15-10-2012, 09:53 PM
Charles,
Since my own research at this stage shows that there was no CD of any sort with the towers... I am not ruling it out yet... but the evidence is just not there and mostly wishful thinking and misreading the observables and butchering science and physics... so my working hypothesis is that there was no intent to explode the towers to bits.
There was of course common knowledge that the twins were designed to withstand a huge jet impact and presumably the collapse was unpredicted. That is unless they understood the ROOSD concept and expect that the core would fail at the impact region and the tops would come down crushing all the floors below and toppling the columns. I believe this sort of forensic analysis for hull and core designs came AFTER 9-11. Having not studied such things as most engineers, architects and physicists either... the collapse intuitively made no sense... that is ... until one drills down into the details and studies the collapses and they appear to be top down destruction. WTC 7 had one of the most bizarre structures being built over a massive power station with 20,000 gal of diesel on premises. The design was actually vulnerable because of the use of few trusses as opposed to more columns. The plane strike seems to have set off a chain of events which escalated to the failure of the WTC 7 structure late in the afternoon. It's hard to believe but it does make sense. But No one would expect to take down 7 with a strike at 1 and 2. So it was either a complete accident chain of events thing... or it was part of a plan... hit the twins and destroy them with devices and the devices in 7 and blame it on fire.
But why did the WTC have to be destroyed? ...to advance the plan?
Since my own research at this stage shows that there was no CD of any sort with the towers... I am not ruling it out yet... but the evidence is just not there and mostly wishful thinking and misreading the observables and butchering science and physics... so my working hypothesis is that there was no intent to explode the towers to bits.
There was of course common knowledge that the twins were designed to withstand a huge jet impact and presumably the collapse was unpredicted. That is unless they understood the ROOSD concept and expect that the core would fail at the impact region and the tops would come down crushing all the floors below and toppling the columns. I believe this sort of forensic analysis for hull and core designs came AFTER 9-11. Having not studied such things as most engineers, architects and physicists either... the collapse intuitively made no sense... that is ... until one drills down into the details and studies the collapses and they appear to be top down destruction. WTC 7 had one of the most bizarre structures being built over a massive power station with 20,000 gal of diesel on premises. The design was actually vulnerable because of the use of few trusses as opposed to more columns. The plane strike seems to have set off a chain of events which escalated to the failure of the WTC 7 structure late in the afternoon. It's hard to believe but it does make sense. But No one would expect to take down 7 with a strike at 1 and 2. So it was either a complete accident chain of events thing... or it was part of a plan... hit the twins and destroy them with devices and the devices in 7 and blame it on fire.
But why did the WTC have to be destroyed? ...to advance the plan?