Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis
#88
Magda Hassan Wrote:
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:But there was no reason to drop 7... the twins would have served the purpose you envision.
There is plenty of reason when you remember who where the tennants in there.

Oh please... why not let the fires destroy the files you are so concerned with?

I meant GWB.

Roberston who was the engineer along with Skilling is avoiding the controversy because he (they) doesn't want to defend their design. It was clever, innovative and cheap and cut many corners and dropped like a lead sinker with no means to arrest... poor egress etc. Hard to defend except to say that the plane did not knock the tower down... which was no big feat really. Robertson and Skilling have heavy hearts because they know they are somewhat complicit in the deaths of the occupants and first responders in the tower. They clearly don't want to be dragged inro court and they learned their lesson and they believe that the planes and then fires did the tower in... which is true but how they rationalize and avoid the ROOSD explanation for the collapse. Engineers didn't cause the towers to come down... their designs allowed them to rather too easily... and there was no effective means to stop it... or for trapped people to escape.

Just blame it on the planes and move on is how they think. But the entire engineering community acted like a blue line of silence protecting their clan. As per typical... disgusting. ASCE tried a bit in the beginning ('02 congressional hearings) but were told to zip it up as it would be bad for their profession. Shut up and let the blame fall squarely in the terrorists.

7

If it was part of the plan... why wait 7 hrs? Why not add it right on on top of the twins with the cameras all rolling? No sensible reason to delay till 5:20. What happened of course is that the heat took longer to act and was acting on stronger though fewer connections... and again no means to suppress the fires which had 30,000 gallons of fuel to cook the steel. They lied about the recovery of said fuel... that was simple... couldn't be the fuel we got it all... hahahahaha


Messages In This Thread
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - by Jeffrey Orling - 08-08-2013, 01:05 AM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  WTC-7 Before Collapse - Video of activities inside and outside Peter Lemkin 0 5,784 04-12-2015, 09:45 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  New Detailed Analysis of WTC 7 Controlled Demolition Peter Lemkin 0 6,215 01-12-2015, 04:42 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  The case against the NIST WTC 7 collapse initiation analysis Tony Szamboti 5 5,689 29-11-2013, 04:31 AM
Last Post: Jeffrey Orling
  New Analysis Summary Of 9-11-01 Insider Trading [with some very interesting facts, if true]! Peter Lemkin 4 7,104 28-10-2013, 03:01 PM
Last Post: David Guyatt
  Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis: Redux Lauren Johnson 0 4,493 16-08-2013, 03:39 AM
Last Post: Lauren Johnson
  New Seismic Analysis Further Points to Controlled Demolition.... Peter Lemkin 0 4,398 03-12-2012, 05:21 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  911 Meta Analysis Jeffrey Orling 18 14,728 23-10-2012, 08:54 PM
Last Post: Albert Doyle
  STill the best and most comprehensive timeline and information source for 911-related events Peter Lemkin 0 3,392 10-08-2012, 08:10 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  New theory explains collapse of Twin Towers- Aluminium and water explosions Magda Hassan 7 12,225 27-09-2011, 05:47 PM
Last Post: Jeffrey Orling
  First Wikileaks Cable possibly related to 911, Al Quaeda, etc. Peter Lemkin 0 7,430 26-09-2011, 08:02 PM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)