American Buddhist Net

There may be a public health approach to this event as well, not a public health expert. But is there a way to examine the types of health effects being seen now by 9-11 responders, residents in the area of the tragedy, etc.

Now what kind of health effects would we see if the building simply burned and an explosion resulted as a result;

as opposed to being imploded. What I mean is how is debri released and ingested by the public in or near the site
1. in the case of a "fire" caused destruction
2. in the case of an implusion

What level of particulants would be released, how would we expect to see them in the atmosphere and what chemical traces would be left in the bodies of those who succumb later to the effects OR what chemicals will be find in thelungs, etc. of survivors. What medical conditions are likely to appear?

I know this is probably splitting hairs, but is there someone who is more sophisticated who can try to understand what is being suggested and perhaps put it in a form that can be address in a scientific manner.

Is there a difference in the way debri would be distributed, travel between the various versions of what happened to the Twin Towers and how as a result of the manner, difference in the health effects - degree, scope, post event mortality rates, etc.

peace
ks

What are buddhists doing spouting conspiracy theories anyway? Stick to religion.

'A scientific theory that does not meet its burden of proof or its "requirement of total evidence" is simply not a credible scientific theory—it is an opinion.' You start off with this pompous statement and then go on to present wild theories for which you offer no proof. Your statement about scientific theories seems to better apply to your own list of 'serious problems'.

'This is simply not possible as the intact structures of the buildings below the failed floors would have provided considerable resistance and slowed the descent of the towers markedly.' How do you know? Are you an expert? Where are the equations and discussions of potential energy to backup your claims. There was an enormous amount of potential energy stored in the dozens of floors above the impact zone. The release of that energy would easily overcome the resistance of the structural members below.

'Additionally, the damage in the lobbies is not consistent with fire or a fireball.' So now your an expert on explosions and fire science? Tell that to the people seen coming out of the lobby with all their skin burned off.

'No matter how NIST chooses to explain the collapse of the two towers, its explanation must account for the fact that the two buildings were damaged in different places and in different ways, and yet they fell in almost exactly the same way.' Read the NIST report, it's 10000+ pages, it discusses the damage caused by the planes and the differing number of core support columns destroyed. If you don't take the word of the thousands of technical and scientific experts who contributed to the report then I suggest to you that in future you only live and work in buildings you yourself designed since you seem to be such an expert on structural engineering, fire science, explosives, etc.

'And yet it can be explained by the theory that explosives brought the buildings down.' Really? How? Where is your proof that only explosions could have brought the towers down that fast. Show me how your theories have met the burden of proof required for your ramblings to be considered anything other than opinions. As I mentioned above, you don't need the input of energy from explosives to sever structural members when you have the massive input of energy from the dozens of floors above the impact zone collapsing onto the floors below.

'There is a considerable amount of video and recorded evidence that rescue workers and the landlord of WTC 7 knew in advance that the building was going to collapse.' Duh! There was a gapping hole in WTC 7 and a side of the building was bowing outward, a sure sign of structural overload. Even a layman could see that the building was in danger of collapse and that the firemen needed to be 'pulled' out.

Mid-week last week, I received a notice that there was a new and compelling video that had been shot from the apartment or condo of someone who lived only 1200 FT from the World Trade Center Plaza on Sept 11 2001. Such is the life of someone who reports the truth at www.coastalpost.com (I have been a staff reporter there for over nine years)

The video was hosted by Alex Jones' Prison Planet website.

What was remarkable about the film is that it begins with the
camerawoman (who probably is a stay at home Mom) recording the
intense fire burning at the first tower that was hit.
NOTE: THE video is not real time -she has turned off her camera or the film has been edited to be under 25 minutes long

Then someways into the film, a second jet comes along and implodes into the second tower to be hit. Nineteen minutes into her footage, the first tower that is hit goes down - the outer surfaces of the floors collapse - you see the inner core then explode and collapse. The fact that the inner core goes down last is in direct contradiction to all testimony stating that it was the core that gave out and then everything else pan-caked. Demolition, deliberate and totally planned can be the only reasonable explanation.
The video is now removed from the hosting website with no explanation why. Also while is was up, the filmmaker is not identified.