|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 19, 2006 1:36:16 GMT -4
It's interesting to note that just a few months before the attacks the insurance was renewed. Silverstein fought his investors over the fact they wanted to insure the buildings for $5 billion, he felt it was far too much and wanted to insure then for about $1.5. If he had fore knowledge, why would have have done so? The $3.5 figure was a compromise to keep them happy.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Oct 19, 2006 23:18:10 GMT -4
It's interesting to note that just a few months before the attacks the insurance was renewed. Silverstein fought his investors over the fact they wanted to insure the buildings for $5 billion, he felt it was far too much and wanted to insure then for about $1.5. If he had fore knowledge, why would have have done so? The $3.5 figure was a compromise to keep them happy. I agree ... no foreknowledge issue.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Oct 26, 2006 0:56:46 GMT -4
Preparation you mention is needed for a clean demolition causing a minimum of colateral damage...Which of course is essentially what most 9/11 CTs claim happened ("The buildings fell into their own footprint!", even though that was not the case). I don't recall if you have claimed this, however. I mean obviously WTC does not needed to be prepare for a "clean" demolition thus the colateral damage... Now for extending the above what evidence can be found that the demolition was not caused only by the planes hit and fires "only"?Which would have probably caused only a partial collapse ... "Here's what demolition experts use in steel framed buildings, the linear shaped charge ... It generates around 3,000,000 psi pressure ... at a speed in excess of 27,000 feet per second ... There are over 1000 different types of explosive ... With the use of delays we can control ... where the debris lands ... vibration ... noise level. The job of a shaped charge is to cut steel H-beams. "The way we do this is by cutting the beam at an angle(with a torch) which through a series of beams cut at the same angle will tend to make the building shift over and 'walk'" www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/thermite_charges.wmvfrom www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.htmlEdited to fix quote
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Oct 26, 2006 8:12:44 GMT -4
feelfree is apparently suggesting that if the structural dammage caused by slamming a near-fully-fueled transcontinental airliner into a building at full speed, and the resulting fire, is capable of completely demolishing said building (which he disputes), then contractors should save themselves a lot of effort by simply slamming near-fully-fueled transcontinental airliners into buildings they are hired to demolish, and letting them burn, instead of all the careful prep work they do now.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Oct 26, 2006 15:33:03 GMT -4
Not exactly, in fact i suggest that because all the exercise is that the demolition should look as a terrorist attack (the planes hitting the WTC causing structural damagesand fires) why the need for preparing the WTCs for a clean demolition.
The planes impact and the fires should have only caused a partial collapse without the help of cutter charges placed at key points.
See page linked above
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 26, 2006 17:27:10 GMT -4
The planes impact and the fires should have only caused a partial collapse without the help of cutter charges placed at key points.Yes, well, science--and a lot of demolitions experts--says you're wrong.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 26, 2006 17:30:03 GMT -4
The planes impact and the fires should have only caused a partial collapse Exactly how much of the buildings should have collapsed then?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Oct 26, 2006 18:46:13 GMT -4
The planes impact and the fires should have only caused a partial collapse Exactly how much of the buildings should have collapsed then? About 40%.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Oct 26, 2006 18:49:22 GMT -4
The planes impact and the fires should have only caused a partial collapse without the help of cutter charges placed at key points.Yes, well, science--and a lot of demolitions experts--says you're wrong. Can you cite these demolition experts .
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 26, 2006 20:20:24 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Oct 26, 2006 20:30:12 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Oct 26, 2006 21:01:40 GMT -4
Exactly how much of the buildings should have collapsed then? About 40%. The top or bottom 40%? ;D
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 26, 2006 21:13:47 GMT -4
By the way, it did stop well before the bottom, at least 7 stories above the ground, that makes the remaining WTC Tower structure higher that about 99% of the buildings in my city.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 26, 2006 22:54:07 GMT -4
Exactly how much of the buildings should have collapsed then? About 40%. Oh I'd love to see your calculations! I forgot where was it that you got your advanced degree in structural engineering?
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Oct 26, 2006 23:01:57 GMT -4
The top or bottom 40%? ;D Top of course ;D
|
|