Some video evidences of explosives in Twin Tower collapse

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:31:30 -0500, kirill
wrote:

just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions
of Pentagon missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=56715

Michael


To anyone who is even slightly familiar with the construction of
the towers the symmetry of the collapse was quite predictable,
given the damage they sustained. These conspio-whacko theories
are simply ridiculous.

I agree, but the secrecy, misinformation and almost complete
absence of any thorough fullscale investigation into the attacks
and the physics behind collapse of the buildings to me is
disturbing, and seems precisely why conspiricy theories are
allowed to flourish.



Regards...

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:17:22 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

Mark and Kim Smith wrote in
:

Well sure there were explosives. It's called jet fuel and
oxygen. These folks really need to learn how those building
were built before they start coming up with these dumb
theories.

Is it likely to assume that the fuel burned up in the explosion
when the airplane impacted?


Regards...



No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that
the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen.

Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge
fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not
most, of the fuel burned up on the outside?



Regards...

From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am
Date: 1/11/2004 9:27 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:17:22 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

Mark and Kim Smith wrote in
:

Well sure there were explosives. It's called jet fuel and
oxygen. These folks really need to learn how those building
were built before they start coming up with these dumb
theories.

Is it likely to assume that the fuel burned up in the explosion
when the airplane impacted?


Regards...



No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that
the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen.

Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge
fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not
most, of the fuel burned up on the outside?



Regards...

That fireball was nothing compared to the fireball that would have been
generated if all the fuel burned at once.

Bear in mind the fuel inside burned for a long time.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...
Alan Minyard wrote in


Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge
fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not
most, of the fuel burned up on the outside?


The fuel on the aircraft perhaps but the trouble is there was large
fuel load in the building in the form of furniture, carpets, paper
computers etc. The fireball ignited all of that fuel simultaneously
and the impact destroyed fireproof partitions and knocked
the fireprrofing off the floor struts. It was the heat from the subsequent
fire that cause those struts to fail. Once they had done so the bracing
between the outer wall and inner core that was essential to the
strength of the building was lost and outer skin failed in buckling.
The damager inner core was unable to tale the extra stress and also
failed.

This sequence can be clearly seen in the video footage.

Keith

(R ESTEY) wrote:

Having attended lectures by FDNY personnel at the scene and subsequent recovery
work and talked to many participants (I'm a firefighter in Northen NJ) on 911
retain a total comtempt for wacko conspiracy ravings.

Just my $.02

Thank you sir...sounds quite reasonable...
--

-Gord.

(B2431) wrote in news:20040112005015.26088.00002571
@mb-m15.aol.com:
From: "Bjørnar Bolsøy" am
Date: 1/11/2004 9:27 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

No, there would be a great deal of fuel remaining. Remember that
the "explosion" would rob itself of Oxygen.

Looking at the video of the south tower impact, doesn't the huge
fireball outside the building seem to suggest that much, if not
most, of the fuel burned up on the outside?



Regards...

That fireball was nothing compared to the fireball that would have
been generated if all the fuel burned at once.

Bear in mind the fuel inside burned for a long time.

Well, according to sources I've read most of the fuel burnt up
or evaporated in less than a minute. A few minutes at most.

To me it seems that the "office fire" theory leaves enough
unanswered questions to warrant deeper studies. Not at least because
there has been serious fires in high raised steel buildings before
and none has ever caused any collapse.


Regards...

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in
:
Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:31:30 -0500, kirill
wrote:

just to have a break in hot and very productive discussions
of Pentagon missing 757 let's look at WTC collapse:

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/print.php?id=56715

Michael


To anyone who is even slightly familiar with the construction of
the towers the symmetry of the collapse was quite predictable,
given the damage they sustained. These conspio-whacko theories
are simply ridiculous.

I agree, but the secrecy, misinformation and almost complete
absence of any thorough fullscale investigation into the attacks
and the physics behind collapse of the buildings to me is
disturbing, and seems precisely why conspiricy theories are
allowed to flourish.

After reading through much of the updates on the current
NIST investigation I need to retract part of that statement.
A new technical progress report based on substantial scrutiny
of the disaster is out in a short while, it will surely
address many of the conspiracy allegations with new and much
more solid data.

http://wtc.nist.gov/


Regards...

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote

To me it seems that the "office fire" theory leaves enough
unanswered questions to warrant deeper studies. Not at least because
there has been serious fires in high raised steel buildings before
and none has ever caused any collapse.

None have ever been hit by an aircraft of that size, with that much fuel on
board before.

Pete

In article ,
"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

To me it seems that the "office fire" theory leaves enough
unanswered questions to warrant deeper studies. Not at least because
there has been serious fires in high raised steel buildings before
and none has ever caused any collapse.

Nothing like this, especially with a start of a few thousand pounds of a
major accelerant *plus* major physical damage to the building as the
fire started.

The closest we've seen was the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building,
and that was an order of magnitude less serious to begin with.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote in message
...


To me it seems that the "office fire" theory leaves enough
unanswered questions to warrant deeper studies. Not at least because
there has been serious fires in high raised steel buildings before
and none has ever caused any collapse.


None of the those fires involved major damage to
the structure before the fire and had several flloors
burning simultaneoulsy.

The WTC could have survided either the impact
or the fire, what it couldnt handle was both.

Keith