A very interesting read. It must have taken a lot of work to put together.
One point I do not think is correct "Reuters gave Standley the wrong information that just so happened to precisely match a future incorrect explanation for a building's complete structural failure that no one, at the time, had any reason to think would happen"
A very interesting read. It must have taken a lot of work to put together.
One point I do not think is correct "Reuters gave Standley the wrong information that just so happened to precisely match a future incorrect explanation for a building's complete structural failure that no one, at the time, had any reason to think would happen"
It seems that many people on the ground new ahead of time . From comments on camera and later.
Where they say they were told hours in advance that the building would be coming down and where not to stand. The suggestions are these warning came from people organising the fire or rescue crews.
Some have said that it was due to part of the building bulging . The BBC were not the only ones to report the early and soon to occur collapse. Likely reporters on the ground hearing of the warnings passed them up. Using the imagined mangling of messages send reinforcements . we are going tplo advance getting converted into send refreshments we are going to a dance. Or the supposed translation to and from Russian of The spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak into The vodka was good, but the meat was rotten. Not that I think total collapse through the path of greatest resistance is
possible without some help
While people are correct that official explanation of wt3 collapse is wrong. Choosing this example that can be explained by miscommunication is self defeating.
I prefer the example of material being ejected from the tower 40 or more floors below the point of collapse. Unless the inside of skyscrapers truly are the same as a accordion.
A very interesting read. It must have taken a lot of work to put together.
One point I do not think is correct "Reuters gave Standley the wrong information that just so happened to precisely match a future incorrect explanation for a building's complete structural failure that no one, at the time, had any reason to think would happen"
It seems that many people on the ground new ahead of time . From comments on camera and later.
Where they say they were told hours in advance that the building would be coming down and where not to stand. The suggestions are these warning came from people organising the fire or rescue crews.
Some have said that it was due to part of the building bulging . The BBC were not the only ones to report the early and soon to occur collapse. Likely reporters on the ground hearing of the warnings passed them up. Using the imagined mangling of messages send reinforcements . we are going tplo advance getting converted into send refreshments we are going to a dance. Or the supposed translation to and from Russian of The spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak into The vodka was good, but the meat was rotten. Not that I think total collapse through the path of greatest resistance is
possible without some help
While people are correct that official explanation of wt3 collapse is wrong. Choosing this example that can be explained by miscommunication is self defeating.
I prefer the example of material being ejected from the tower 40 or more floors below the point of collapse. Unless the inside of skyscrapers truly are the same as a accordion.