Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mighty_Mezz who wrote (19536)	2/11/2003 3:31:28 PM
From: Mighty_Mezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Here's a math/geometry analysis of flight 77. cyberspaceorbit.com

To: Mighty_Mezz who wrote (19536)	2/11/2003 5:51:18 PM
From: MSI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

That article is one of the reasons I read this thread. Hard to find something as succinct, thanks MM

To: Mighty_Mezz who wrote (19536)	2/11/2003 6:25:30 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 93284

n the case of the World Trade Center, which was a state-of-the-art design in the late 1960s, the steel-mesh exterior skeleton was highly robust, but the steel-truss floor framing turned out to be quite fragile, and the central core was not designed to handle significant lateral (sideways) loads, Thornton explains. When the planes hit the towers, they knocked out many internal and exterior support columns and dislodged much of the sprayed-on fire insulation that had protected the steel members. Although the remaining structure readily supported the new loads transferred to them when the columns were lost, it then had to contend with the insidious effects of the aviation-fuel fire that set all the flammable contents of the floors alight. "It was the intense fuel fire and the following inferno that led to the collapse," he says. sciam.com It melted the steel supports in the building, causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the building to the ground. I am not a civil or structural engineer. We need one for this stuff. We got any on this site? But a few points anyway: public-action.com That statement is an obvious exaggeration intended simply to discredit the argument against his theory. One among many in this write-up. I remember no credible sources claiming the steel had actually melted. What was claimed was that the heat weakened it. Am I to believe that the fire burned for 104 minutes in the north tower, gradually heating the 200,000 tons of steel supports like a blacksmith's forge, with the heat flowing throughout the skeleton of the tower? And that is silly. Heat is not conducted instantaneously through steel ot any other material. Clearly the metal will be hottest in the vicinity of the fire. OK, since it was mentioned, I am also upset with the quantity of concrete dust (see civil.usyd.edu.au ) or: public-action.com ). No concrete that I have ever known pulverizes like that. It is unnerving. My experience with concrete has shown that it will crumble under stress, but rarely does it just give up the ghost and turn to powder. But look at the pictures -- it is truly a fine dust in great billowing clouds spewing a hundred feet from the collapsing tower. And here he argues that what clearly did happen couldn't happen. He seems to need a suspension of the laws of physics himself. I have recently seen a videotape rerun of the south tower falling. In that take, the upper floors descend as a complete unit, tilted over as shown on the BBC page, sliding down behind the intervening buildings like a piece of stage scenery. That scene is the most puzzling of all. Since the upper floors were not collapsed (the connection between the center columns and the platters were intact), this assembly would present itself to the lower floors as a block of platters WITHOUT a central hole. How then would a platter without a hole slide down the spindle with the other platters? Where would the central columns go if they could not penetrate the upper floors as the platters fell? If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over (to use Loizeaux's image) much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1,300 ft. tree. And again he argues what did happen can't happen. Maybe he needs to take his dispute up with Mother Nature. Liquid fuel evaporates (or boils) as it burns, and the vapor burns as it boils off. The guy is beginning to make me think he has mental deficiencies. Or an axe to grind and is determined to grind it regardless of the truth. How long the fire burns depends on how much fuel is available. If, say, a paint store catches fire, it can take many hours to burn out. Note that jet fuel burning outside the building would heat the outside columns, but would not heat the central load-bearing columns significantly. As I recall, that is disputed by structural engineers at the time who claimed that in fact that could happen if a building were rammed by a high speed jet. Oh. And that building WAS rammed bya high speed jet. Do you dispute that? So it was just going to collapse that day anyway and that event was coincidental? And, in addition to the two jets that rammed the WTC towers (and there is no dispute that they were), two other jets were hijacked and destroyed that day. Coincidence again? And let's get back to JLA's question: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PEOPLE ON THOSE JETS? They have been missing since. All of them. So is it your charge that they were kidnapped and killed by the gov't? Nothing else would seem to work.