Want the proof that 9/11 was an inside job?
Do you think it's possible our government could have aided, or even carried out the attacks of September 11th? Do you think that any suggestion of such a thing is ridiculous "conspiracy theory?" If so, I welcome you to read on, and even more, feel free to question me or raise any doubts you might have, or evidence you've found which contradicts
( Read more... )
Uhm, yeah, I'm well aware of that and it was pretty much my point. I was saying that there are structural engineers supporting both sides of the argument. To me at least, there does not seem to be an expert consensus on this issue, and so to you and me (people who are not structural engineers) it is difficult to judge the superiority of either side.
"Actually find me a reference where someone with good credentials backs the official story (besides articles in Popular Mechanics who's editor Benjamin Chertoff, by the way, is the cousin of the Secretary of Homeland Security..."
I'll ignore that ad hominem argument, of which I was already aware, for the moment (attacking the man instead of finding logical problems with his argument) and will attempt to give you at least a couple of other expert opinions.
First I have Dr. Thomas Eagar, "A professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." He attempts to explain the "symmetrical free fall" of the WTC without any recourse to a controlled demolition theory:
"NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?
Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over." From (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html)
Or we have Zdenek P. Bazant (probably a Czech, as a side note, as his last name means "pheasant" in Czech), "Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science, Northwestern University" who explains the collapse in these terms:
"The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft (Appendix I). So why did a total collapse occur? The cause was the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating lowered the yield strength and caused viscoplastic (creep) buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the tower and of the columns in the building core." (from http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/)
Again, a highly qualified individual is able to explain the collapse within the bounds of the "official version."
continued...
Reply
30 minutes? That's "prolonged heating" ?
I would also add here that none of these other pancake theorists seem to have an explanation for the sulfide residue that was found on the wreckage. Stephen Jones, Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University suggests that sulfide residue is a byproduct of a thermite detonation.
Reply
Leave a comment