On Sep 8, 11:33 pm, "Steve Terry"  wrote:

>
> You don't have to even approach melting the steel for a building to
> collapse.

Symmetrical collapse at free fall speed, and without anything toppling
over, is *very* hard to achieve, and it takes demolition experts
several weeks, and sometimes months, to plan to take down a building
this way. Weakening by fire would cause a steel building to collapse
gradually, with sections falling away a bit at a time over many hours.

> It largely depends on how heavily loaded the structure is to it's collapse
> point in the first place.

Actually the twin towers were massively overdesigned, to withstand
more than twice the weight which they actually carried.

> Quite obviously the buildings involved were very heavily loaded

Well within design tolerance.

> Look at the hundreds of tons of aerial structure alone on tower two,
> all had hundreds of tons of roof mounted A/C equipment as well,
> and water tanks, don't forget each meter cubed of water is a metric ton!
> never mind internal loads!

The twin towers had very thick steel columns, which got progressively
thicker from the top to the bottom. Each central core alone had 47
columns, with many more around the perimeter. Buildings are designed
to carry the load which they are given.

> Of course will all that massive top loading they are going to fall straight
> down, it's a miracle they don't anyway.

When steel-framed buildings collapse due to structural failure, they
don't collapse straight down into themselves, because straight down is
where all the resistance is. Instead they buckle, topple over (as seen
after major earthquakes), or parts of them may break away and fall to
the ground (as seen in the Madrid example).

> Obviously a much lighter loaded and stronger framed structure

American building codes are stricter than Spanish ones.

> >Ahh, so you think Osama "did" 9/11 because he was jealous of his
> >brothers' fraternising with the President and felt left out! I
> >see............
>
> Not just his brother, the Bushs had corrupted most of his family

Define 'corrupted'.

> >>Even the Iranian Gov has admitted that Bush senior bought the 1980
> >>presidential election by bribing the Iranians with a suitcase of money to
> >>keep the US embassy hostages, making Carter look impotent. Carters mistake
> >>being honest was not to offer a bigger suitcase of money to release them.
> >>But of course he had no idea what dirty tricks Bush Senior was up to.
>
> >That sounds like a conspiracy theory! You tinfoil-hat-wearing nutter
> >you!
>
> Nope, it was in a TV documentary a few years ago where a BBC or ITN
> reporter interviewed a high ranking Iranian minister.

It wouldn't surprise me, but don't believe everything you hear on the
TV - things are usually much more complicated.

> I guess you are in the US where news gets filtered even more than here?

No I'm in CCTV land - the UK.

In article <c754863e-74a2-4386-a7ee-
1489a40c1d09@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Jamie_p84@excite.com wrote:
> Actually the twin towers were massively overdesigned, to withstand
> more than twice the weight which they actually carried.
> 
> > Quite obviously the buildings involved were very heavily loaded
> 
> Well within design tolerance.

They were only designed for the worst thing that could be expected to 
happen to them, which at the time didn't include suicidal nutters 
flying fully fuelled commercial airliners directly into them. Until the 
day it happened it was literally unthinkable that anybody would 
actually do that.

What happened next has been well researched. The impact weakened the 
structure, the intense heat warped and dislodged some of the beams, 
which weakened it some more, and some time later gravity did the rest. 
Gravity acts downwards, not sideways.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

tony sayer wrote:

> And where did I read that they were designed in mind with a 707
> walloping them..

I heard or read somewhere that the towers were built to withstand a 130+ 
MPH gust of wind, which someone calculated applies more force on a 
building that size, than an airliner hitting ?

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:33:40 +0100, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>I heard or read somewhere that the towers were built to withstand a 130+ 
>MPH gust of wind, which someone calculated applies more force on a 
>building that size, than an airliner hitting ?

Yes, but that would be a distributed load rather than the point load
applied by a colliding aircraft.

-- 
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

In article ,
   Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> tony sayer wrote:

> > And where did I read that they were designed in mind with a 707
> > walloping them..

