Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/06/23

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: OT: Re: [Leica] Twin Towers
From: walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson)
Date: Fri Jun 23 05:53:08 2006
References: <700d497026de.7026de700d49@shaw.ca>


Walt Johnson wrote:

> Hell, I'm not into conspiracy but  far as the company line on why they 
> collapsed, bullshit. At least one of the a/c spent the majority of 
> it's fuel load out the other side of the tower. To attribute the 
> simultaneous collapse to airspeed and fuel load seems quite gullible.
>
> I watched the Challenger explode from my front yard, having left KSC 
> an hour or so earlier. Of course the initial shock of a disaster such 
> as that carries it's own emotional bagage but eventually truth rears 
> its ugly head. Watching the shuttle explode on tape many times raised 
> some questions in my mind. It did not appear to be the type of 
> explosion that would insure all sboard woould perish instantly. The 
> offical KSC line claimed instant death to all and they spent months 
> "searching" for the wreckage before it was recovered. Now, even a 
> Cesna 172 carries an ELT so who would believe it took that long to 
> recover the crew compartment?
>
> GREG LORENZO wrote:
>
>>Scott McLoughlin writes:
>>
>>  
>>
>>>Walt Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>>I was amazed at how fast they both came down. Plane crash or no, there 
>>>>is something not quite kosher about the twin and simultaneous collapse.
>>>>Walt
>>>>      
>>>>
>>>If you google, you will find a number of Web resources on how
>>>odd it was that the towers came down so quickly. One report
>>>was from some reputable group of physicists or something. In
>>>any case, you'll find it very sober reading/take it with a grain
>>>of salt/etc. etc.
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>If they were a 'reputable group of physicists' they would be posting the 
>>simple fact that these buildings were designed to withstand an impact from 
>>a Boeing 707 coming into New York to land with a minimal fuel load at an 
>>airspeed of approximately 180 mph. NOT a Boeing 767 almost fully loaded 
>>with 90,000 litres of jet fuel at an airspeed in excess of 500 mph. In 
>>effect both buildings were doomed from the instant of impact on. The 
>>amount of time to full structural failure probably determinable 
>>mathmatically.
>>
>>The internet is choc o' bloc with all kinds of conspiracy and other nuts 
>>who have nothing better to do with their time then to spin such nonsence.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Greg
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Leica Users Group.
>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>>  
>>

Replies: Reply from abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge) (OT: Re: [Leica] Twin Towers)
In reply to: Message from gregj.lorenzo at shaw.ca (GREG LORENZO) (OT: Re: [Leica] Twin Towers)