Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"

On Sep 15, 10:17 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:42 am, (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article et,

Jonathan wrote:
wrote:
In misc.survivalism wrote:

I also have questions about how the explosives for the controlled
demolition were placed without tens of thousands of office
workers knowing that it was being done, but that can wait for
another day.

To believe this crap, you'd have to
believe in the most complex and bizarre conspiracy imaginable.

I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.
And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of bored
busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work is done by
specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be needed for two
giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the work could have
been carried out in secret.

Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
charges anywhere they wanted. You sure are one simple minded soul
aren't you? Do you think people would carry their tools in broad
daylight while all the workers are on the job? When maintenance
workers enter does do they ever do it while everyone is at work? No
they don't fool. Does anyone even see the plumber or electrician
while they are doing their job? No they don't. They do it and don't
bother anyone or even disrupt the work flow. You really should try
to get out more often and get away from the internet once in a
while.

Nobody unknown walks into a Manhattan office bulding at any time of
day without being planned for and with people controlling the space
notified and told why. Office buldings are 24x7 operations with
several unrelated layers of security, especially after Feb 26, 1993
at
the WTC.

Just getting access to the elevators to carry tools and material
requires paperwork.

There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of explosions of size,
placement, and timing consistent with the collapse of any of the
towers on 9/11.

In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud enough
to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the complex and
powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced concrete yet
it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's structure. In 2001,
any
bomb would have to be as bigger and louder to have any effect.

For 9/11, each and every beam was examined by at least one civil
engineer before it was shipped to China. A couple thousands were
kept
for analysis. 1,300 are in storage here. More links to stories
about
that process on request.

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/ne...2006,0,6613706....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...656282270164--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ESK is right about the fact that you can't compare a 1000lb crude bomb
placed in the parking garage in 93 to the use of shaped charge
explosives that are positioned precisely on the structural support
that you want to cut. And that is pretty much what they do. The
charges almost cut the steel, rather than blowing it every which
way. You could do far more structural damage to a building with
1000lb of charges made for the purpose and put exactly where they
belong.

However, none of that really has squat to do with WTC. Because there
is no credible evidence that anything other than the planes were
involved. Another thing to explain for the kooks is if the building
were rigged with explosives, then how could you be sure that when the
planes crashed, they didn't cut the various detonating cables, rip off
the necessary charges, etc? Who could know exactly where the planes
would even hit?

Well fool they sure wouldn't have hit at ground level now would they?

No the planes couldn't have hit a ground level. Thanks for that
astute observation. Now, what does that have to do with anything?
The point is that for a controlled demo collapse of a building, the
demo charges are placed througout the structure and detonated in
sequence. How are you going to ensure that planes crashing into the
building, intense fires on many floors for hours, etc are not going to
screw up either charges, detonation cord, etc so that it still works?

BTW, if someone was going to use demo charges to bring them down. why
did they need the planes? Just to make things 1000X more
complicated?

Kook!



Anyone could have known where they were about to hit and just about how high
or low that point might have been. No one saw the any explosives being
planted so it could not have happened. Wahahahah....

Please tell us more. Who exactly was doing the precision flying to
bring these planes into a precise floor location? By visual, ATC and
blackbox data the planes were flying farily erratic. Now if the
alleged explosives did indeed go off from the bottom, then precisely
where the planes hit would not have interfered with the alleged demo
charges. But the collapse started from the top, not far from where
the planes impacted, ie close enough that it's crazy to think charges
left there would not have been screwed up by the planes and fires.

It's not up to others to prove a negative. Anyone can take a tiny
shred of evidence and try to use it to make wild claims. Only when
you look at the complete picture can you determine the truth. The
official explanation fits together extremely well. As we've asked
many times, what exactly is your COMPLETE EXPLANATION of how
everything occured, start to finish?






You guys are the kooks.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
That is very different from a controled demolition. My understanding is
that small, strategically placed charges are used. They cut through
structural members in a precise order, to use gravity for help in the
demolition. Indeed, it is my understanding that the compnies that ddo
such work pride themselves on using the least amount of explosives
possible, for reasons of both safety and economy.


