|
|
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html
More nutty stuff about 9-11-01
Butler
9/11 Terror
Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!
by J. McMichael
jmcm5@lycos.com
Some of the sources have departed since
this essay was originally published on October 21.
Where I could find substitutes, I
have indicated them with the word “or”
and a locally cached copy. This
revision is published November 25, 2001.
I tried to be patriotic.
I tried to believe. I watched
those quarter mile high buildings fall through their jaw-dropping
catastrophes over and over again. I listened to the announcer and the
experts explain what had happened. And I worked at my pitiful lack of
faith, pounding my skull with the remote control and staring at the
flickering images on the TV screen.
But poor mental peasant that I am, I
could not escape the teachings of my forefathers. I fear I am trapped
in my time, walled off from further scientific understanding by my inability
to abandon the Second Millennium mindset.
But enough of myself. Let us
move on to the Science and Technology of the 21st Century.
Those of you who cannot believe should learn the official truth by rote
and perhaps you will be able to hide your ignorance.
Here are the bare bones of the WTC
incident:
North tower struck 8:45
a.m. from the north at about the 93rd floor, collapsed about 10:29
a.m.
South tower struck 9:03
a.m. from the south at about the 80th floor, collapsed about 9:50
a.m.;
(http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/info.html
). a.. Impact locations estimated by Scientific American http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc
or:
b..
Geographic information for WTC given at http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcgeog
c..
Comprehensive info on WTC with 3D model of complex at http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
North
tower struck 8:45 a.m. from the north at about the 93rd floor
South tower struck 9:03 a.m. from the south at about the 80th
floor
Using jet fuel to melt steel is an
amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one
had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not
stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen,
electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks,
but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80
cents a gallon on the open market.
Let us consider: One plane full of
jet fuel hit the north tower at 8:45 a.m., and the fuel fire burned for a
while with bright flames and black smoke. We can see pictures of white
smoke and flames shooting from the windows.
Then by 9:03 a.m. (which time was
marked by the second plane’s collision with the south tower), the flame was
mostly gone and only black smoke continued to pour from the building.
To my simple mind, that would indicate that the first fire had died
down, but something was still burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in
the smoke. A fire with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved
for oxygen—or both.
( http://www.fosters.com/news2001c/september/11/04758CA1-AC58-4591-9F50-5976D2
BE2E04.jpg or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/fires1-2.html
).
But by 10:29 a.m., the fire in north
tower had accomplished the feat that I find so amazing: It melted the steel
supports in the building, causing a chain reaction within the structure that
brought the building to the ground.
And with less fuel to feed the fire,
the south tower collapsed only 47 minutes after the plane collision, again
with complete destruction. This is only half the time it took to
destroy the north tower.
I try not to think about that.
I try not to think about a petroleum fire burning for 104 minutes, just
getting hotter and hotter until it reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800
Fahrenheit) and melted the steel (steel is about 99% iron; for melting points
of iron and steel, see http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/heat.html
,
http://www.weldtechnology.com/rwintroduction.html
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/rwintroduction.html
)
I try not to wonder how the fire
reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce.
And I try not to think about all the
steel that was in that building -- 200,000 tons of it (for WTC statistics,
see http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtc1.html
).
I try to forget that heating steel is
like pouring syrup onto a plate: you can’t get it to stack up. The heat
just flows out to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are
trying to warm up. If you pour it on hard enough and fast enough, you
can get the syrup to stack up a little bit. And with very high heat brought
on very fast, you can heat up one part of a steel object, but the heat will
quickly spread out and the hot part will cool off soon after you stop.
Am I to believe that the fire burned
for 104 minutes in the north tower, gradually heating the 200,000 tons of steel
supports like a blacksmith’s forge, with the heat flowing throughout the
skeleton of the tower? If the collapse was due to heated steel, the
experts should be able to tell us how many thousands of tons of steel were
heated to melting temperature in 104 minutes and how much fuel would be
required to produce that much heat. Can a single Boeing 767 carry that
much fuel?
Thankfully, I found this note on the
BBC web page ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews
): “Fire reaches 800
[degrees] C—hot enough to melt steel floor supports.”
That is one of the things I warned
you about: In the 20th Century, steel melted at 1535 degrees Celsius
(2795 F), (see http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html
), but in the 21st
Century, it melts at 800 degrees C (1472 F).
