Eclipsed from the headlines by the ongoing carnage, there is an active
civil resistance in Iraq that opposes the occupation, the torture regime
it protects, and the jihadi and Ba'athist 'resistance' alike.
Submitted by Boogama (not verified) on Tue, 06/28/2005 - 15:23.
I just read Chip Berlet's review of Griffin's book, and read the information on the links given regarding analysis of the collapse of the towers. The first link directed to Engineering News-Record's article reporting on the analysis done by engineering firm Weidlinger Associates Inc. This one is fishy from the start, look at the hilarious animation of planes crashing into the towers in the article; the scale of the planes compared to the buildings is just a hair off, the planes appear to be gigantic. The study by Weidlinger also happened to be commissioned by Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the WTC site, and yes the guy who said that WTC-7 was "pulled" on that PBS documentary (not a good choice of words buddy). The fact that their conclusions were based on computer models and video analysis doesn't say much either. Unfortunately, no engineering firms were ever able to analyze the physical evidence at ground zero because it was cleaned up so quickly, though it is interesting that photos taken during the cleanup show nice neat pieces of core columns just the right size for flat-bed trucks to take away (another sign of a well executed demolition). But the claim is that the columns whose fireproofing was knocked off by flying debris from the impact succumbed to the high temperatures of the fires ignited by the 10000 or so gallons of jet fuel, and that smoke analysis in video of the collapse shows that columns failed first, not floor trusses. If only they analized the smoke coming from the fires in the towers before they collapsed...damn, they were thick, black, copious...sure signs of a choking low temperature fire, and have been estimated to be around 500-700 degrees fahrenheit. They admit in the second link to the NY State Institute for Basic Research report that the 10000 or so gallons of jet fuel burned off in around 5 minutes, but we're somehow supposed to believe that office fires had sustained temps of 1800-2000 degrees. That is the ideal temp for kerosene to burn at, but the conditions inside the towers were anything but ideal. No collapse scenario has explained the virtually freefall speed of the collapses either. I've read info contrary to their notion that the 767 aircrafts that hit the towers was worse than what they were designed to withstand from a 707 also. I've yet to find enough evidence for scenarios for something other than a controlled demolition. There's lots more to refute these studies, but not enough room here.
»
Reply
google2
For more breaking news and world events, seeThe first open media site where anyone can report from anywhere
Advertisements:
Propaganda:
The inconvenient facts and unanswered questions surrounding the attacks are legion, but the endemic sloppiness of the self-styled "researchers" is delegitimizing the entire project of critiquing the "official version." The ostentatiously named "Truth movement" is not clearing the air, but muddying the water.
WW4 Report pamphlets
WAR AT THE CROSSROADS
An Historical Guide Through the Balkan Labyrinth
The Balkan region is intensely multicultural - a point of crossroads and clash for some of the world's major religions, cultural spheres, and economic systems. While there have been vicious wars in Balkan history, these have taken place in the context of manipulation by imperial powers and the self-serving local leaders who cater to them.
opensource technology and the people of Sundays Energy
Chip Berlet's links
I just read Chip Berlet's review of Griffin's book, and read the information on the links given regarding analysis of the collapse of the towers. The first link directed to Engineering News-Record's article reporting on the analysis done by engineering firm Weidlinger Associates Inc. This one is fishy from the start, look at the hilarious animation of planes crashing into the towers in the article; the scale of the planes compared to the buildings is just a hair off, the planes appear to be gigantic. The study by Weidlinger also happened to be commissioned by Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the WTC site, and yes the guy who said that WTC-7 was "pulled" on that PBS documentary (not a good choice of words buddy). The fact that their conclusions were based on computer models and video analysis doesn't say much either. Unfortunately, no engineering firms were ever able to analyze the physical evidence at ground zero because it was cleaned up so quickly, though it is interesting that photos taken during the cleanup show nice neat pieces of core columns just the right size for flat-bed trucks to take away (another sign of a well executed demolition). But the claim is that the columns whose fireproofing was knocked off by flying debris from the impact succumbed to the high temperatures of the fires ignited by the 10000 or so gallons of jet fuel, and that smoke analysis in video of the collapse shows that columns failed first, not floor trusses. If only they analized the smoke coming from the fires in the towers before they collapsed...damn, they were thick, black, copious...sure signs of a choking low temperature fire, and have been estimated to be around 500-700 degrees fahrenheit. They admit in the second link to the NY State Institute for Basic Research report that the 10000 or so gallons of jet fuel burned off in around 5 minutes, but we're somehow supposed to believe that office fires had sustained temps of 1800-2000 degrees. That is the ideal temp for kerosene to burn at, but the conditions inside the towers were anything but ideal. No collapse scenario has explained the virtually freefall speed of the collapses either. I've read info contrary to their notion that the 767 aircrafts that hit the towers was worse than what they were designed to withstand from a 707 also. I've yet to find enough evidence for scenarios for something other than a controlled demolition. There's lots more to refute these studies, but not enough room here.