In article
<89f0e77f-7aa9-4b08-9d7c-67aafadb8ca7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Darth
Chaos wrote:
> On Feb 9, 8:41 am, schoenfeld....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> WTC Towers: The case for controlled demolition
>> By Herman Schoenfeld
>>
>> In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
>> accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
>> towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
>> as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
NIST is wrong. The 9/11 Truth movement is just as wrong.
Both sides make the same mistakes. Impressive equations with
no reliable data to plug into them.
In 1975 I attended a lecture where an instructor in
fire safety engineering at the University of Maryland
showed how a WTC tower had to collapse if a fire ever
got out of control. He drew pictures on the blackboard.
They showed exactly what we saw on 9/11, right down to
the "squibs." The only difference was the airplanes.
The instructor figured a shorted out coffeepot or copier
would start the fire.
Those buildings were flimsy firetraps. The port authority
district was drawn to exempt them from the manhattan
fire code, so they could be 110 stories high instead of 85.
It was the biggest controversy in large building design
in decades. No other steel frame skyscrapers have burned
down like that because no others were ever built like that.
Here's a 9/11 theory for you. The owners of the buildings
knew the buildings would fall down. You don't buy something
that big without researching it. They overinsured them
and let it happen. Biggest insurance fire in history.
No amazing secret preparation for demolition needed.
No conspiracy too big to keep quiet needed, either.
This stuff is off topic in all these newsgroups, and has been
beaten to death in the ones where it belongs. Followups
to poster.
Cameron