This might be explained as a reporter’s
mistake -- 800 to 900 C is the temperature for forging wrought iron. As
soft as wrought iron is, of course, it would never be used for structural
steel in a landmark skyscraper. (Descriptions of cast iron, wrought
iron, steel, and relevant temperatures discussed at http://www.metrum.org/measures/castiron.htm
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/castiron.htm
.)
But then lower down, the BBC page
repeats the 800 C number in bold, and the article emphasizes that the
information comes from Chris Wise, “Structural Engineer.” Would this
professional individual permit himself to be misquoted in a global
publication?
Eduardo Kausel, an M.I.T. professor
of civil and environmental engineering, spoke as follows to a panel of Boston
area civil and structural engineers: “I believe that the intense heat
softened or melted the structural elements—floor trusses and columns—so that
they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse.”
Kausel is apparently satisfied that a kerosene fire could melt steel—though
he does not venture a specific temperature for the fire ( http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam
).
I feel it coming on again—that
horrible cynicism that causes me to doubt the word of the major
anchor-persons. Please just think of this essay as a plea for help, and
do NOT let it interfere with your own righteous faith. The collapse of
America’s faith in its leaders must not become another casualty on America’s
skyline.
In my diseased mind, I think of the
floors of each tower like a stack of LP (33-1/3 RPM) records, except that the
floors were square instead of circular. They were stacked around a central
spindle that consisted of multiple steel columns interspersed with dozens of
elevator shafts (see http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm
, http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm
, and http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
).
Images
cached from BBC page ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews
) and HERA report by G.
Charles Clifton ( http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/clifton.pdf
). Items indicated
in Clifton image (right): 13. Exterior columns; 17. Interior columns; 20.
Usable office space
BBC
News Image (left) is misleading:
1..
A “beam” is always horizontal, “columns” are vertical. The vertical
steel supports in the core were columns.
2..
The central columns occupied about 25% of the floor area, not 10% as is shown
on the left.
3..
The central columns were not encased in a single block of concrete, but
interspersed with elevator shafts
Typical
floor plan of WTC tower (from
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm
)
The outside shape of the towers was almost square, but the inner core was
more rectangular. Pictures from the early phases of construction photos
show how the rectangular inner cores were oriented in the finished buildings
( http://www.GreatBuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.4.gbi
). Note that the
north tower core was aligned east-west, and the south tower core was aligned
north-south.
This
drawing shows the two WTC towers (black) and the paths of the attacking
aircraft (red). Within the profile of each tower, the shape of the
central core is shown by the green rectangle. WTC buildings 1 through 6
are numbered, WTC 7, north of 6, is not shown.
With the central core bearing the
weight of the building, the platters were tied together and stabilized by
another set of steel columns at the outside rim, closely spaced and
completely surrounding the structure. This resulting structure was so
stable that the top of the towers swayed only three feet in a high wind.
The architects called it a “tube-within-a-tube design.”
The TV experts told us that the
joints between the floors and central columns melted (or the floor trusses,
or the central columns, or the exterior columns, depending on the expert) and
this caused the floor to collapse and fall onto the one below. This
overloaded the lower floor, and the two of them fell onto the floor below,
and so on like dominos (see http://news-info.wustl.edu/News/nrindex00/harmon.html
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/harmon
).
Back in the early 1970s when the
World Trade Towers were built, the WTC was the tallest building that had ever
been built in the history of the world. If we consider the
architectural engineers, suppliers, builders, and city inspectors on the job,
we can imagine they would be very careful to overbuild every aspect. If
one bolt was calculated to serve, you can bet that three or four were used.
If there was any doubt about the quality of a girder or steel beam, you
can be sure it was rejected. After all, any failures would attract the
attention of half the civilized world, and no corporation wants a reputation
for that kind of stupidity—particularly if there are casualties.
I do not know the exact
specifications for the WTC, but I know in many trades (and some I’ve worked),
a structural member must be physically capable of three times the maximum
load that will ever be required of it (BreakingStrength = 3 x
WorkingStrength).
According
to Engineering and Technical Handbook by McNeese and Hoag, Prentice Hall, 3rd
printing, September 1959: page 47 (Table) Safety Factors of Various
Materials, the mandatory safety factor for structural steel is 600%.
That is, a steel structure may be rated for a load of only one sixth
the actual theoretical limit.
