Text 33546, 79 rader
Skriven 2006-07-15 14:12:37 av Jeff Smith (1:14/0)
  Kommentar till text 33527 av Gregory J. Deyss (1:267/150)
Ärende: Change
==============
Hello Gregory.

15 Jul 06 12:26, you wrote to Ross Cassell:

 RC>> I see you have backed off the argument over the buildings
 RC>> designs on what planes it could take.
 GD> backed off? No not at all. They way these buildings were constructed
 GD> in is unlikly that that would fall in a pancake fashion they way they
 GD> did. There is only one logical explanation for this.


    Then you need to do some more research of the facts to prevent
drawing the wrong conclusion. I don't know that much about structual
engineering but I am capable of seeing why and how the WTC collapsed.
What is your excuse for jumping to the wrong conclusion?

 RC>> Blackboxes are not indestructible, man has yet to
 RC>> construct anything that is indestructible, the only thing
 RC>> that man can create that is such is his ability to
 RC>> destruct.
 GD> Yeah I know what you stating, and where your coming from anything that
 GD> is made by man, is not indestructible. Every other plane crash these
 GD> were recovered not in NYC and not at the amazing pentagon.


    "Every other plane crash"? Yeah right. Most of you conclusions are
laughable.

     I would surmise that the recovery of flight recorders is naturally
desired but not always expected. The reason being that the flight recorders
are built to a certain standard of durability. A standard that depending
on the crash can often be exceeded. Simple for those that choose to want
to see.

 RC>> Well well well, thats 2 of the four planes that had
 RC>> blackbox and flight data recorders recovered, you said
 RC>> NONE of them were recovered.
 GD> If this is true what have we learned by them and why to do public
 GD> outcry is this information not availble.


     Why don't you check that fact out and let us know. Maybe you can
also see the errors in your conclusions and make the nessesary corrections
prior to posting more eronious conclusions based on incorrect facts.

 RC>> I wouldnt expect much recovery from the other 2 that
 RC>> struck the towers, if the heat from the fires was stout
 RC>> enough to have weakened the structure to trigger or
 RC>> contribute to their collapsed, I imagine the recorders
 RC>> were toast.
 GD> Wrong again.....

 GD> The core of the structurally similar Windsor Building in Madrid
 GD> withstood an 800øC inferno for more than 18 hours without failing, and
 GD> since no 800øC inferno existed in WTC 1 it is impossible to believe
 GD> that heat caused the core of this building to fail.


     Wrong again Gregory. The reported temperature at the WTC was at or above
800C and the bulding remained standing long enough for thousands of lives to be
saved by evacuation. There were seval factors that caused the WTC to collapse.
Just a few of which are the intense heat generated after the crash, the
structual damage done to the buildings by the crash itself, as well as the way
the WTC was constructed which sadly contributed to the collapse. I am not
blaming the builders of the WTC here as they had no way of knowing what the
future would actually bring. As others have said. Whatever man builds man can
find ways to destroy.




 GD> --- FMail/Win32 1.60
 GD>  * Origin: Capital Station BBS Troy, NY  Telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org
 GD> (1:267/150)

Jeff

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin: Twin_Cities_Metronet - MN USA (1:14/0)