|
ANFO (ammonium nitrate and fuel oil) is about as powerful as 70%-90% dynamite. He used ammonium nitrate and nitromethane in Oklahome city which is even more powerful than ANFO. He did not use garden variety fertilizer, he used the pure product that farmers add to their fertilizer. IIRC he had about a ton or two in the truck. That is the same as having a ton or two of C2 explosives (which is the explosive used in C4 plastic). If a buzz bomb in WWII that had a ton of trinitrophenol (IIRC or it was TNT) could destroy half a block, then why couldnt two tons of dynamite equivalent destroy the front of a building? Besides the building was not properly constructed anyway because they did not tie in the front (spandriel?) beam that supported the front of the building to the columns properly. They did not connect the iron reinforcing rods within the concrete to it's columns.
As for the fire, I tell you one thing LAK you are making me question (though definitley not change my perception) the validity of the fire claims and I wil have to go back and look at the footage. But I will guess for right now that it was a matter of perception and scale and the smoke did not appear to be affected by the wind because, even though it may have been blow hundreds of feet, it would only look like it was blow less than a fraction of that from a distance with a large object for the eye to scale it to.
As far as the wind, ever been even a few hundred feet up unprotected? Even on what would seem like a calm day on the ground, you would get, at the very least, a constant breeze. Now imagine a sky scraper 800-1000 feet up with thermals and with the sun out mixing up the air in a city that has plenty of objects to radiate the heat to the air.
As far as the fire being smaller than the other ones you mentioned (that I have not personally seen yet), were they on somewhat cloudy days? I will bet that if the attack occrured at night, even the hot smoke would have been somwhat luminescent or glowing. There was also, in such a large and wide building, plenty of places for the fire to have been fed with air and for the smoke to have gone without us seeing it on film taken from a mile away. The ductwork would have fed the fire and the stairwells too, not to mention the venturi effect of the strong wind, stiff breeze or mild/strong thermals that would have made parts of those floors a blast furnace for at least a few (if not most) of the burning floors.
Building seven. It was not a new building IIRC and it had not been built to withstand an earthquake. When the trade center collapsed it would have traumatized anything near it and it would have been just luck or a fluke if there were building around it that were not damaged to some major degree. To ignore the physics that could have damaged building seven or even the trade center and to follow the people who jump to conclusions is not good IMO because although we do not need to blindly follow what the government says and we should question what they do, many of these people are perpetrating harm with their "theories" and have gone too far and have started using bits and pieces that do not fit together to justify their "intuition".
|