Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

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



If there is a conspiracy, what benefit is there in covering up evidence of
explosive sabotage?

The third building was on fire, and there certainly was some shaking of it
due to the first two towers collapse.

So the main argument the various authors have made is that no other steel
frame building has collapsed due to fire. Then there are other pieces of
evidence such as puffs of smoke and seismic data. I would be fairly
skeptical of this extra data without some means for verifying it.

When I was in engineering, it was well known that steel frame buildings
could collapse due to fire and that insulation was necessary to prevent such
collapse. Many accounts talk about the impossibility of melting the steel,
but are silent about the strength of steel at high temperatures. As I
recall it loses its rigidity long before it actually melts. While I am
certainly not an expert on this, I do know from experience that just because
something has not yet happened, that does not mean it can never happen. It
is likely that all 3 buildings had similarly inadequate insulation.

It is fun to speculate, but I tend to doubt that the government engineers
are that bad. And why would they try to cover up more evidence or
terrorism? I would suspect that Bush would welcome even more evidence to
push his agenda. Just think of all the things he could push through to
thwart the inside conspirators?

Incidentally my comments had assumed charges at the base. The conspiracy
speculators assume charges planted higher up, which would make the collapse
look like the result of the collision. How accurately could the pilots have
aimed the planes to hit near the charges?

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


Yes, that's why I subjected it, "Here we go again."

bc, who does wonder about the third building's collapse; only two
aircraft.

Shapiro, Mark wrote:

That's for sure!

Mark

_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l