Like this demolition job?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Yes, but I don't realy know anything about that implosion other than a
brief id.

(That building is about one twentieth the size of either WTC1, 2, or 7.
That means that each WTC tower is about 8,000 times as massive and
that the largest beams are that much stonger.)

Ummm...OK. So what?


There is no audio/video record or eyewitness report of explosions of
size and timing and placement consistant with the collapses of any of
the buildings at WTC.

Yes, but what does that have to do with your point? You'e said it 5 times
already.

--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

In misc.survivalism Jonathan wrote:

The whole of 911 was "pretty far fetched" before it happened.

Is that some reason to accept poor evidence?

And besides, the scenarios were predicted and studied. Bush was warned.


--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel

Al Dykes wrote:
In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud
enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the
complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of
reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the
tower's structure. In 2001, any bombs would have to be as bigger
and louder to have any effect.

Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But
that would require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible
to do undetected.



Small charges ? laugh out loud

The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of reinforced
concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the structure. It was
hear for blocks around.

That is very different from a controled demolition. My
understanding is that small, strategically placed charges are used.
They cut through structural members in a precise order, to use
gravity for help in the demolition. Indeed, it is my understanding
that the compnies that ddo such work pride themselves on using the
least amount of explosives possible, for reasons of both safety and
economy.



There is nothing on the audio/video record that shows explosives
consistant in loudness, placement and timing with the inages of the
collapse.

Yes.

Why doesn't the "truth movement" pay a demolition expert to design
a plan that he thinks that would be consistant with the audio/video
record of the collapse of one of the towers and the laws of
physics.

I have no answer.


There isn't a single demolition expert in the world that says that
WTC1, 2, or 7 were brought down by man-made explosives or
thermate/thermite. All that have commented, and there are many, are
on record as saying that no man-made explosives/therm*te were
needed.


Name one and prove me wrong.

You seem to misunderstand me. I have no proof of anythig. I have
said repeatedly that te controlled demolition scenario seems pretty
far-fetched to me.


(I know what Jowenko has said and will cite his statements if you
mention him as someone that says WTC was a CD).

I've never heard of him. If you'd like to cite him, go ahead.
Does he shed light on the CD allegations?

The whole of 911 was "pretty far fetched" before it happened.




So was the sinking of the Titanic and the crash of a space shuttle and
the collapse of the Tacamo-Narrows bridge, until it happened.


Just my point. What is yours? You have nothing that proves any more or less
than anyone else but still you like the taste of Kool-Aid. You post fake
YouTube BS and expect everyone to swallow your lame fairy tales. The whole
truth will never be known just the JFK shooting. The idea that 12 Arabs
learned to fly jumbo jets into the towers from playing a video gamed sounds
you have played one to many yourself.

Al Dykes wrote:
In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud
enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the
complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of
reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the
tower's structure. In 2001, any bombs would have to be as bigger
and louder to have any effect.

Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But that
would require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible to do
undetected.



Small charges ? laugh out loud

The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of reinforced
concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the structure. It was
hear for blocks around.

There is nothing on the audio/video record that shows explosives
consistant in loudness, placement and timing with the inages of the
collapse.

Why doesn't the "truth movement" pay a demolition expert to design a
plan that he thinks that would be consistant with the audio/video
record of the collapse of one of the towers and the laws of physics.

There isn't a single demolition expert in the world that says that
WTC1, 2, or 7 were brought down by man-made explosives or
thermate/thermite. All that have commented, and there are many, are
on record as saying that no man-made explosives/therm*te were
needed.


Name one and prove me wrong.

(I know what Jowenko has said and will cite his statements if you
mention him as someone that says WTC was a CD).

You are a buffoon.


Name one and prove me wrong.

Man you are lame. You are more obsessed with being right to see beyond that
red rubber nose on your clown face.

Al Dykes wrote:
In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Jonathan wrote:

I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.
And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of
bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work
is done by specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be
needed for two giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the
work could have been carried out in secret.

Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
charges anywhere they wanted.

Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it.



There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of explosions of size,
placement, and timing consistent with the collapse of any of the
towers on 9/11.

