and so would have been less suscepible to collapse. If they were built exactly the same, the taller one might have been more suscepible, but it's not as clear cut as I imagined.

I'll concede to Jack & yourself that your views are most likely correct with regard to my example.

[Maggie Hansen]

So you raise yourself above many highly qualified professionals? Who say the collapse was a unique and complicated event, involving a huge number of factors? That is awfully conceited - even for you.

So unique it happened 3 times in one day?

You place yourself above the majority of professionals, too?

Not necessarily. But I do question 'authority'.

http://leary.com/