Excellent.
I welcome this opportunity.
Apologies for my own intermittent involvement on this. I don't mean to
throw argument bombs into the room and then exit - I just don't have
the spare cycles to weigh in as often as I would like, yet.
Mr Bell, if selective bloviating was enough then this would be resolved
already. Your growling impatient diatribe doesn't appear to add
anything and I certainly resist bully-boy tactics even if only verbal.
There are real anomalies throughout this topic that we are all
interested in sorting through - or I thought we were.
Someone once put forth that perhaps conspiracy theorists around this
issue suffer a form of delayed Post Traumatic Stress. Perhaps this is
true although I rather doubt it, but I could say in return that
adherence to the official explanation may be akin to Stockholm
Syndrome.
So. Besides the other questions posed around this opportunity I have a
few I'll try to boil down for brevity:
- In the interest of scientific open-source inquiries, why are the
models and initial data and data sets generated kept secret?
- Why does the NIST report essentially stop at the point of Collapse
Initiation without delving into any of the mechanism postulated to
cause successive failure across the entire structure{s}?
- Related: why was the "Piston Mechanism" never modeled and only made
mention of in passing at the end of the report?
- What causes steel members to fall apart throughout and across the
entire building systemically such that a straight vertical moment of
inertia is maintained even as ton after ton of steel and concrete
should offer significant compressive resistance and start moving such a
mass off-center? WTC1+2 are the exception to history at this point.
- What of the Underwriters Labs studies of paint chips showing very low
temperatures were actually demonstrable on the South Tower, and only
some exceedingly small amount was exposed to even this temperature?
- Why was NIST selected when it has no regulatory or enforcement power
that other governmental and civil bodies must thus pay attention to &
alter codes and procedures to accommodate any revealed structural
flaws?
- What is the timeline for the WTC7 report and why was this selectively
delayed in the first place - resources were apparently plentiful as
compared with the FEMA report so decisions on where and how to spend
this should be in the realm of Gautam to explain.
On the topic of weariness, I am sorry your friend has grown tiresome on
the subject. I applaud her going at this with us. Perhaps if the
report was more complete these gaping holes in the presentation would
not beg such questions. The public contracted for an explanation and
it has been found wanting.
My own further thoughts do not need to be sent along to our weary
contactee:
There are amazingly detailed presentations from fires spreading to
people dying to airplane impact down to turbofan blades, yet nothing
about the structural integrity of this massive building failing. At a
very basic common-sense level of civil & structural engineering such a
failure requires serious review for possible retrofit action across the
entire built world - I have heard nothing of such thinking nor warnings
to come from government agencies that set such standards. All of us
here are throwing our own 2ยข in trying to understand what should have
been made clear by such a report. This double-failure is unprecedented
in history and flies in the face of multiple documented firestorms
raging for days w/o steel failure in modern construction.
The volume and detail we see up to the Collapse Initiation is
overwhelming, but paltry and notably sparse {I'm being generous here:
sentances/paragraphs -vs- whole chapters} as compared with the money
spent staging our understanding of events.
Pardon my beating a dead horse, but the estimates of of slightly over
one second per floor requires a significantly longer period than a free
fall. The calculated estimate for a crushing floor to have upon the
one below it has been apx 1 second, which would then start the clock
again for that floor to begin to the next buckle... and then start the
clock again... granted it could reduce the time per floor when enough
momentum {TBD} is generated, but this still runs up against the growing
body of steel and concrete piling up below. Only human demo-squad
intervention causes this vertical alignment to my knowledge and as
mentioned, if it was thus easily done then landlords would loosen bolts
and spread kerosene for the insurance all the time. I'm still waiting
for examples of sturdy time-tested buildings suffering progressive
collapse that mimic what we see w/o human attention. NIST side-steps
this conundrum without offering anything plausible.
I'd be glad to revise this opinion. For instance, I take those of us
who have direct metal working knowledge seriously as my own training
was more high-falutin' and nature has a way of sharding off on tangents
that more sartorial physical exercises don't resolve. Likewise, I have
been following the melting steel issue further and am willing to see
the deformity under heat as more plausible than I have previously given
it credit - for the initial collapse, and IF the temperatures really
raged high+long enough. I remain unconvinced and await further
simulations, tests, and feedback - there remain variables on
heat-wicking, how low the temperature really was up there and for how
brief a time.
Perhaps it's time to examine the concrete itself again. The amount of
pulverization is inconsistent with other collapsing buildings. The
explosive action we see in the videos doesn't ring true for the paltry
amount of air that was rushing out... many times the radius of a
building that shouldn't even be atomizing as it did. The Romans were
on to something here, concrete is very hard stuff and doesn't powder
easily - look at what a jack-hammer must do to chip away at sidewalks,
or try hammering some yourself. I've seen no studies by NIST, or
anyone, on this aspect.
The point is that into this void we project our own knowledge,
speculations, fears & hopes _because_ this official story has serious
flaws and to my eye a concerted attempt to misdirect attention by
exhaustively pre-loading an expectation of the inevitability of
collapse without actually explaining it.
Tag, your it.
- Jonathan -
On Jul 14, 2006, at 8:34 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
Dear All,
I IM'd with Gautam, and he said he'd be willing to ask a couple of
questions
concerning 9-11 and the conspiracy theories of his friend who worked
on the
report. But, he won't pepper her with a laundry list of questions,
she's
rather sick of the various conspiracy theories.
As I mentioned, she's a liberal Democrat, so she wouldn't have
political
motivation to protect GWB et. al.
So, what couple of questions would help people understand the official
report better? In particular, I'd be interested in seeing questions
that
would assure people that the matter was studied carefully.
Dan M.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Jonathan Gibson
www.formandfunction.com/word
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