No eye witnesses. Man you are ignorant aren't you? There were plenty
of people that said they heard explosions from down below. Now go
ahead and make up a story to show that was not true and they really
didn't hear anything fool.


In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud
enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the
complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced
concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's
structure. In 2001, any bombs would have to be as bigger and
louder to have any effect.

Were aircraft used along with the explosion to mask and confuse the
issue? Make up all the BS you want but this does not show anyone a
single thing.




No. The sound of the impact was not like that of a large cutting
charge.

In the hour after the impact fires raged in towers 1 and 2 right up to
the instant of the collaspe. Video shows the building failing at the
location of the fire, nowhere else. No demolition explosions were
heard immediatly preceeding the collapse.


There were explosions heard whether you like it or not fool. People that
were there have stated this over and over again. Man you are a dumb one
aren't you?

There have been videos made to show this but you refuse to believe anything
but what you want. You have no credibility and none of your YouTube BS means
squat. Get back to your video games and dream on little broomstick cowboy.

In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
That is very different from a controled demolition. My understanding is
that small, strategically placed charges are used. They cut through
structural members in a precise order, to use gravity for help in the
demolition. Indeed, it is my understanding that the compnies that ddo
such work pride themselves on using the least amount of explosives
possible, for reasons of both safety and economy.


Like this demolition job?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Yes, but I don't realy know anything about that implosion other than a
brief id.

(That building is about one twentieth the size of either WTC1, 2, or 7.
That means that each WTC tower is about 8,000 times as massive and
that the largest beams are that much stonger.)

Ummm...OK. So what?


There is no audio/video record or eyewitness report of explosions of
size and timing and placement consistant with the collapses of any of
the buildings at WTC.

Yes, but what does that have to do with your point? You'e said it 5 times
already.




Cutting charges go boom.

Cutting charges for big beams go BOOM

Nobody saw or heard BOOM immediatly preceeding the collapse of any tower.



The core beams were boxes 36x12, and 2 inches thick. [1] That is 200
squuare inches of solid steel.

Why to Truthers think that the cutting charges for these beams would
be any less loud or visible than those of the Landmark Tower
demolition, a building about 8,000 time less massive than a WTC tower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ



There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of any explosions of
size, placement, timing or brisance [2], that immediatly preceeds any
tower collapse.

Cutting charges have a characteristic sharp "crack", called brisance.
That is the sound of the shock wave that makes a cutting charge work.

Each and every beam was examined by at least one civil engineer before
it was shipped to China.[4] A couple thousands were kept for analysis.
1,300 are in storage [3]. None show the characteristics of being cut
with cutting charges or thermite except where the were cut up to fit
on a truck. [5]


[1] http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance

[3] http://www.amny.com/entertainment/ne...allery?index=1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...63656282270164


[4] Dr. W. Gene Corley and the rest of the FEMA/ASCE investigation
team gained full access to the World Trade Center site, on
September 29, 2001. The team also had access to the Fresh Kills
Landfill on Staten Island, where they examined structural
debris. The team also examined steel and debris at two recycling
yards in New Jersey. They obtained samples of the structural
steel, which were subjected to laboratory analysis. Numerous other
professional engineers (members of SEAoNY) continued this work
through Spring 2002, visiting recycling yards and landfills
regularly to examine debris and obtain more samples. Additional
samples were obtained and sent to NIST, for further study and
analysis. While others have expressed some concern that the work
of the team was hampered because debris was removed from the site
and was subsequently processed for recycling, that was not the
case. The team had full access to scrap yards and to the site, and
was able to obtain numerous samples. There is no indication that
having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center
would make a significant difference to understanding the
performance of the structures.[4]


http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkele...0/03_grou.html

"Supported by funds from the National Science Foundation to
investigate the collapse of the two 110-story towers, he spent his
days and nights looking at twisted and burnt steel pulled from the
wreckage, searching for clues to the cause and collecting
perishable data.

