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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (15263)	1/13/2005 10:44:34 PM
From: Michelino	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

"accept the laws of physics" Sorry Ray, the laws of physics were right in view for all to see on 9/11. Here's a professor of engineering at MIT on the subject: NOVA: After the planes struck and you saw those raging fires, did you think the towers would collapse? Eagar: No. In fact, I was surprised. So were most structural engineers. The only people I know who weren't surprised were a few people who've designed high-rise buildings. .... NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns? Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F. Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis. pbs.org and tms.org for the article many others on the web: channel4.com dir.salon.com I browsed the FEMA reports. Granted, my umpteen physics courses were taken a long, long time ago, but I don't find any problem with the "official" story of the collapse…or that the answer is a little ambiguous as to exactly what happened. Nor does any reasonable scientist or engineer that I've encountered or associate with. (As to whether buildings with such blatant vulnerabilities should be built at all, it’s another story) It's no wonder that over on the conspiracy theory thread, an occasional moon hoax proponent or "nukes caused the tsunami" flake wanders out into the midst of all that "research". ". Message 20935455 (it got so bad they had to start a sister thread just for the JFK killed Elvis Crowd) I really am perplexed as to why you need these bizarre theories so badly; there has been enough culpability and incompetence in plain sight to tarnish the Bushnuts for generations to come. From Clarke's unprompted testimony, Ashcraft's omission of “terrorism” on his agenda for the year 2001, Bush’s casual reaction to the Aug 6th PDB memo, to the absence of understanding of Middle East policy among Bush’s crew. Bush stacked his cabinet with the dullard remains of the Nixon and Reagan eras and then sprinkled a lot of neocon thuggery over the mess. You know don’t need pseudo-science or grainy video to prove these henchmen are the most ignorant bunch of ideologues to oversee the might of a superpower since, well, superpowers came about. And they may be the most criminal, even without mentioning the phony WMD (and the Saddam connection to 9/11) basis that they claimed as giving them the right to launch the first strike of the Iraq war.