Given that none of those floors was
holding a grand piano sale or an elephant convention that day, it is unlikely
that any of them were loaded to the maximum. Thus, any of the floors should
have been capable of supporting more than its own weight plus the two floors
above it. I suspect the WTC was engineered for safer margins than the
average railroad bridge, and the actual load on each floor was less than 1/6
the BreakingStrength. The platters were constructed of webs of steel
trusses. Radial trusses ran from the perimeter of the floor to the
central columns, and concentric rings of trusses connected the radial
trusses, forming a pattern like a spider web (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews/DOCS/1540044w.gif
). Where the
radial trusses connected with the central columns, I imagine the joints
looked like the big bolted flanges where girders meet on a bridge—inches
thick bolts tying the beams into the columns.
In order to weaken those joints, a
fire would have to heat the bolts or the flanges to the point where the bolts
fell apart or tore through the steel. But here is another thing that
gives me problems—all the joints between the platter and the central columns
would have to be heated at the same rate in order to collapse at the same
time—and at the same rate as the joints with the outer columns on all sides—else
one side of the platter would fall, damaging the floor below and making
obvious distortions in the skin of the building, or throwing the top of the
tower off balance and to one side.
But there were no irregularities in
the fall of those buildings. They fell almost as perfectly as a deck of
cards in the hands of a magician doing an aerial shuffle.
Images
cached from PsyOpNews:
The
Splitsecond Error
This is particularly worrisome since
the first plane struck one side of the north tower, causing (you would think)
a weakening on that side where the exterior columns were struck, and a more
intense fire on that side than on the other side. And the second plane
struck near the corner of the south tower at an angle that caused much of the
fuel to spew out the windows on the adjacent side (see http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/southtowerpath.jpg
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/southtowerpath.jpg
).
Yet the south tower also collapsed in
perfect symmetry, spewing dust in all directions like a Fourth of July
sparkler burning to the ground (http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/DOCS/dustfountain.jpg
).
This symmetry of descent is even more
remarkable in the south tower because in the first moments of the collapse,
the top 20 floors of the south tower tilted over to the south ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/images/_1538563_thecollapseap150.jpg
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews/DOCS/1538563t.jpg
).
Whatever irregularities caused
the top of the tower to tilt, subsequent pictures show the tower falling
mostly within its own footprint. There are no reports of this cube of
concrete and steel from the upper floors (measuring 200 ft. wide, 200 ft.
deep, and 250 ft high) falling a 1000 feet onto the buildings below.
Implosion expert Mark Loizeaux,
president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD, was also misled by
the picture. Having observed the collapses on television news, Loizeaux
said the 1,362-ft-tall south tower failed much as one would fell a tree ( http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR
).
I have recently seen a videotape
rerun of the south tower falling. In that take, the upper floors
descend as a complete unit, tilted over as shown on the BBC page, sliding down
behind the intervening buildings like a piece of stage scenery.
That scene is the most puzzling of
all. Since the upper floors were not collapsed (the connection between
the center columns and the platters were intact), this assembly would present
itself to the lower floors as a block of platters WITHOUT a central hole.
How then would a platter without a hole slide down the spindle with the
other platters? Where would the central columns go if they could not
penetrate the upper floors as the platters fell?
If the fire melted the floor joints
so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper
floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central
columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30
floors would topple over (to use Loizeaux’s image) much like felling the top
600 ft. from a 1,300 ft. tree.
This model would also hold for the
north tower. According to Chris Wise’s “domino” doctrine, the collapse
began only at the floor with the fire, not at the penthouse. How was it
that the upper floors simply disappeared instead of crashing to the earth as
a block of thousands of tons of concrete and steel?
In trying to reconstruct and
understand this event, we need to know whether the scenes we are watching are
edited or simply shown raw as they were recorded.
But let us return our attention to
the fire. Liquid fuel does not burn hot for long. Liquid fuel
evaporates (or boils) as it burns, and the vapor burns as it boils off.
If the ambient temperature passes the boiling point of the fuel and
oxygen is plentiful, the process builds to an explosion that consumes the
fuel.
Jet fuel (refined kerosene) boils at
temperatures above 160 degrees Celsius (350 F) and the vapor flashes into
flame at 41 degrees Celsius (106 F). In an environment of 1500 degrees
F, jet fuel spread thinly on walls, floor, and ceiling would boil off very
quickly. If there were sufficient oxygen, it would burn; otherwise it
would disperse out the open windows and flame when it met oxygen in the open
air—as was likely happening in the pictures that showed flames shooting from
the windows. Some New Yorkers miles distant claimed they smelled the
fuel, which would indicate fuel vapors were escaping without being burned.
