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: abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge)
Date: Fri Jun 23 08:31:01 2006
References: <700d497026de.7026de700d49@shaw.ca> <449BE42A.4070601@waltjohnson.com>

Sigh.

On 6/23/06, Walt Johnson <walt@waltjohnson.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>

Replies: Reply from scott at adrenaline.com (Scott McLoughlin) (OT: Re: [Leica] Twin Towers)
In reply to: Message from gregj.lorenzo at shaw.ca (GREG LORENZO) (OT: Re: [Leica] Twin Towers)
Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) (OT: Re: [Leica] Twin Towers)