"In just 10 days looking at the pieces that are coming out, I have
learned so much important data about the collapse - it's amazing,"
he said. "We will be able to learn many valuable lessons from this
tragedy to improve our structural design and construction and (to
understand) the effects of fires on steel structures to avoid such
a catastrophic and complete collapse and tragic loss of life."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkele...0/03_grou.html

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/
http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/history...and_photos.htm

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/ne...allery?index=1


[5] Oxy cutting and steelworkers at work
http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/pho...ive/image5.jpg
http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/...tter-wtc-1.jpg
nhttp://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-2.jpg
nhttp://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-3.jpg
http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/...tter-wtc-4.jpg
http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/...tter-wtc-5.jpg


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Harry K wrote:
On Sep 15, 7:01 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Jonathan wrote:


snip

Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
charges anywhere they wanted.

Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it.

So you want someone to make up a story about how it could happen?
Some fantasy that you guys like to engage in? Where is the security
of such a building and who checks out each maintenance worker that
enters and leaves? Do you know for sure that no one could have
possibly entered at any time to do what needed to be done? There is
always a possibility that anything could happen and just because
there is no proof positive one way or the other than this means
nothing. Who would have believed that 911 could have occurred in the
first place? Reasonable suspicion is all that it needed to create
doubt and many people have plenty of that. To think that everything
is as it is told to you is the absolute truth is pretty lame and to
try to argue that way is just a loony and someone that doubt what is
fed to them.


snip

When you can come up with some way that hundreds of workers working
for months on end, stripping walls, making one huge mess, hauling
away tones of the debris that was made getting access to the columns,
cutting notches in beams, stringing miles of det cord, without anyone
noticing then the sane people here will listen. Until then your
disbeif is flat kookery.

The hundreds of men is probably too many but the crew would have been
big. The 'months on end' is accurate. It would take that long to
prepare a building the size of the WTCs for demo.

Watch a show on controlled demolions some time, the History channel
runs them occasionally. Here is a clue, just prior to detonation, you
can look clear through the building - that is how much stuff has been
removed.

But of course you will still somehow believe that all that is possible
without being noticed.

Harry K

Harry K

You are the one that says that is what is needed to get the job done not
me. Given enough time anything can be done and no explanation need be given.
How much time was needed? Do you think this might have had to been planned
over one weekend? Was every floor occupied and was anyone expecting
something to happen and was everyone looking for something suspicious? How
was it that 12 terrorists got by all the security needed to fly all the
planes at the same time into the most crowded city in the country? How did
all this come about without anyone even finding out? How was it that even
when Bush was told about it he just sat there on his stupid ass and did
nothing? This was the unbelievable part you fool. Not the part about placing
charges in a tall building. Why are you loons so dumb to think otherwise?
This whole 911 even happened and you obsess about some simple thing that
could have easily have occurred. Man you are a stupid lot of asshats.

If before 911 someone was asked what they thought more likely to occur.
Some team of crack specialists blowing up a tower in NYC or flying huge
jumbo jets into sky scrappers what do you think would have been the answer?

Why are you so lame?

Al Dykes wrote:
In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Jonathan wrote:

I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.
And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of
bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work is
done by specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be
needed for two giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the
work could have been carried out in secret.

Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
charges anywhere they wanted.

Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it.

So you want someone to make up a story about how it could happen?
Some fantasy that you guys like to engage in? Where is the security
of such a building and who checks out each maintenance worker that
enters and leaves? Do you know for sure that no one could have
possibly entered at any time to



It's platitudes like the above that identify those of the "Truth
Movement" as having no experience in whatever it is they ramble on
about. I've managed the cnstruction and operation of full floors of
24x7 computer operations in large Manhattan buildings.

After the 1993 bombing WTC was very secure. Planted bombs would be
hundreds to thousands of pounds of material and a large crew. Nobody
uses the loading docks without advance notice and paperwork, day or
night. Nobody uses the elevators to move material at night without
advance notice. freight Elevators are very busy. IME, you never have
one by yourself, if only becuase they have a human operator.

The night crews in a bulding know each other. They talk. They talk to
strangers. Nobody tells them to "leave for a security check".


On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
and WTC.


You are the only kook here jack-in-the-box. You and your ignorant lamers
that insist on posting YouTube BS as some sort of proof.