> I heard or read somewhere that the towers were built to withstand a 130+ 
> MPH gust of wind, which someone calculated applies more force on a 
> building that size, than an airliner hitting ?

it might, if evenly distributed.  But what happened was almost a point
impact.  From the tv pictures you can see how the building dwarfed the
plane. Slap a balloon with the flat of your hand and it absorbs the blow -
touch it with a pin point and it bursts.  Not quite the same, but near
enough.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article
,
    wrote:
> On Sep 9, 1:05 pm, charles  wrote:

> > it might, if evenly distributed.  But what happened was almost a point
> > impact.  From the tv pictures you can see how the building dwarfed the
> > plane. Slap a balloon with the flat of your hand and it absorbs the
> > blow - touch it with a pin point and it bursts.  Not quite the same,
> > but near enough.

> I think you win the award for worst analogy ever. :p

thank you. I enjoy collecting awards. ;-)

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:45:12 -0700 (PDT), jamie_p84@excite.com wrote:

>I'm not wriggling. Gravity does make things fall downwards - what is
>your point?

To correct yours.

-- 
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, overlooking Lochs Long and Goil in Argyll, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.gt-britain.co.uk/weather

On Sep 10, 3:29 pm, Alan White  wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:45:12 -0700 (PDT), jamie_...@excite.com wrote:
> >I'm not wriggling. Gravity does make things fall downwards - what is
> >your point?
>
> To correct yours.

It takes more than just gravity and localised fires to collapse an
entire well-built 110-storey steel-framed skyscraper at near free-fall
speed. Sorry if I hadn't made that clear in my previous posts.

wrote in message 
news:b8f83107-354e-484a-bcf7-550ad7a59662@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 10, 3:29 pm, Alan White  wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:45:12 -0700 (PDT), jamie_...@excite.com wrote:
>> >I'm not wriggling. Gravity does make things fall downwards - what is
>> >your point?
>>
>> To correct yours.
>
>It takes more than just gravity and localised fires to collapse an
>entire well-built 110-storey steel-framed skyscraper at near free-fall
>speed. Sorry if I hadn't made that clear in my previous posts.
>
>
It take thousands of tons of extra loading, what do you think it had
installed, Papier-mâché fittings?

Steve Terry

In article <b8f83107-354e-484a-bcf7-
550ad7a59662@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Jamie_p84@excite.com wrote:
> On Sep 10, 3:29 pm, Alan White  wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:45:12 -0700 (PDT), jamie_...@excite.com wrote:
> > >I'm not wriggling. Gravity does make things fall downwards - what is
> > >your point?
> >
> > To correct yours.
> 
> It takes more than just gravity and localised fires to collapse an
> entire well-built 110-storey steel-framed skyscraper at near free-fall
> speed. Sorry if I hadn't made that clear in my previous posts.

On precisely how much experience of 110-storey collapsing buildings do 
you base this assertion?

In fact, before September 11, how much experience of 110-storey 
collapsing buildings did *anybody* have?

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Sep 10, 6:16 pm, Roderick Stewart
 wrote:
> In article <b8f83107-354e-484a-bcf7-
>
> 550ad7a59...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Jamie_...@excite.com wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 3:29 pm, Alan White  wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:45:12 -0700 (PDT), jamie_...@excite.com wrote:
> > > >I'm not wriggling. Gravity does make things fall downwards - what is
> > > >your point?
>
> > > To correct yours.
>
> > It takes more than just gravity and localised fires to collapse an
> > entire well-built 110-storey steel-framed skyscraper at near free-fall
> > speed. Sorry if I hadn't made that clear in my previous posts.
>
> On precisely how much experience of 110-storey collapsing buildings do
> you base this assertion?

I've looked at the original blueprints for the buildings, I've heard
testimony from the people who built them, I've heard testimony from
senior architects and engineers (this is all available online if you
do the research), and I have knowledge of the basic laws of physics.
Obviously I can't *prove* that they were demolished (just as you can't
*prove* that they weren't), and I'm still open to hard evidence to
support either version of events, but right now, I'm convinced that
the conspiracy theorists have science on their side.

> In fact, before September 11, how much experience of 110-storey
> collapsing buildings did *anybody* have?

Plenty of tall buildings have collapsed. Obviously 110-storey ones are
rare to begin with, but the people who designed them knew what they
were doing.
If the collapses were genuine - especially the collapse of 47-storey
Building 7 after no plane impact and mediocre fires - then why hasn't
there been a global outcry about skyscraper safety in general? because
obviously our own building codes must be seriously flawed if these
collapses were genuine...

