Thoughts?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t=home_columns
Printable View
What they always fail to mention in these things is that Building#7 got hit by debris from the collapse of tower 2 which took out the corner of building between the 3rd and 6th floors. That combined with the equivilent of a 3.5 earthquake that happened when tower 1 fell, The structure was weakened enough that eventually it gave out under it's own weight..
The "flashes" were most likely electrical shorts as the interior started to give way.
Nothing like trying to push a political agenda to get in the way of facts..
This one has been tossed around here before. In my humble and non-expert opinion, the Twin Towers coming down seemed to resemble other footage I've seen of controlled demolition of other tall structures.
I don't know enough about the physics involved in bringing down a building that size to really have an educated guess as to weather or not a plane could have done it or if it would have required more. I do find it a bit hard to believe that no one would have noticed guys planting explosive charges in the buildings though.
My gut tells me this was purely the actions of terrorists and there was not a deeper conspiracy involved.
I could be wrong though! According to my wife, I'm frequently wrong.http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif
Complete crap! The guy is an ARCHITECT! No disrespect to anyone in that profession, but he has no material behavior expertise, as demonstrated by his own words.
I've been to two seminars on this very topic. If you have any understanding of materials, the times and temps involved and structural engineering, you will call this guy an idiot. I've been doing forensic engineering (mechanical and materials) for 15 years and I've worked a large number of fire scenes, some large ones you have surely seen on the news. Flame and heat do some odd things. I sat in my office and watched it on TV trying to figure out how they could get the fires out because I was worried about pancake collapse, which is exactly what happened.
This ignoramous should have his license pulled for sheer stupidity!
I am not a physicist nor architect nor blah, blah. This happened when I was in college, the day we went back to school the pyhiscs professor (who was a MAJOR conspiracy theorists with JFK, Area 51 and all that) had the class do some experienments and blah blah blah... Anywyas:
A building of that size CANNOT fall over sideways unless certain criteria are met. One plane inpacting at the angle it did will not suffice.
The sheer weight being put on the lower levels from the crash and the subsequent relief of that weight through missing corner of the building would cause steel, cement, glass etc to buckle and fall straight down.
The only way a building would topple over onto it's side is if ENOUGH of a COMPLETE side was missing. The way the jet impacted the building, it did not sheer enough materials to make this scenario likely.
Hope that makes sense..... my two cents.
I did have fun playing with the lincoln blocks and playdough in that class though... HAHA.
Liken it to cutting a large tree. Depending on the V cut angle, the tree will fall straight down or to the side. If the V cut is big enough (enough mass missing) you can push it in the direction you want it to fall. If the V cut is smaller, it will likely snap (due to the pressure on the remaining stalk) and fall striaght down and then to the side since it cannot crumble such as cement, etc.... How's that for an anaolgy? lol.
I took the red pill a long time ago.
That article says it with more eloquence than I could have expressed myself. I'm all for a re-investigation of the collapses.
As we analize, let's keep a running list of the pros and cons for a controled demolition:
Pros:
-free fall speed
Cons:
-Building#7 got hit by debris from the collapse of tower 2 which took out the corner of building between the 3rd and 6th floors. That combined with the equivilent of a 3.5 earthquake that happened when tower 1 fell, The structure was weakened enough that eventually it gave out under it's own weight..
-hard to believe that no one would have noticed guys planting explosive charges in the buildings
I don't have a lot of time right now to fill with reasons, but this will get it started. I'll try to add any points you guys make here.
They sure don't look like electrical, they're pretty big and look just like the rest of the explosion. But that's my interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin
So basicaly you're saying that flames and heat were the main cause of collapse (right?). Are there any other cases we can look at where fires caused a building to fall/explode/crumble like WTC?Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkCO
I have been an electrician for 20+ years.
You ever seen a 277v short in a dark room? It will light up the entire room.. Just like, dare I say an explosion... I'm sure that they had a few 480v feeders running through the building.. Guess what,, Bigger light..Quote:
They sure don't look like electrical, they're pretty big and look just like the rest of the explosion. But that's my interpretation.
I forget what the red pill stands for. Does this mean that you're on my side?Quote:
Originally Posted by hip55
In before the lock.
Yep,, So am I...