> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Gibson Jonathan > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 3:24 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information? > > Thanks Dan, > > I guess I missed that message in the bustle of my life. > > As another after word, every single one of my Archt schoolmates > contacted in no way buys the official story. Every one of them cited > the pile-up of those vertical support beams should have tipped the > building, any building, off to one side or another.
OK, then why did all the graduate school studies in structural engineering that I referenced get this wrong? Or, are they all part of the conspiracy? It would be helpful if one of your buddies did comparablel engineering analysis... >None could think > of examples of a zero footprint implosion w/o demolition. But, of course, there wasn't such a minute footprint. Recently, I posted on Brin-L a link to pictures that showed a footprint that shows a tower having a lateral component to it's footprint covering about 2 blocks. http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/9-11/default.htm# > Confusion over the complete sell-off of all material that could be > studied was a mystery that baffles many I quote from the head of the <quote> There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures. <end quote> >- as well as no regulatory body > issuing upgraded reqs in light of an unprecedented tripple-whammy > systemic failure occurring the same day. Let me quote from the testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley on behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers, before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives. It's available at http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf BTW, the team assembled to study this looks fairly impressive. March 6, 2002 Testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley, Senior Vice President, CTL Engineering Chicago, IL on behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers, before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives. <quote> As many in the United States and the world examine the future of tall buildings it is important to look at how well these buildings performed under extreme circumstances. It must be remembered that large commercial aircraft hit the World Trade Center Towers, yet both withstood the initial impact. Additionally, as has been widely reported, almost all of the individuals in the buildings below the impact zone were able to get out of the buildings to safety. Efforts such as that being conducted by the Building Performance Study teams and studies emanating from this initial study will seek to extend the performance of structures to allow occupants ample time to reach safety. <end quote> > All believe WTC 7 is the lynchpin that can reveal what/who benefits > from this canard. All conspiracy theorists? I doubt there is such unanimity. > I'd like to know more about this grad-school gal who thinks she knows > more than practicing architects about what should and shouldn't be able > to stand. What she probably thinks is that she had a chance to review multiple studies of the structural engineering, and had a fairly good idea of the type of analysis they did. For example, one would think that the professional body of civil engineers, who are responsible for massive building projects, has the responsibility to make a thorough investigation of this. Which they did. Their work is part of the understanding of the 9-11 commission. There were, of course, many other groups that studied the collapse. Some of the websites are: http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1024/news_2-2.html http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3742&isa=Category http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ http://www.mscsoftware.com/success/details.cfm?Q=132&Z=181&sid=269 In addition, there is a list of abstracts that includes a number on the WTC collapse at: http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWsrchkwx.cgi?Collapse Personally, trusting groups like this sounds quite reasonable to me. But, I take it that you are singularly unimpressed with 20-somethings that have important staff responsibility for investigations like the 9-11 commission. I guess we might wait 20 years and then maybe you can downplay her work as a member of the White House staff. :-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