In article
,
    wrote:
> On Sep 10, 3:29 pm, Alan White  wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:45:12 -0700 (PDT), jamie_...@excite.com wrote:
> > >I'm not wriggling. Gravity does make things fall downwards - what is
> > >your point?
> >
> > To correct yours.

> It takes more than just gravity and localised fires to collapse an
> entire well-built 110-storey steel-framed skyscraper at near free-fall
> speed. Sorry if I hadn't made that clear in my previous posts.

if you saw the tv documentary a few years ago, you would not have used the
phrase "well-built"

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On Sep 10, 6:41 pm, charles  wrote:
> In article
> ,
>     wrote:
>
> > On Sep 10, 3:29 pm, Alan White  wrote:
> > > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:45:12 -0700 (PDT), jamie_...@excite.com wrote:
> > > >I'm not wriggling. Gravity does make things fall downwards - what is
> > > >your point?
>
> > > To correct yours.
> > It takes more than just gravity and localised fires to collapse an
> > entire well-built 110-storey steel-framed skyscraper at near free-fall
> > speed. Sorry if I hadn't made that clear in my previous posts.
>
> if you saw the tv documentary a few years ago, you would not have used the
> phrase "well-built"

You mean the discredited PBS one called "why the towers collapsed"?
Numerous TV docs have even claimed that the towers were hollow - a
myth which has been doing the rounds since day one.

In article <cf16f4dc-8ce9-492f-ac3b-
033090181d5c@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Jamie_p84@excite.com wrote:
> I've looked at the original blueprints for the buildings, I've heard
> testimony from the people who built them, I've heard testimony from
> senior architects and engineers (this is all available online if you
> do the research), and I have knowledge of the basic laws of physics.
> Obviously I can't *prove* that they were demolished (just as you can't
> *prove* that they weren't), and I'm still open to hard evidence to
> support either version of events, but right now, I'm convinced that
> the conspiracy theorists have science on their side.

I can't *prove* anything at all about the incident, but along with the 
entire world I've seen the video footage of what happened, and plenty of 
explanations of how the buildings were constructed and what happened to 
them, and none of it appears to conflict with the laws of physics, or 
the way I would expect buildings of that type to collapse. I'm surprised 
anybody sees anything amiss with the observable facts, which all seem 
perfectly rational. It isn't necessary to invoke anything remotely 
implausible in order to accept these facts at face value.

Unlike the case for CIA involvement on the other hand, which requires 
quite a suspension of disbelief to accept that they'd contemplate 
anything so monstrous, and that all the people who would have had to be 
involved in the conspiracy would have kept it secret so long, even if 
they'd all have agreed to do it in the first place without blowing 
whistles right left and centre before it was allowed to happen.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Sep 11, 12:59 am, Roderick Stewart
 wrote:
> In article <cf16f4dc-8ce9-492f-ac3b-
>
> 033090181...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Jamie_...@excite.com wrote:
> > I've looked at the original blueprints for the buildings, I've heard
> > testimony from the people who built them, I've heard testimony from
> > senior architects and engineers (this is all available online if you
> > do the research), and I have knowledge of the basic laws of physics.
> > Obviously I can't *prove* that they were demolished (just as you can't
> > *prove* that they weren't), and I'm still open to hard evidence to
> > support either version of events, but right now, I'm convinced that
> > the conspiracy theorists have science on their side.
>
> I can't *prove* anything at all about the incident, but along with the
> entire world I've seen the video footage of what happened, and plenty of
> explanations of how the buildings were constructed and what happened to
> them, and none of it appears to conflict with the laws of physics, or
> the way I would expect buildings of that type to collapse. I'm surprised
> anybody sees anything amiss with the observable facts, which all seem
> perfectly rational. It isn't necessary to invoke anything remotely
> implausible in order to accept these facts at face value.

