The post below may have been trivial, but this is serious stuff. This BYU prof argues that the way the buildings collapsed on 9-11 is much more explicable in terms of physics if one presumes that the collapse was caused by explosives, not by crashing airplanes.
I know, it sounds crazy to me, too, and I've dismissed most of this kind of stuff out of hand. But while I don't have the physics to evaluate the merits of this guy's position, his fundamental point seems hard to argue with: The theory that explosives caused the collapses is testable and falsifiable, so why not test it? He calls for the release of 6,899 photographs and more than 300 hours of video footage for review by an international, cross-disciplinary research team that would consider all options.
To his credit, he avoids speculation about who would have planted any such explosives or why.
UPDATE: Here's one pretty thorough argument against his theory. Other responses I read fell predictably into liberal and conservative camps. Why a purely scientific question should become a political football illustrates pretty well how poisonous the national climate for debate is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
David,
Do us a favor and google "Vince Dunn" he is one of the worlds leading authorities on building collapse. He also happens to be a retired Deputy Chief of the New York City Fire Department. The Billings Fire Department may even have some of his videos that they might let you watch.
The collapse of WTC 1 and 2 and later that day WTC 7 were classic "pancake" collapses-- albeit on the largest scale ever seen.
Surviving staff Chiefs have said on record they knew the towers were going to collapse--their plan was to "evacuate the buildings and get out themselves." They did not fight the fires nor did they ever intend to--the fires in WTC 1 and 2 were no stoppable.
Never before in the history of metal-framed buildings has one ever collapsed due to fire. That day three did - odd. Most likely the buildings were bombed from within. Hey - ever try making a cell phone call from a jet plane at high altitude? Try it some time.
David - you're rattling the shakey underpinnings of our society - our belief in illusion. Don't go there, but if you do, don't be surprised by the number of people who don't accept the official explanation for 9/11, and who don't talk about it. It's taboo.
"Never before in the history of metal-framed buildings has one ever collapsed due to fire"
Source?
It will be up to you to produce evidence of a steel framed building that did collapse due to fire. I cannot prove a negative. In 1991 a fire gutted a building in Philadelphia, twisting and sagging the beams, but the columns still supported their loads with ease. The fires that burned in the towers (much less Builing 7, which was not even hit and had no jet fuel expended on it) would have to had reached a temperature of 1500 degrees centigrade to melt steel - and it woudl have had to sustain that temperature for a prolonged period of time. Visual evidence is enough to prove that the fires did not last that long. All of that black smoke was hydrocarbon fuel - paper and plactic. The jet fule burned quickly. Even, then, the fire produced by the jet fuel was a hydrocarbon based and could only burn at 12-1300 centigrade, according to one engineer quoted on NOVA - and not for a long enough period of time to even weaken the steel beams. Anyway, this is a respectable journalistic site, and I expect this debate to shut down, as people want to believe the official story, and journalists especially are wedded to respecabiltiy and officialdom, for credibility. All I can say is to search for yourself, and don't trust the so-called evidence.
1500 degree Celsius = 2732 degree Fahrenheit thats enough to melt your tin foil hat!
Post a Comment