Note that jet fuel burning outside
the building would heat the outside columns, but would not heat the central
load-bearing columns significantly. Following this reasoning, the jet
fuel fire does not adequately explain the failure of the central columns.
Whether the fuel burned gradually at
a temperature below the boiling point of jet fuel (360 C), or burned rapidly
above the boiling point of jet fuel, in neither case would an office building
full of spilled jet fuel sustain a fire at 815 degrees C (1500 F) long enough
to melt 200,000 tons of steel. And certainly, the carpets, wallpaper,
filing cabinets, occasional desks—nothing else in that office was present in
sufficient quantity to produce that temperature.
The WTC was not a lumber yard or a
chemical plant. What was burning?
OK, since it was mentioned, I am also
upset with the quantity of concrete dust (see http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why
) or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/index.htm#why
). No concrete
that I have ever known pulverizes like that. It is unnerving. My
experience with concrete has shown that it will crumble under stress, but
rarely does it just give up the ghost and turn to powder. But look at
the pictures—it is truly a fine dust in great billowing clouds spewing a
hundred feet from the collapsing tower.
The
University of Sydney—Department of Civil Engineering
And the people on the ground see
little more than an opaque wall of dust—with inches of dust filling the
streets and the lungs afterward ( http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/thirdexplosion.jpg
or:
http://public-action.com/911/jmcm
/thirdexplosion.jpg
).
What has happened here?
I need a faith booster shot. I
would like to find a picture of all those platters piled up on the ground,
just as they fell—has anyone seen a picture like that? I am told it was
cumulative weight of those platters falling on each other that caused the
collapse, but I don’t see the platters piled up like flapjacks on the ground
floor.
In
this picture, the top of the picture is south and the right side is west.
The ruined shell in the lower left is WTC building 6, and lower left of
that is WTC 7, which was leveled by forces not explained. Picture
cached from http://www.eionews.com
before it was removed.
Instead, the satellite pictures show
the WTC ruins like an ash pit ( http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter_closeup.jpg,
http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/wtcaerial.jpg
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcaerial.jpg).
I am told by a friend that a man
named Dr. Robert Schuller was on television telling about his trip to the
ruins. He announced in the interview that there was not a single block
of concrete in that rubble. From the original 425,000 cubic yards of concrete
that went into the building, all was dust. How did that happen?
I have just one other point I need
help with—the steel columns in the center. When the platters fell,
those quarter-mile high central steel columns (at least from the ground to
the fire) should have been left standing naked and unsupported in the air,
and then they should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below,
clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant trees
falling in the forest. But I haven’t seen any pictures showing those
columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I heard of
damage caused by them.
Now I know those terrorists must have
been much better at these things than I am. I would take one look at
their kamikaze plans with commercial jets and I would reject it as—spectacular
maybe, but not significantly damaging. The WTC was not even a strategic
military target.
But if I were given the assignment of
a terrorist hijacker, I would try to hit the towers low in the supports to
knock the towers down, maybe trapping the workers with the fire and burning
the towers from the ground up, just as the people in the top stories were
trapped. Even the Japanese kamikaze pilots aimed for the water line.
But you see, those terrorists were so
sure the building would magically collapse that way, the pilot who hit the
north tower chose a spot just 20 floors from the top ( http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/worldtrade010911.html
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABCNews).
And the kamikaze for south tower was
only slightly lower—despite a relatively open skyline down to 25 or 30
stories ( http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/rubble_ny091101.htm
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcgeog
)
The terrorists apparently
predicted the whole scenario—the fuel fire, the slow weakening of the
structure, and the horrific collapse of the building—phenomena that the
architects and the NY civil engineering approval committees never dreamed of.
Even as you righteously hate those
men, you have to admire them for their genius.
Few officials or engineers have been
surprised by this turn of events—apparently everyone certified it for
airplane collisions, but almost no one was surprised when both collisions
caused utter catastrophes in both towers. In fact, their stutters and
mumbles and circumlocutions would make a politician blush:
“Eventually, the loss of
strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined
with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss
system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the
internal core, or some combination.” ( http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/wtc.htm#why)
In a hundred years of tall city
buildings, this kind of collapse has never happened before. Never.
