Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/06/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 >