That's up to you - you haven't really qualified your position with any
details or explanations, though.
Personally I agree with most of this:
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/case4EDcardfront.jpg


> Unlike the case for CIA involvement on the other hand, which requires
> quite a suspension of disbelief to accept that they'd contemplate
> anything so monstrous, and that all the people who would have had to be
> involved in the conspiracy would have kept it secret so long, even if
> they'd all have agreed to do it in the first place without blowing
> whistles right left and centre before it was allowed to happen.

It wouldn't necessarily involve a huge number of people, but I bet
there are plenty of shadowy figures in the so-called "ruling elite"
who will know, and who will never tell.

Moving onto the Pentagon attack - see if you can spot the Boeing -
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

- and then, can you explain how a big plane disappeared into a small
hole?
http://www.jaimz.ca/images/!!!compall.jpg

In article
,
    wrote:
> On Sep 10, 3:29 pm, Alan White  wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:45:12 -0700 (PDT), jamie_...@excite.com wrote:
> > >I'm not wriggling. Gravity does make things fall downwards - what is
> > >your point?
> >
> > To correct yours.

> It takes more than just gravity and localised fires to collapse an
> entire well-built 110-storey steel-framed skyscraper at near free-fall
> speed. Sorry if I hadn't made that clear in my previous posts.

Afraid I have found the argument thus far somewhat too boring and daftly
off-topic for this group to bother to read every posting. So perhaps you
can say at this point:

What qualifications/professional experience do you have in civil/structural
engineering?

How many large buildings have you designed, or tested for failure modes,
etc?

Apologies if you've already given the above data and I missed it.

Slainte,

Jim

-- 
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <3d0664b5-a4a3-4870-afb1-
1a5136b3b467@l43g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Jamie_p84@excite.com wrote:
> > I can't *prove* anything at all about the incident, but along with the
> > entire world I've seen the video footage of what happened, and plenty of
> > explanations of how the buildings were constructed and what happened to
> > them, and none of it appears to conflict with the laws of physics, or
> > the way I would expect buildings of that type to collapse. I'm surprised
> > anybody sees anything amiss with the observable facts, which all seem
> > perfectly rational. It isn't necessary to invoke anything remotely
> > implausible in order to accept these facts at face value.
> 
> That's up to you - you haven't really qualified your position with any
> details or explanations, though.

I think I have a reasonable knowledge of basic physics, no doubt like most 
readers of this newsgroup. At least I know that gravity acts downwards, and 
that a large building standing on a firm base would need a considerable 
sideways force to make it fall in any other direction.

Alternatively a considerable imbalance in the distribution of support at its 
base might have provided enough of a turning moment to make it fall 
sideways, but that that would have been *very* suspicious if it had 
happened, considering that we all saw the initial damage being done near the 
top of the building while its base stood firm.

I also think I have sufficient understanding of human nature to know how 
difficult it would be to maintain secrecy of a conspiracy of the type you 
seem to be suggesting, considering the number of people who would have to be 
involved.

> Personally I agree with most of this:
> http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/case4EDcardfront.jpg

As the upper floors fell downwards compressing the rooms beneath them as 
they went, it *would* create a series of bangs that some might mistake for 
explosions, and debris *would* fly outwards - where else would you expect it 
to go? And so on; I could criticise the rest of the list in detail but I 
can't be bothered; it's just too silly.

Personally I'm not so easily convinced by a list of unsupported conclusions 
that conflict with common scientific knowledge and common sense.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Sep 11, 12:25 pm, Roderick Stewart
>
> I think I have a reasonable knowledge of basic physics, no doubt like most
> readers of this newsgroup. At least I know that gravity acts downwards, and
> that a large building standing on a firm base would need a considerable
> sideways force to make it fall in any other direction.
>
> Alternatively a considerable imbalance in the distribution of support at its
> base might have provided enough of a turning moment to make it fall
> sideways, but that that would have been *very* suspicious if it had
> happened, considering that we all saw the initial damage being done near the
> top of the building while its base stood firm.

I never suggested it should have fallen sideways - I talked about how
skyscrapers fall sideways in earthquakes, and how their structure
remains intact, with then hitting the ground all in one piece.

Although one of the hardest parts of controlled demolition is making
sure a building does fall straight down and doesn't topple over during
the demolition sequence.

