On Jun 26, 2006, at 10:40 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 6/26/06, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a sense, the conspiracy theorists rely on the CSI effect. It's
all so
perfect on TV, we expect it to be like that in real life. Real
investigations of real happenings are usually much more messy....just
like
real science is a lot more messy than science textbooks.
And... real, unplanned building collapses due to fire are usually
(okay,
always) a lot messier (in that they never neatly pancake)... Yet I
remain
optimistic that a reasonable explanation can be found. There's an
awful lot
unexplained, IMO.
Nick, the WTC was designed in the 70s as a disposable structure. It was
built with the full knowledge it would one day be imploded. ALL tall
buildings constructed after the 60s or so were built with that idea in
mind.
It was designed to collapse, neatly and in pancake fashion.
Bear in mind the WTC towers were not weakened at the base as with a
standard structure fire, a la a tree in the forest cut down in logging.
They dropped top-down, from where the devastation began. Why would you
expect them to teeter and/or be much more unstable than they were
designed to be?
In a terrible way, the architects' design proved faultless. The towers
came down with minimal damage to nearby structures. That is good
engineering.
To me what's unexplained is the apparent want to believe in a Vast
Conspiracy. Or even a small one.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
<http://books.nightwares.com/>
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
<http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf>
<http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf>
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
