Why would we assume the building MUST collapse in one direction (the
point of failure)? This assumes the failure was in the essential
superstructure that brought it down; on an externally supported
building (IIRC much of the structural strength came from the external
walls, rather than the internal structure, which I believe was
innovative at the time). However, the "Pancake" theory does not
support an external failure to satisfy it's conclusions; instead the
falling mass of debris compromised internal support mechanisms.
Indeed, if a falling mass of debris impacts previously uncompromised
floors, the support structure may very well draw the walls *in*.
Therefore, the strength of the external walls may very well served to
channel the debris internally.
I think the idea of "jets" is inconsistent with the idea of thermite
cutting steel; It might be with *explosives,* but thermite burns
extremely vigorously, not explodes...
Damon.
------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html
Now Building: Alan's Panzer IIC
------------------------------------------------------------
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.5/376 - Release Date: 6/26/2006
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