> I also think I have sufficient understanding of human nature to know how
> difficult it would be to maintain secrecy of a conspiracy of the type you
> seem to be suggesting, considering the number of people who would have to be
> involved.

I disagree - we're talking about the 'top brass' here, not your
average Joe.

> > Personally I agree with most of this:
> >http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/case4EDcardfront.jpg
>
> As the upper floors fell downwards compressing the rooms beneath them as
> they went, it *would* create a series of bangs that some might mistake for

And each floor offered zero resistance? Even if each undamaged floor
had held up for one second after it was hit by the floors above, then
it should've taken 100 seconds for the towers to fall.

> explosions, and debris *would* fly outwards - where else would you expect it
> to go? And so on; I could criticise the rest of the list in detail but I
> can't be bothered; it's just too silly.

I'd expect the concrete - which made up 90% of the dust we all saw
flying outwards - to largely remain solid and to fall straight down
with the rest of the building.

> Personally I'm not so easily convinced by a list of unsupported conclusions
> that conflict with common scientific knowledge and common sense.

I just keep an open mind, because saying it definitely wasn't a
conspiracy is just as bad as saying it definitely was.

What are your theories on Building 7 and The Pentagon?

In article , 
Jamie_p84@excite.com wrote:
> > I also think I have sufficient understanding of human nature to know how
> > difficult it would be to maintain secrecy of a conspiracy of the type you
> > seem to be suggesting, considering the number of people who would have to be
> > involved.
> 
> I disagree - we're talking about the 'top brass' here, not your
> average Joe.

Do you think the "top brass" planted the explosives and control systems 
themselves, negotiated with the terrorists themselves vis-a-vis the synchronism 
of the explosions with the plane attacks (relying on nobody in the terrorist 
organisation talking about it afterwards), and sifting through the rubble to 
remove any incriminating evidence afterwards, all by themselves, without anybody 
noticing?

Or did they assign these tasks to average Joes and have them killed afterwards?

I think you're overestimating the competence of governments at keeping things 
confidential. Ours has shown itself to be spectacularly incompetent in this area 
in recent months, and Americans are the same kind of human beings as we are.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

jamie_p84@excite.com wrote:
> 
> And each floor offered zero resistance? Even if each undamaged floor
> had held up for one second after it was hit by the floors above, then
> it should've taken 100 seconds for the towers to fall.
> 

Why would the floor have stood up for a second?

If you look at the video of the 1st tower, it's about the top quarter of 
the building that goes, and as it goes it tilts a bit - it doesn't drop 
straight. But it does drop nearly vertically.  The impact of that part 
dropping even one floor onto the part below is going to cause an 
instantaneous failure of the floors above and below the original 
failure.  You can't clearly see that part for the dust.  As the debris 
from the now crushed three floors drops onto the next one down, that 
will go too, and so on - so it seems entirely reasonable to me that all 
the lower floors will collapse essentially vertically.

Free fall?  I don't have the measurements.  But I'm not surprised it's 
close.

If there is a conspiracy, it's one to keep quiet that tall buildings 
have a failure mode like this.  I admit it crossed my mind when I went 
for a job interview in Canary Wharf...

Enough of this.  It's like arguing about religion - all the minds are 
closed.

Andy

On Sep 11, 5:57 pm, Roderick Stewart
 wrote:

>
> Do you think the "top brass" planted the explosives and control systems
> themselves, negotiated with the terrorists themselves vis-a-vis the synchronism
> of the explosions with the plane attacks (relying on nobody in the terrorist
> organisation talking about it afterwards), and sifting through the rubble to
> remove any incriminating evidence afterwards, all by themselves, without
> anybody noticing?

If it was an inside job then there won't have been any terrorists
involved! I can't believe you'd think otherwise. Clearly the planes
would have been unmanned drones (yes this can be done), and this
brings me onto another important point - why were the planes not
intercepted by the US military? This is standard procedure after
contact with a passenger airliner is lost, and there are many false
alarms every year where they do indeed get intercepted within minutes
of the alarm being raised, just as there were before 9/11.

> Or did they assign these tasks to average Joes and have them killed
> afterwards?

