> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Robert Seeberger
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:51 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, June 26, 2006 1:17 PM
> Subject: RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
>
>
> [Snip a godawful amount of quoted text]
>
> > All of this makes sense to me, and is consistent with what I see on
> > the
> > videos of the collapse.
>
> Well of course it does Dan.
So, it seems that we agree that the planes flying into the building are
sufficient for the buildings to collapse. We also agree that the pattern of
the collapse is consistent with rigorous structural analysis of the
buildings.
>The explanations these gentlemen give are
> tailored to explain what was seen in the evidence, what they don't do
> is eliminate alternate explanations and that is the item that I would
> like to see.
The alternative explanation is that, in addition to the planes flying into
the WTC, bombs were placed by persons unknown, but probably connected with
someone like Dick Cheney, a while before that...and that the planes flew
into just those floors where bombs were placed. The bomb people either had
to be really really good spooks, or coordinated with WTC security. Given
the track record of the CIA and the plumbers, etc., I don't think of anyone
who is quite that good.
Further, the blasts couldn't have occurred on the outside structures,
because there would have been some outward puffs....that would not be part
of the general flames....even with the burning, multiple explosions of would
be seeable. But, on the inside, which is full of melted aluminum which
could explode, the bombs could be masked. So, I don't think that I could
falsify the existence of modest size bombs on the inner columns.
It appears that we agree that the well accepted explanation is both simple
and sufficient to explain what has been observed. In contrast, the
conspiracy theory relies on a number of variables all lining up perfectly to
conceal the blast. For example, how did all of this coordination work,
between the AQ members and Dick, or whoever set up the bombs? How did they
know just which floors to hit, and how could those undertrained pilots be so
good at hitting just the right floors?
In a real sense, it is impossible to absolutely falsify conspiracy theories
because they are usually fairly well immunized from falsification. For
example, someone who thought JFK was a secret Commie and that RFK decided to
have him killed because of the disgrace he would bring to the family name
could not be dissuaded by the lack of concrete evidence. That just proved
how good RFK was.
> I would even trust your judgement of such an endevour, but such has
> not been undertaken or even really been officially commented on. (At
> least I have not become aware of it and that is also within the realms
> of possibility<G>)
> >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.
> >
> It is that it is *an* explanation, but not neccessarily *the*
> explanation.
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> Then the witnesses would have to be faked also, but there are just too
> many of them for that to be true.
>
> >
> > 2) The planes did hit the building, but explosive charges were set
> > off in
> > the floors that they hit.
> >
>
> Bingo, and it resides as a suspicion, not a belief. None of the
> "official explanations" precludes the sort of conspiracy required. The
> conspiracy theorists addressed such right from the get-go.
> Now, I'm *not* saying that the conspiracy theorists are correct or
> that any of what they say is true, but very little of what they say
> has been "without doubt" eliminated as a possibility. (The point being
> that they say quite a bit and it goes pretty much unchallenged and/or
> ignored)
So did the conspiracy theories about Clinton murdering Ron Brown.
> As we have previously discussed, my main concern is that all three
> buildings collapsed fairly well into their basements with about as
> little collateral damage as could be possible.
> Why pancaking and not toppling?
For full toppling to occur, one of the sides of the base would have to be
damaged. Only the top was damaged, so the whole tower wouldn't topple.
Indeed, one of the tops _did_ start to topple before the whole thing gave
way. That's clearly seen. The long quote I reported discussed why this
behavior is very consistent with what is known about the building.
> >From your post:
> " 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'"
>
> Why was this tilting not "amplified"?
Because
1) the entire floor structure was weakened.
2) there was interconnection between the supports. As one broke, the stress
transferred to others. Look at this simple 2-d structure:
O----------0------------0
| | |
| | |
| | |
O----------0------------0
| | |
| | |
| | |
O----------0------------0
| | |
| | |
| | |
O----------0------------0
Then, break a support
O----------0------------0
| | |
| | |
| | |
O----------0------------0
| | |
| | |
| | |
O----------0------------0
| |
| |
| |
O----------0------------0
The left side slides down, increasing the force on the middle supports.
Now, the columns in the middle are suddenly under a lot of stress, and they
break.
O----------0------------0
| | |
| | |
| | |
O----------0------------0
| | |
| | |
| | |
O----------0------------0
|
|
|
|
O----------0------------0
And the other side is subjected to a lot of stress and breaks. At this
point, the whole top starts to fall. For the top to topple, one side would
have had to hold under tremendously increased stress, after being weakened.
The only way this could happen is if it were a lot stronger than the other
side. Since the fire was throughout the floors, and since the center is the
most suspect part of the building, it is reasonable to assume that there
wasn't one side that could hold itself up long enough for toppling to occur.
I could do back of the envelope calculations, I guess, but what happened is
pretty intuitive to me.
Dan M.
Physics in Action Maru
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
