Gibson Jonathan wrote:
> 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.
Understandable.
>
> 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.
Johnathan, we have always stood on a first name basis (or even
nicknames) here on the Brin-L collective love farm.<G> Addressing
people by surnames and with titles attached has traditionally been
seen as a form of aggressiveness.
Even with people that we frequently find ourselves diametrically
opposed to during discussion, it helps to keep in mind that we are all
friends here. We attack ideas, but not people.
In general the people I argue with most vigorously are often my best
friends on the list. The free and open exchange of ideas really has
little to do with how much one values another. It is not personal and
it is bad form, that only increases the difficulties one encounters
when trying to communicate ideas, to make it so.
I hate it when I sound like I am lecturing, so I am going to quit now
while I am ahead.<G>
> 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.
Isn't Stockholm a form of PTSD?
I don't see why both propositions could not be true. I am sure there
are limitations to the applicability of such disorders, so it is a
matter of degree coupled with propensity.
[SNIP official questions]
>
> 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.
ISTR some rumblings along this line but nothing I can specifically
recall.
> 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.
I agree that the fire was probably insufficient.
My attention is now turned to structural integrity after the impact.
We were told (even as the even was in progress) that the impacts were
not enough to bring down the buildings, that they were designed with
just such an occurence in mind.
So now I question the design. Was it actually sufficient to withstand
such an impact?
The vertical support for the building was basically 2 concentric (an
inner and an outer) rings, one of concrete and steel and the other of
closely spaced steel columns. The closely spaced steel columns were
certainly damaged and in the south tower most of the damage was at one
end of the building, likely sparing the concrete and steel core.
I hypothesize that the damage to the outer ring caused load shifting,
with the inner core acting as a fulcrum. On the other parts of the
affected floor compressive forces became [the opposite of compressive]
forces or torsive forces beyond the rating of bolts and welds. One by
one members give way, transfering even more force to remaining members
until collapse is initiated.
Here is where my idea gets interesting.
Remember the vibrating shockwave I posited in an earlier thread? The
WTC towers were built on bedrock. When one tower collapsed a good
amount of that vibrational shockwave was transfered to surrounding
buildings. The nearest building, the north tower, was already
compromised and the shockwave does even more damage to the parts of
its structure that have already sustained damage and are supporting
increased loads.
The collapse of the south tower would have felt like an earthquake in
the north tower.
I'm hypothesizing that the south tower collapse caused the north tower
collapse.
It is just an idea, but one I think worth looking at.
> 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.
IMO, Dans estimates of forces once collapse is initiated are
sufficient to explain the speed of collapse. His numbers may not be
exacting and precise, but I think they give a good thumbnail
estimation of what occurred.
> 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 have reservations about the "official" explanation, but I think a
thorough examination of *all* possibilities are in order before
demolition is proposed. I am beginning to wonder if the assessments of
the architect with regard to the safety of the structure (back when it
was built) should not be more fully examined.
Was the design as strong as claimed?
It was a new design after all, and in light of the destruction of both
towers it might be worth looking into potential design flaws.
> 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.
I disagree here. I think the cloud of pulverized concrete is entirely
consistent with my experience working with concrete. When concrete
breaks or is subjected to crushing force it creates a whole lot of
dust, and that is something I have to deal with on a daily basis in my
line of work. I have to clean up after myself at work and I can tell
you that concrete is a very very dusty material. We often have to make
effort to keep the dust down lest it set off fire alarms in buildings,
even when we are only drilling a 1/4 in. hole.
Much of the concrete you see in the collapse is floor material, and
that is normally a lighter weight concrete than is used in structural
supports, for obvious reasons. It makes even more dust under normal
conditions and is pulverized even more easily.
>
> 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.
I think there was some desire to make explanations as quickly as
possible and put it all behind, so that we could move on to other
issues.
>
> Tag, your it.
Top posting is evil<G>
xponent
Concretions Maru
rob
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