In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Jonathan wrote:

I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.
And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of
bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work
is done by specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be
needed for two giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the
work could have been carried out in secret.

Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
charges anywhere they wanted.

Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it.



There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of explosions of size,
placement, and timing consistent with the collapse of any of the
towers on 9/11.

No eye witnesses. Man you are ignorant aren't you? There were plenty
of people that said they heard explosions from down below. Now go
ahead and make up a story to show that was not true and they really
didn't hear anything fool.


In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud
enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the
complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of reinforced
concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the tower's
structure. In 2001, any bombs would have to be as bigger and
louder to have any effect.

Were aircraft used along with the explosion to mask and confuse the
issue? Make up all the BS you want but this does not show anyone a
single thing.




No. The sound of the impact was not like that of a large cutting
charge.

In the hour after the impact fires raged in towers 1 and 2 right up to
the instant of the collaspe. Video shows the building failing at the
location of the fire, nowhere else. No demolition explosions were
heard immediatly preceeding the collapse.


There were explosions heard whether you like it or not fool. People that
were there have stated this over and over again. Man you are a dumb one
aren't you?

There have been videos made to show this but you refuse to believe anything
but what you want. You have no credibility and none of your YouTube BS means
squat. Get back to your video games and dream on little broomstick cowboy.



There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of any explosions of
size, placement, timing or brisance [2], that immediatly preceeds any
tower collapse.

Show me a video that specifically shows explosions that indicate
charges placed, timed sized to cause the collapse of a tower.





The core beams were boxes 36x12, and 2 inches thick. [1] That is 200
square inches of solid steel.

Why to Truthers think that the cutting charges for these beams would
be any less loud or visible than those of the Landmark Tower
demolition, a building about 8,000 time less massive than a WTC tower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ


Cutting charges have a characteristic sharp "crack", called brisance.
That is the sound of the shock wave that makes a cutting charge work.

Each and every beam was examined by at least one civil engineer before
it was shipped to China.[4] A couple thousands were kept for analysis.
1,300 are in storage [3]. None show the characteristics of being cut
with cutting charges or thermite except where the were cut up to fit
on a truck. [5]


[1] http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance

[3] http://www.amny.com/entertainment/ne...allery?index=1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...63656282270164


[4] Dr. W. Gene Corley and the rest of the FEMA/ASCE investigation
team gained full access to the World Trade Center site, on
September 29, 2001. The team also had access to the Fresh Kills
Landfill on Staten Island, where they examined structural
debris. The team also examined steel and debris at two recycling
yards in New Jersey. They obtained samples of the structural
steel, which were subjected to laboratory analysis. Numerous other
professional engineers (members of SEAoNY) continued this work
through Spring 2002, visiting recycling yards and landfills
regularly to examine debris and obtain more samples. Additional
samples were obtained and sent to NIST, for further study and
analysis. While others have expressed some concern that the work
of the team was hampered because debris was removed from the site
and was subsequently processed for recycling, that was not the
case. The team had full access to scrap yards and to the site, and
was able to obtain numerous samples. There is no indication that
having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center
would make a significant difference to understanding the
performance of the structures.[4]


http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkele...0/03_grou.html

"Supported by funds from the National Science Foundation to
investigate the collapse of the two 110-story towers, he spent his
days and nights looking at twisted and burnt steel pulled from the
wreckage, searching for clues to the cause and collecting
perishable data.

"In just 10 days looking at the pieces that are coming out, I have
learned so much important data about the collapse - it's amazing,"
he said. "We will be able to learn many valuable lessons from this
tragedy to improve our structural design and construction and (to
understand) the effects of fires on steel structures to avoid such
a catastrophic and complete collapse and tragic loss of life."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkele...0/03_grou.html

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/
http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/history...and_photos.htm

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/ne...allery?index=1


[5] Oxy cutting and steelworkers at work
http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/pho...ive/image5.jpg
http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/...tter-wtc-1.jpg
nhttp://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-2.jpg
nhttp://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/wtc/flamecutter-wtc-3.jpg
http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/...tter-wtc-4.jpg
http://www.iridescent-designs.co.uk/...tter-wtc-5.jpg




--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001