It was not predicted by any of the experts involved when the WTC towers
were built. But now that it has happened, everybody understands it
perfectly and nobody is surprised.
Is this civil engineering in the
Third Millennium—a galloping case of perfect hindsight?
Scientific American, prestigious
journal of cutting edge science, remarked:
Despite the expert panel’s
preliminary musings on the failure mechanisms responsible for the twin towers’
fall, the definitive cause has yet to be determined. Reportedly, the
National Science Foundation has funded eight research projects to probe the
WTC catastrophe. The American Society of Civil Engineers is sponsoring
several studies of the site. Meanwhile the Structural Engineering
Institute of the American Society of Structural Engineers has established an
investigative team to analyze the disaster and learn from the failure ( http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc
or:
http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam)
Amazing: At least ten independent
professional studies for an incident every professional seems already to
understand. Notwithstanding the apparent lack of answers and all these
studies not yet done, the very next paragraph is headed, “How the Towers
Fell,” and the reader is treated to a shotgun assortment of speculations,
each delivered with the beard-stroking and pipe-puffing certainty that no
explanation would ever be seriously challenged.
I have found only one expert candidly
admitting his surprise. This was Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled
Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD:
Observing the collapses
on television news, Loizeaux says the 1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was
hit at about the 60th floor, failed much as one would like (sic)
fell a tree. That is what was expected, says Loizeaux. But the
1,368-ft-tall north tower, similarly hit but at about the 90th
floor, “telescoped,” says Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds,
rather than falling over. “I don’t have a clue,” says Loizeaux,
regarding the cause of the telescoping. (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR).
There was one highly qualified
engineer in New Mexico who thought the collapse could only happen with the
help of demolition explosives, and he was foolish enough to make the
statement publicly.
Romero is a former
director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech,
which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings,
aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his
opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.
Romero said the collapse
of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish
old structures.
“It would be difficult
for something from the plane to trigger an event like that,” Romero said in a
phone interview from Washington, D.C.
Romero said he and
another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane
struck the Pentagon.
He said he and Denny
Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an
office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs
at Tech.
If explosions did cause
the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small
amount of explosive, he said.
“It could have been a
relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points,” Romero
said.
The explosives likely
would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.
(Article originally at http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm,
then was moved to http://www.abqjournal.com/news/aqvan09-11-01.htm
but now back in the original location, or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal).
But Romero recanted ten days later
and admitted the whole thing was perfectly natural and unsurprising. I
wonder what happened in those ten days to make him so smart on the subject so
quickly. The retraction is now displayed above the original on the
Albuquerque Journal web page.
And then, as though demonstrating how
normal this “building collapsing” phenomenon is, WTC buildings Six and Seven “collapsed,”
too:
Other buildings—including
the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [WTC 7] -- caved in later, weakened by
the earlier collapses, and more nearby buildings may still fall, say
engineers. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm,
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews).
(These ruins are shown in aerial
photo http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter.jpg,
or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/numbersixafter.jpg).
It seems no building in the area,
regardless of design, is immune to galloping WTC collapse-itis. It
never happened in the 20th Century, but welcome to the physical
universe laws of the Third Millennium.
Pardon me, but this recitation has
not given me the relief I hoped for. I must get back to work.
I believe in the President, the Flag,
and the Statue of Liberty. I believe in the honesty of the FBI and the
humility of military men. I believe in the network news anchor-persons,
who strive to learn the truth, to know the truth, and to tell the truth to
America.
And I believe all Americans are so
well educated in the basic physics discussed above, they would rise up in
fury if someone tried to pull a cheap Hollywood trick on them.
Hand me that remote, will you?
I believe <clonk>. I believe <clonk>. I believe
...
--- J. McMichael
jmcm5@lycos.com
(Celsius/Fahrenheit conversion tool at http://www.vaxxine.com/mgdsite/celcon.htm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This page now on line at http://world.care2.com/jmcmichael
and http://public-action.com/911/jmcm
See also:
a.. Operation
911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS
b.. The Taliban
Home Video
c.. Bin
Laden: “***AUTHENTIC INTERVIEW***
Original HTML coding done by Public
Action (http://www.Public-Action.com)
and used with permission
3d models of Great Buildings
available at http://www.GreatBuildings.com/models/World_Trade_Center_mod.html
|
|
