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

[Rick Tarara <rtarara@SAINTMARYS.EDU>]

Are we still on this crap?  BC, I know you're a Communist, paranoid, and
what not, but all of this HAS been investigated.  Give it up.  Get over it!
Bush did not bomb the Trade Towers.  The Towers were not incompetently
constructed either.  There was a talk a couple of AAPT meeting ago on the
construction of the Trade Towers--they were innovative AND designed to
provide 3 hours of burn time in what was then conceived to be the worst fire
danger.  It was ALWAYS known that an uncontrolled fire would eventually
bring them down, but no one figured on the heat generated from aviation fuel
from fully loaded planes.  The three hour designed would be plenty to
evacuate the buildings AND/OR to put out the fires.  It just didn't work out
that way.  Few other buildings could have survived the same treatment, and
it is not reasonable to over design every building for the ultimate worst
case scenario.  If we did that, all buildings within 200 miles of the ocean
would be hurricane proof, all building near the west coast and in the
Missouri, Arkansas region would be earthquake proof, all railroad crossings
would be grade separations, etc., etc.  There are limits on how much we can
reasonably be expected to spend in making things 'safe'.  Human life DOES
have a price tag, we encounter it every day.

What we don't need is to waste even more tax-payer money on more pointless
investigations.  If someone wants to privately fund such--fine, but please
leave me, and everyone else being buried by property taxes, excise taxes,
wheel taxes (that's a newer one sprung on us), sales taxes, local, state,
and federal income taxes, out of the mix.  I'm quite satisfied that a bunch
of fanatics did the deed, that our government (through a number of
administrations) was not being vigilant enough, and that it is virtually
impossible to protect a society that grants the level of freedoms we have
here from many forms of terrorist attacks.  I would hope that we can avoid
the nuke or biological attacks, but the latter along with chemical attacks
are probably impossible to protect against at a 100% certainty level.

Rick  (so there!)   ;-)

*********************************************************
Richard W. Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, Indiana
rtarara@saintmarys.edu
********************************************************
Free Physics Educational Software (Win & Mac)
     Animations for Lectures
     Photo-realistic Lab simulations
     Energy management simulations
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
Energy 2100--class project
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/ENERGY_PROJECT/ENERGY2100.htm
********************************************************




----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernard Cleyet" <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>
> I believe * the planes and incompetent illegal construction did it.
> However, I think unbiassed credible further investigation is necessary.
>    A populace that includes a considerable number that believe(s?) its
> govt. covertly kills its own people has obviously failed as a democracy.
>
> bc, who already knows we no longer live in a democracy, if we ever did.
>
>
> * and not that much stronger than my devout atheism.
>
> John Clement wrote:
>
> > This sounds much more reasonable.  Unfortunately the conspiracy advocates
> > take reasonable questions and turn them into material that convinces the
> > gullible.  I tend to be doubtful because it is unlikely the terrorists
> > had
> > the expertise, ability, and opportunity to precisely place charges to
> > neatly
> > demolish 3 buildings.  And then might they not prefer to have them topple
> > rather than neatly fall?  The latter may actually have not been possible.
> >
> > Indeed if they had placed charges, why not just detonate the charges at
> > the
> > same time the planes hit?  This would kill many more infidels, and make
> > it a
> > bigger event.  Or just detonate the charges to make it a complete
> > surprise.
> > I don't think they have any incentive to hide the use of charges.  They
> > wanted maximum destruction and wished to take credit for all of it.
> > While
> > they were able to work the American system to hit the towers with planes,
> > it
> > is clear that they really did not think ahead to all possible
> > implications.
> > For example they did not realize that the 4th mission could be aborted
> > because passengers could communicate with the outside.  They also had no
> > idea that we would invade Afghanistan and fight back as much as we have.
> >
> > There are generally always fuzzy areas in all explanations, so more
> > investigation could certainly be done.  The same thing is true of
> > evolution,
> > quantum theory... but only certain areas of science and engineering have
> > come under fire.  I am surprised that the religious right has not thought
> > that quantum theory might conflict with their views.  I guess the
> > remoteness
> > and difficulty of physics has kept it out of their sight.
> >
> > In the end I would tend to give more credence to the report that
> > carefully
> > examined all of the sources of information, and that had team members who
> > could double check the results, over individual speculations.  I suspect
> > that Feynman could have readily given a convincing demo as to why the
> > buildings collapsed.  So by all means look further, but I doubt we can
> > find
> > evidence of more conspiracy.
> >
> > John M. Clement
> > Houston, TX
> >
> >
> > > I read through most of his paper and while it is obvious that he has
> > > an opinion as to what happened, what he is actually asking for is
> > > further inquiry because the initial inquiry did not provide a
> > > satisfactory understanding of the event.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that we should always support additional inquiry if we
> > > don't understand an event. I believe that is really the whole point
> > > isn't it?
> > >
> > > Attacking someone who says "I don't understand. I need to ask more
> > > questions to help me understand." seems strange from this list.
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l