British papers.Depends. It's a community broadsheet, not a peer reviewed journal. What are you used to?
The 2 towers collapsing would have caused a highly localised earthquake. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility, although the event registered fairly low on the Richter scale.Oh yeah, now I remember. WT7's infrastructure was weakened by the collapse of WT1 and 2, and this precipitated the collapse of WT7. Right?
But is that reeeally what caused it? (I'm holding back and only being a bit mocky.)
It was all recorded on the TV. Almost all.
I doubt the seismic / quake effect played much of a role. The reported Richter Scale readings from the Twin Towers' collapsing ranged from 2.1 to 2.4 - similar to a small temblor unlikely to cause any structural damage.The 2 towers collapsing would have caused a highly localised earthquake. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility, although the event registered fairly low on the Richter scale.
Doesn't this sound a bit unlikely to you? The likelihood of a nuclear device demolishing a high-rise building without causing damage to surrounding buildings would seem to be fairly low. It was installed during construction - really? On which floor?I read an article about 5 years ago that claimed a nuclear device had caused the Twin Towers to collapse the way they did. Apparently each of the towers had them installed during construction as a means to demolish the buildings at a later date without causing damage to the surrounding buildings.
AFAIK, there's no way of making a shaped charge out of even a small yield nuclear bomb. It would just cause damage in a huge blast radius, destroying other buildings for some distance.Doesn't this sound a bit unlikely to you? The likelihood of a nuclear device demolishing a high-rise building without causing damage to surrounding buildings would seem to be fairly low. It was installed during construction - really? On which floor?
There's no big explosion on the footage. Planes hit the buildings, there's a fire which burns for several hours, buildings collapse.
I don't see any evidence of a nuclear explosion.
l don’t know. lf spittle-flecked anti-Americanism ever becomes a speciality subject on Mastermind, l think you’ll do yourself proud.I'm no expert of course.
l don’t know. lf spittle-flecked anti-Americanism ever becomes a speciality subject on Mastermind, l think you’ll do yourself proud.
maximus otter
Posters can say things you don't agree with and even things that aren't true without deserving such mordancy.l don’t know. lf spittle-flecked anti-Americanism ever becomes a speciality subject on Mastermind, l think you’ll do yourself proud.
maximus otter
Underground. They weren't filming that bit...Doesn't this sound a bit unlikely to you? The likelihood of a nuclear device demolishing a high-rise building without causing damage to surrounding buildings would seem to be fairly low. It was installed during construction - really? On which floor?
There's no big explosion on the footage. Planes hit the buildings, there's a fire which burns for several hours, buildings collapse.
I don't see any evidence of a nuclear explosion.
why?Underground. They weren't filming that bit...
View attachment 17433
(Image grabbed from the website I linked in my original post http://www.911thology.com/nexus1.html)
Why underground?why?
Speaking outside court, Rooke said he was 'pleased' with the outcome, 'all things considered'.
Yeah but the buildings collapse from about 2/3 up, not ground level.Underground. They weren't filming that bit...
View attachment 17433
(Image grabbed from the website I linked in my original post http://www.911thology.com/nexus1.html)
To be honest Maximus I am critical of the U.S and my own country at times, but I don't feel that strongly about it. I don't get that worked up, it was just a fairly casual comment.l don’t know. lf spittle-flecked anti-Americanism ever becomes a speciality subject on Mastermind, l think you’ll do yourself proud.
maximus otter
I often wonder what datum people are using when they make this type of claim - what comparison is being made which indicates an anomaly in this particular case?...and the distinct lack of rubble when compared to the height and contents of the building...
My understanding from what I read years ago was that building 7 was intentionally brought down because there was damage and proximilty issues to the others...I"m not an expert on architecture but this was not a secret. Again my take is that ct people claimed other wise and started theories even though that was explained somewhere along the line. Perhaps some one who knows more about this can address it.I have absolutely no doubt about the planes flying into the towers, I watched it happen from a cafe in Greece.
But there is something odd about Building Seven.
Remember, as I just said, I watched the tragedy unfold. And this included what was happening to Building Seven.
And there was no apparent reason that building should even have been seriously fire damaged let alone collapse.
The time line of the things that happened simply does not make sense.