I personally think it was 100% carried out by the US military - they
have very loyal employees, experience of demolitions, of flying planes
by remote control, and of firing cruise missiles at the Pentagon
(complete with the required "friendly" coded transponder signal to
disable the Pentagon's extensive automated anti-aircraft missile
defence system, it being the most secure building on the planet
n'all).


> I think you're overestimating the competence of governments at keeping things
> confidential. Ours has shown itself to be spectacularly incompetent in this area
> in recent months, and Americans are the same kind of human beings as we
> are.

Anything of *importance* within a government is kept secret - there
are plenty of minor leaks and minor scandals - lots of "controlled
criticism" to keep the Punch and Judy show of democracy going - but
anything big is kept under guard, a rare anomaly being the David
Kelly / BBC "45-minutes" WMD scandal, which somehow found its way into
the mainstream media unblocked, and was quickly pounced upon by the
powers that be.

On Sep 11, 8:38 pm, Andy Champ  wrote:
> jamie_...@excite.com wrote:

>
> Why would the floor have stood up for a second?

Because each undamaged thick concrete steel-reinforced floor, attached
as it was to the huge steel-matrix skeleton of the building, would
offer resistance - even if you dropped a load which was 200 times the
weight of what that floor was designed to carry, it might not last
long, but it *would* still offer resistance.
An analogy is when a speeding car loses control on a country lane and
smashes through a hedge - the hedge is no match for it, and gives way
almost instantly, but it *does* offer resistance which slows the car
down.
The second tower fell in 10.02 seconds. Freefall speed - ie. the top
part of the building falling through nothing but air, instead of
thousands of tons of intact steel and concrete - would have been 9.2
seconds - this simply doesn't add up.
Additionally, the second plane hit the tower at a lower point - almost
half way down - so after the collapse, why was the upper part of the
building not still in one piece, albeit on the ground. After all,
there was no load being put on it.

In article , 
Jamie_p84@excite.com wrote:
> > Do you think the "top brass" planted the explosives and control systems
> > themselves, negotiated with the terrorists themselves vis-a-vis the synchronism
> > of the explosions with the plane attacks (relying on nobody in the terrorist
> > organisation talking about it afterwards), and sifting through the rubble to
> > remove any incriminating evidence afterwards, all by themselves, without
> > anybody noticing?
> 
> If it was an inside job then there won't have been any terrorists
> involved! I can't believe you'd think otherwise. Clearly the planes
> would have been unmanned drones (yes this can be done),

Do you really think it could be done without any of the airport staff or flight 
crew noticing that there was nobody in the cockpit? Who were the flight controllers 
talking to?

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:57:42 +0100, Roderick Stewart
 wrote:

> and Americans are the same kind of human beings as we are.

Oh God, are you sure? How depressing. I thought they were a different
species. They certainly act like it.

In article
,
    wrote:
> On Sep 11, 12:25 pm, Roderick Stewart


> I never suggested it should have fallen sideways - I talked about how
> skyscrapers fall sideways in earthquakes, and how their structure
> remains intact, with then hitting the ground all in one piece.

Reasonable perhaps given that the earthquake impulse might be a shear at
the base - destroying the structural integrity at the base - and imparting
a torque impulse to break symmetry about the vertical.

> Although one of the hardest parts of controlled demolition is making
> sure a building does fall straight down and doesn't topple over during
> the demolition sequence.

There may perhaps be other 'hardest parts'. There is also a distinction
being "making sure" of something and arguing that it can *only* happen as a
result of actions to ensure that result. :-)  Perhaps when you have
responded and said what your qualifications and experience are as a civil,
structural, or demolition engineer we could decide if your opinions on this
were worth considering.  :-)


> >
> > As the upper floors fell downwards compressing the rooms beneath them
> > as they went, it *would* create a series of bangs that some might
> > mistake for

> And each floor offered zero resistance? Even if each undamaged floor had
> held up for one second after it was hit by the floors above, then it
> should've taken 100 seconds for the towers to fall.

Perhaps you should tell us what free fall velocity would be reached as a
function of the distance in number of floors, and the impulse
accellerations imparted when each floor hits the next below.

> > explosions, and debris *would* fly outwards - where else would you
> > expect it to go? And so on; I could criticise the rest of the list in
> > detail but I can't be bothered; it's just too silly.

