Re: Physics Forum against free speech
I do not know how to operate the functions here...quotes etc...so i am at a disadvantage. Also...i must earn a living.
Forgive my tone as I am sick and tired of being labelled a "Conspiracy Theorist" because "experts" were quite specific in that they COULD NOT explain the collapse.
As for my use of "fatigue"...excuse me...but does not a metal structure, exposed to RAGING inferno's "fatigue"...
Where do you get the %90 sure from? From your head? Your OWN intuition?
You are a scientist when it suits and a "intuitive" when it suits, while you accuse me of attachment to the latter.
You know DAMN well "experts" were rubbing their heads with DISBELIEF when the Towers came down and ESPECIALLY when 7 came down.
Did the premiere fire fighting magazine label the investigation into the Towers and 7 collapses a "FARCE" or not? Actually, it was ..."a half baked farce". So sure of the data Russ? Coz that is what you're going on with such pious surety. Are you a man of science or just using the second hand "half baked farce" data and adding in your OWN intuition?
The constant mantra is that this event was "unique". What claptrap! You do not need an EXACT previous event to enable you to come to some viable conclusions! Is science forever reinventing the wheel from scratch? How much data is available from 100's of years of building structures? How much data is available from the study of metals under stress? How much data is available from the military on the penetrative qualities of various moving objects? The data available which could be put to use is endless. The practical knowledge of the many disciplines is endless.
Of course, if you are conducting a "half baked farce" your ability to combine data and come to conclusions is SEVERELY hampered.
The fire fighters never got to the fires? Well, well Russ. Go to a google search and find the transcripts and MP3 files where you will hear with your own ears firefighters stating CLEARLY that the fires were small and easily containable. The fire fighters are also clearly heard stating what "they" beleived to be explosions going off in the Towers.
You will find COUNTLESS, on the record comments by fire fighters and engineers (including the builder of the Towers) that they never thought for a second those towers would come down. And then their is the "free fall", CATASTROPHIC collapse.
The Towers were hit by a "hollow" aluminium tube designed to fly through the air....not a oversized DU penetrator rod from a Abrams main battle tank. They carried EXTREMELY low volatility jet fuel of which the majority burned outside the building. People are CLEARLY seen at the impact point of the aircraft indicating NO inferno "weakening" HUGE central and outer columns.
As for the 22,000 gallons of deisel in building 7...is it not reasonable to expect if this "container" was "feeding" the fires that we would have seen a massive fireball well BEFORE the 7 hours had passed? Would not the fires have made their way, as they do, to the source, and over a period of time heated the 22,000 gallon container to the point of a massive explosion? Whether low volatility deisel or not. After all, these fires weakened MASSIVE steel beams to the point of failure and did so, so the building collapsed in a PERFECTLY symmetrical pattern (of course someone stated there was in fact a kink, woopdy). I see what i can see.
I know many EXPERTS...
When in doubt..."FUDGE THE NUMBERS".
"Hey Bob! These results ar'nt very statistically significant, pass me the other software package...we'll keep that funding yet."
I take it you are familiar with the Oklahoma city bombing? Where a low velocity Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil truck bomb is supposed to have demolished the reinforced concrete columns of a large building from up to 100ft away? The just retired head of Airforce Weapons Testing considered the "official" report a "joke". Explosive charges were CLEARLY placed directly on the columns and it was reported far and wide that several more "unexploded" devices had been removed by authorities. This "official" report, another "fully baked farce" stands in open contrast to the OBVIOUS facts known by ANYONE who works with explosives. The official report is TOTAL hogwash...like so many...
They spent a HUGE amount more on why the shuttle disintergrated (dragged kicking and screaming mind you) but "starved" the investigators of the collapse of the WTC buildings of funds to the point where MANY quit in disgust. Again...do a internet search. ALL mainstream articles.
The key to your OWN hubris and OWN downfall is the fact that you rely on a report, described by MANY "EXPERTS" as a "half baked farce". You rely on data that is described as a "half baked farce". Your data is therefore a "farce" and your conclusions OBVIOUSLY so.
Your conclusion is cast in stone based on the fact that you cannot see what is before your eyes because you cannot make the next leap. It is simply out of your narrow paradigm and would involve a "reasonably" broad knowledge of geo-politics, economics and history plus a good dose in the psychology of tyrants and their tactics. My house wife Mother possesses this.
Again is there ANY "specialists" out their familiar with the qualities of metals under stress who can cast some light on the "symetrical free fall" of Building 7 which was hit with debris causing MINOR damage at best, alight on several floors burning carpet, wood, fittings etc...alledgedly/maybe being fed by a 22,000 gallon store of deisel which remained UNAFFECTED by said RAGING INFERNO's progress.
A steel structure has collapsed under dubious circumstances. Funding for an investigation was with held. Experts in the field consider the OFFICIAL REPORT a "half baked farce". Perhaps some simple testing of identical structures on a small scale can shed some light on the mystery.
Thank you Fran Lepton for your input. A good question.
[size=medium]\"The Office\" is the greatest comedy...ever. [/size]