All in the family
My lawyer brother-in-law sent this to me yesterday. A well-reasoned retort to my 9/11 columns. Check it out ...
Stephen,
Just perused your 9/11 musings on the gonzo blog. Ellen informed me that you had written on the topic after I relayed what a co-worker had told me about "Loose Change."
I'm not an expert in engineering or fires, but I found a few things that contradict what my esteemed colleague (fellow FedEx knuckledragger) said was proported in "lax coinage" and also in your article.
Check out: http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=112003. According to that site only one-third of the Edificio Windsor (32 floors) was destroyed by the fire (started by a cigarette) yet part of the building did collapse and firefighters had to abandon the building due to the risk of collpase of the structure.
In addition (although the site above does not specify), the design of Torre WIndsor and the WTC are vastly different - here's how.
The WTC incorporated a prefabricated steel lattice (the ugly looking vertical lines on the outside) with concrete slabs on steel truss joists and a central core (no interior columns), see http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html. The building in Madrid utilized a more traditional steel framework, i.e., steel columns throughout the entire structure. .
The planes that hit the towers were not 747s, but 767 and 757 (smaller). Although there were several 707, 767, and 757 configurations manufactured (with varying weights) there is not much difference in dimensions or fuel capacity. One could certainly conclude that they were similar in size to the 707 by the unfortunate occurrence of 9/11.
Why? The WTC did withstand the impact of the aircraft, just as the engineer had projected it would, i.e., the building did not fall over as a result of being hit by the planes.
However, if the fire in the Madrid tower (with no external fuel source) was hot enough to cause a partial collapse, is it unreasonable to believe that the combination of fire (with lots of external propellant) and the structural damage caused by the impact to not only the outer steel lattice but also the inner core, would not diminish the structural integrity of the building?
Note, one source cited in "Lookin' for the 911 truth" (at bellaciao.org) is an assistant "professor" at Clemson, Judy Wood. More impressive than the fact that she has a PhD, she is a member of the Society of Experimental Mechanics, the International Association for Dental Research, and the Academy of Dental Materials, (WTF?)
see http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdf.
Contrary to Dr. Jones' billiard ball comparison, the collapse is an example of an INELASTIC COLLISON (like a moving car hitting a parked car, the parked car does not absorb all the energy, but moves in the direction the car that hit it was travelling immediately), which controverts her calculations.
The photos she posted (to support her theory) indicate her lack of expertise, e.g., you can see large chunks falling from the upper floors, i.e., falling debris is visible ahead of the demolition wave. The banter regarding the dust is particularly amusing.
Post a Comment
