John Steck wrote: >ANY resistance from 'pan caking' or structural failure would have shown up >in a significant increase in collapse time... several orders of magnitude >more.
That is incorrect. Many buildings have collapsed, on purpose and by accident, and they fall nearly as quickly as with a freefall. > And that is not even touching the fact that the resulting SYMMETRICAL >damage profile is completely wrong for that hypothesis. Then why do ALL building engineers worldwide agree this is expected? Why are they not outraged at the conclusions made by NIST and others? How is it that these exerts are so foolish? This is like asserting that 200 electrochemists do not recognize recombination when they see it. >The ONLY way for ANY structure like that to free fall collapse completely is >staged demolition. All supports removed in an instant from top to bottom at >regular intervals. Period. That is completely incorrect. I suggest you review the methods employed by Controlled Demolition. They do not remove "all supports" on "all floors." One set of supports is enough. The others are broken instantly as the building collapses, and it happens at freefall speed. - Jed