> I'd expect the concrete - which made up 90% of the dust we all saw
> flying outwards - to largely remain solid and to fall straight down with
> the rest of the building.

Here I'd be interested in your estimate of the amount of potential energy
converted into kinetic energy when the building fell. Then work this out
per kg of material. Any idea? The problem here is as above, what you'd
"expect" may not mean much if you don't really understand the relevant
details of the science and engineering involved, or the scale of the
numbers involved.

> What are your theories on Building 7 and The Pentagon?

That it might make a good name for a rock band.  :-)

Slainte,

Jim

-- 
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article
,
    wrote:
> On Sep 11, 8:38 pm, Andy Champ  wrote:
> > jamie_...@excite.com wrote:

> >
> > Why would the floor have stood up for a second?

> Because each undamaged thick concrete steel-reinforced floor, attached
> as it was to the huge steel-matrix skeleton of the building, would offer
> resistance - even if you dropped a load which was 200 times the weight
> of what that floor was designed to carry, it might not last long, but it
> *would* still offer resistance.

I look forwards to your calculations to estimate the acceleration and force
impluses when each floor was struck by the accumlated falling mass above
it, and how long it would take the columns to buckle beyond their recovery
limits. Please give your working so we can check your answer.  :-)


> An analogy is when a speeding car loses control on a country lane and
> smashes through a hedge - the hedge is no match for it, and gives way
> almost instantly, but it *does* offer resistance which slows the car
> down. The second tower fell in 10.02 seconds. 

How did you measure that with an accuracy of 10 milliseconds? And do you
mean all parts started to fall at the same instant - or within 10
milliseconds of each other?


> Freefall speed - ie. the top part of the building falling through
> nothing but air, instead of thousands of tons of intact steel and
> concrete - would have been 9.2 seconds - this simply doesn't add up.

Yet - as I read this - you still haven't given any info on your relevant
engineering qualifications or experience that would allow you to know if it
"adds up" or not. Maybe you are simply lacking the necessary understanding
and haven't actually done a correct analysis.


> Additionally, the second plane hit the tower at a lower point - almost
> half way down - so after the collapse, why was the upper part of the
> building not still in one piece, albeit on the ground. After all, there
> was no load being put on it.

Your 9.2 seconds for free fall agrees approximately with statement that the
building was 400 m high in another posting. Assume the top half weight was
250,000 tonnes and estimate how much potential energy the top half would
have to liberate as kinetic, etc, when falling to the ground. Then say what
your estimate would be of the peak impulse force when all this hit the
ground at essentially free-fall velocity and tell us how big this would be
to suit your claim that this force was "no load".  :-)

Slainte,

Jim

-- 
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 12 Sep, 09:19, Jim Lesurf  wrote:

> I look forwards to your calculations to estimate the acceleration and force
> impluses when each floor was struck by the accumlated falling mass above
> it, and how long it would take the columns to buckle beyond their recovery
> limits. Please give your working so we can check your answer.  :-)

I have to prove myself to you? You're by boss? or my tutor?
Can I cheat and see the answers before the test - you *do* have the
answers, right?

jamie_p84@excite.com wrote:

> On 12 Sep, 09:19, Jim Lesurf  wrote:
> 
>> I look forwards to your calculations to estimate the acceleration and
>> force impluses when each floor was struck by the accumlated falling mass
>> above it, and how long it would take the columns to buckle beyond their
>> recovery
>> limits. Please give your working so we can check your answer.  :-)
> 
> I have to prove myself to you? You're by boss? or my tutor?
> Can I cheat and see the answers before the test - you *do* have the
> answers, right?

You've been demanding answers to your "questions" but when you are asked,
then this is your response?  A word beginning with H springs to mind.

In article
,
    wrote:
> On 12 Sep, 09:19, Jim Lesurf  wrote:

> > I look forwards to your calculations to estimate the acceleration and
> > force impluses when each floor was struck by the accumlated falling
> > mass above it, and how long it would take the columns to buckle beyond
> > their recovery limits. Please give your working so we can check your
> > answer.  :-)

> I have to prove myself to you? 

Nope. See below. But it might help others to decide if your claims are
worthless or not if you could actually answer the questions I put to you.
Your choice, though.


