> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 12:41 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples > > On 6/26/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > In a sense, the conspiracy theorists rely on the CSI effect. It's all > so > > perfect on TV, we expect it to be like that in real life. Real > > investigations of real happenings are usually much more messy....just > like > > real science is a lot more messy than science textbooks. > > > And... real, unplanned building collapses due to fire are usually (okay, > always) a lot messier (in that they never neatly pancake)...
So, what you are arguing is that such an action is counter-intuitive. OK, I can see that. But, one needs to ask where that intuition is trained. How often have we looked at the collapse of the top of, say, a > 20 story building? Once the top of the building started to fall, it was a classic shock wave. >Yet I remain optimistic that a reasonable explanation can be found. >There's an awful lot unexplained, IMO. Then, why do the professionals who examine this think otherwise? All one has to do to accept the official explanation is to accept that the physics of large building collapse isn't well informed by watching small building collapses. I'd further argue that one reason for this is the fact that when an entire building is being weakened, the bottom falls first. Second, even when the collapse of a 100 story building with a given floor plan size has a bigger impact footprint than the collapse of a 3 story building of the same floor plan size, it looks smaller, because we compare it to the height of the building. I posted a number of professional reviews here before. One of them was at http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3742&isa=Category Let me quote a bit from it <quote> Although the towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707, "'the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next-a key design omission,' stated Eduardo Kausel" of MIT CEE and panel member.... 'It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building-paper, desks, drapes,' McNamara said," not the much hotter temperature of burning aviation fuel. In general, the panalists agreed that as the structure warped and weakened at the top of each tower, the frame, along with the concrete slabs, furniture, file cabinets and other materials, became an enormous consolidated weight that eventually crushed the lower portions of the structure below. Connor's collapse theory focused on weaknesses in how the vertical and horizontal structural members were tied together. "The floor trusses sat on beams and were tied down so the core was locked to the exterior. If a damaged floor system were to fall, it would break the end connections in the lower floors," and they would tumble down on top of each other. He theorized that the fire weakened the supporting joint connection. "When it broke, one end of a floor fell, damaging the floor system underneath, while simultaneously tugging the vertical members to which it was still attached toward the center of the building and down," a process that accelerated until the structure fell in on itself. "Eduardo Kausel proposed an alternative failure explanation that he acknowledged was independently developed by Zdenek Bazart at Northwestern Univ. 'I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the floor trusses and columns so that they became like chewing gum and that was enough to trigger the collapse. The floor trusses are likely to have been the first to sag and fail. As soon as the upper floors became unsupported, debris from the failed floor systems rained down onto the floors below, which eventually gave way. The dynamic forces were so large that the downward motion became unstoppable.'" Using two simple models, Kausel determined that the fall of the upper building portion down onto a single floor must have caused dynamic forces exceeding the buildings' design loads by at least an order of magnitude. Probably all these failure mechanisms occurred and interacted, said panelist Oral Buyukozturk of MIT CEE. "'The prolonged effect of high heat is likely to have led to the buckling of the columns, collapse of the floors, as well as to the shearing of the floors upon the failure the joints.' He noted that videotapes showed some tilting of the top portion of the south tower before it collapsed. 'This indicates the buckling of one building face while the adjacent face was bending.' After that, the upper portions of the tower are shown disintegrating, with 'a dynamic effect and amplification process' following that led to a progressive collapse-'a kind of pancaking or deck of cards effect,' down to ground zero. Robert McNamara's failure theory "'focuses on the connections that hold the structure together,' but he cautioned that 'we really need to wait for a detailed investigation, before we decide if we have to up the code ratings for these connections in signature structures.'" <end quote> All of this makes sense to me, and is consistent with what I see on the videos of the collapse. It seems that you are very skeptical about the analysis that was done. I'm trying to find out why you think these guys are wrong. I'm also trying to understand what you believe might have happened. I can think of a couple theoretical possibilities. 1) There no hijacked planes. The pictures of the second plane flying into the WTC faked were faked. 2) The planes did hit the building, but explosive charges were set off in the floors that they hit. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
