----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 8:47 PM Subject: RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
> > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Robert Seeberger >> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 8:10 PM >> To: Killer Bs Discussion >> Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 2:35 PM >> Subject: RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples >> >> >> > >> > So, I think we've gotten to the point where, in order to still >> > say >> > "I cannot >> > accept" the conventional explanation, then you will have to >> > reject >> > my basic >> > physics argument. I'd be very interested to see what flaws you >> > might see in >> > this argument. >> > >> >> OK<G>, I'll bite on this one.<G> >> >> The WTC towers were designed to withstand an impact by a 707 fully >> loaded with 23,000 gallons of fuel, yet the planes that actually >> hit >> them had less than half that amount (10,000 gallons) on board and >> much >> of that was expelled in the fireball associated with the impact. > > There is a very simple answer for this, as I guess you know. When > designing > a fail-safe system, one works through scenarios....but there can be > scenarios that one has not thought of. The building did withstand > the > impact of the plane, itself. But, it did not survive everything > that came > with the impact. Would you like to see exactly what analysis was > done > concerning a 707 impact? Of course! TIA! > I've got a beer that says that the airplane impact > analysis before the collapse was rather limited compared to the > after-the-fact analysis. I would expect it to be so in light of the actuality of later events. (More below) > > Anyways, I actually curious to see how it was "impossible" for the > collapse > to be as fast as it was. > Beforehand I would expect it to be described as improbable. Just for the sake of curveballs, I'll posit that if some Cassandra had appeared on the list with a detailed description of what was to come at the WTC all hands onboard would give a cornucopia of reasons why it could never happen. I know it is an unfalsifiable proposition but I think such a consideration is a very good (and humbling) reason to go gently with "believers". By the same token it is good reason for "believers" to practice patience with "Skeptics". I strongly suspect that those who count themselves among the "believers" were more traumatized by the events of 911 than most of us. I know that plays into my feelings of suspicion with regard to the building collapse. (As I often try to make clear, I suspect as opposed to believe) The natural desire to blame and revenge a great wrong is frustrated, so the mind turns over events and finding seeming discrepancies, points a finger in seemingly likely directions. In moments of introspection I see something like this operative in my inner self, and I suspect that I am not alone in this mild form of PTSD. xponent Inner Universe Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
