[Phys-L] Re: OT: Here we go again. WTC brought down by aircraft, not.

[Karl Trappe <trappe@PHYSICS.UTEXAS.EDU>]

I do wish a panel of scientists had been convened to investigate the collapse,
before the final demolition.  Something akin to the panel that investigated and
discovered the failed O rings in the NASA space launch.  At the time of 9/11,
we "all believed" that was pointless.  Most of us still *want to believe" that
it was just the heat from the planes' gasoline that caused the buildings to
collapse in such a manner as to not fall over on other nearby buildings.

Conspiracy buffs claim that the two towers were rebuilt with demolition wiring
installed because of the difficulty of demolition of the original towers after
the first terrorist destruction, years earlier.  But how do you load the
explosives on just the right day?

At the very least, the third building (which was not actually hit by a plane)
bears *much* explaining away.  It does not help that the insurance, lease, and
security of Building 3 are all worthy of skeptical inquiry.  For that building,
the connections to financial gain are worrysome, and not unlike arson
connections.

The physics of the hole in the Pentagon is even more perplexing.  The plane's
wings did no damage, and the circular hole is about 50% smaller than the
proposed passenger plane fuselage. Maybe that is what happens physically when a
fuselage goes through concrete like the Pentagon.  Alas, no physicist has
explained it in any manner that I have seen.

But, this conspiracy stuff has to be ridiculous, given the high moral ground of
what followed...Probably the same physicist wonders about Haliburton's no bid
contracts for Iraq and New Orleans, and the presence of Blackwater Police (US
hired soldiers of fortune) in Iraq and in New Orleans.  I thought that turning
over interrogation of prisoners to the CIA was a nice touch, since the military
is bound by the Geneva Convention.

Quoting "Shapiro, Mark" <mshapiro@EXCHANGE.FULLERTON.EDU>:

> This guy probably knows nothing about demolition work.  For buildings
> the size of the ones that collapsed on 9/11, literally hundreds of
> carefully placed charges detonated in a precise sequence would be
> required to cause a symmetric collapse.  It would be highly unlikely
> that anyone could place such explosives in three heavily occupied
> buildings without being noticed.
>
> Dr. Mark H. Shapiro
> Professor of Physics, Emeritus
> California State University, Fullerton
> Phone: 714 278-3884
> FAX: 714 278-5810
> email: mshapiro@fullerton.edu
> web: http://chaos.fullerton.edu/Shapiro.html
> travel and family pictures:
> http://community.webshots.com/user/mhshapiro
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Forum for Physics Educators [mailto:PHYS-L@list1.ucc.nau.edu] On
> Behalf Of Bernard Cleyet
> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 1:22 PM
> To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
> Subject: Here we go again. WTC brought down by aircraft, not.
>
> ===
> Professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC:
>
> The physics of 9/11 - including how fast and symmetrically one of the
> World Trade Center buildings fell - prove that official explanations of
> the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics
> professor.
> http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html
>
> ===
> Professor Has Theory About 9/11 Attacks:
>
> A BYU professor has developed a new theory about the terrorist attack in
> New York on September 11, 2001. He believes planes alone did not bring
> down the world trade center.
> http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html
>
> ===
>
> ICH  2005/11/12
>
>
> bc
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l