> You're by boss? or my tutor? 

Nope. Just someone who is curious to see if you have any idea what you were
talking about when you have made various assertions about what is, or is
not, plausible as an explanation in terms of physical science and
engineering to back up some of your claims.

You are able to decide not to answer the questions I put to you. Each of us
are then able to decide for ourself if that indicates that you have evaded
answering, and that it would be a waste of time to take you seriously.

Your problem here is that this is a 'tech' group and so is read by people
who have some understanding of science and engineering. In those areas
people decide on the basis of having both assessable evidence and signs
that someone who makes an assertion actually knows the relevant science and
engineering. It is therefore routine in science and engineering to ask
people to back their statements as I invited you to do. Given that is
normal in such fields your response in itself is perhaps an indicator of a
lack of understanding of this quite basic part of science and engineering.

If the person making an assertion can give a cogent explanation that
shows they understand the relevant science and engineering, and that
they can give reasons for taking the supporting data as being valid, 

If you had answered the questions and showed your engineering abilities we
could then have decided if it was worth taking your assertions seriously
enough to proceed further. This would not 'prove' anything, but is
just the basic initial step in a process. Alas, we seem to have
fallen at the first fence if you don't give any sign that you
actually understand the physics and engineering relevant to your
assertions.

Up to others to decide for themselves how to judge this, but for me
your response is adequate until such time as you might change it, or
someone else is able to show such claims have a serious basis in
science and engineering terms.


So, you have no need to answer my questions. No 'proof' is necessary for me
to decide how to regard your claims at this point. Nor do you have to care.

  HTH  :-)


Slainte,

Jim

-- 
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <gadkhe$5s6$1@aioe.org>, sandman 
wrote:
> jamie_p84@excite.com wrote:

> > On 12 Sep, 09:19, Jim Lesurf  wrote:
> > 
> >> I look forwards to your calculations to estimate the acceleration and
> >> force impluses when each floor was struck by the accumlated falling
> >> mass above it, and how long it would take the columns to buckle
> >> beyond their recovery limits. Please give your working so we can
> >> check your answer.  :-)
> > 
> > I have to prove myself to you? You're by boss? or my tutor? Can I
> > cheat and see the answers before the test - you *do* have the answers,
> > right?

> You've been demanding answers to your "questions" but when you are
> asked, then this is your response?  A word beginning with H springs to
> mind.

To be kinder, I was thinking of the next letter of the alphabet.  :-)

Of course, should he demean himself into being able to answer the points
put to him we might be able to show he does have some idea of the relevant
engineering, etc. Alas, as things stand[1] there is no sign of that.

Mind you, this subthread has set me wondering about things like just how
much gravitational potential energy there is stored in a large building!
Easy not to realise just how much mass they have. 

Slainte,

Jim

[1] pun alert.  ;->

-- 
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , 
Jamie_p84@excite.com wrote:
> > I look forwards to your calculations to estimate the acceleration and force
> > impluses when each floor was struck by the accumlated falling mass above
> > it, and how long it would take the columns to buckle beyond their recovery
> > limits. Please give your working so we can check your answer.  :-)
> 
> I have to prove myself to you? You're by boss? or my tutor?
> Can I cheat and see the answers before the test - you *do* have the
> answers, right?

You don't have to prove yourself to anybody, but if your intention behind the 
detailed technical statements you make is that other people will believe them, 
then a little evidence by way of sustantiation would help your own cause, which 
would presumably be in your own interests.

Rod.
-- 
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Jim Lesurf wrote:

> In article <gadkhe$5s6$1@aioe.org>, sandman 
>>A word beginning with H springs to mind.
> 
> To be kinder, I was thinking of the next letter of the alphabet.  :-)

Imb... uh... inconsistent, yes.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Roderick Stewart
 saying something like:

>What happened next has been well researched. The impact weakened the 
>structure, the intense heat [1] warped and dislodged some of the beams, 
>which weakened it some more, and some time later gravity did the rest. 
>Gravity acts downwards, not sideways.


[1] Nobody seems to recall the breeze that was blowing that day -
certainly enough to feed the flames and get a minor blowtorch effect
going in the fiery floors.
-- 

Dave