Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
In addition to the fire the planes caused you also have to take into account the physical damage the two planes did to the buildings.  I am no expert on constructual engineering but a crash of that magnitude must have done something serious to the bearing structures of the two buildings.  

Both planes most certainly destroyed much of the supporting constructions at the impact area.  It was just a matter of time before the stories above the impact area would collapse.  Now, the total and symmetric collapse of both buildings is harder to explain.  It might perhaps have something to do with the increased acceleration of the collapse, still I am sure an engineer might come up with a plausible explanation to this.    

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Sat Nov 12th, 2005 at 06:38:59 PM EST
The central argument behind this conspiracy theory is the unlikelihood of a symmetric collapse absent well-placed, simultaneously exploding demolition charges. No sensible person would make this argument if the collapse were strikingly asymmetric.

In fact, however, if you look at the video of the first collapse, it is grossly asymmetric: As seen in this video, the chunk of the building above the fire rotates counter-clockwise as it falls, turning by about 20 degrees before it disappears into the smoke. No careful demolition was needed to produce such a sloppy result.

Now notice that it falls essentially straight down -- if you watch the base of the chunk you'll see that it moves about as far to the right as the top moves to the left. It's turning around its center, not toppling to one side from its base. Why is this? Because there is nothing pushing it strongly to one side or the other. The pillars on the right that lasted a bit longer were pushing up; this gave the chunk some angular momentum, but not much of the linear momentum needed to move it's center of gravity to one side.

After that, the falling chunk of the building smashes the lower parts straight down. Again, there is nothing to push stuff to one side or the other, so the overall collapse is nearly symmetric.

This is enough to show that the good professor isn't a very good physicist, or even a very good observer of videos of the event that he has labored to understand. Accordingly, I wouldn't place much stock in the rest of what he says, either in the alleged facts or in the analysis. Save this piece of tin foil for lining pans.

-One in a series of technical notes on political issues by Technopolitical-

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Sun Nov 13th, 2005 at 12:20:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, after going through that FEMA report the Professor seems to have got it wrong.  The stories above the point of impact clearly tilts over and collapses asymmetrically.  The guy seems to have bet his reputation on the wrong theory if this is going to published in a science journal.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Sun Nov 13th, 2005 at 10:00:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The second tower to collapse collapses essentially in a straight line, as does WTC 7 hours later.

The section of the first tower that detaches and topples over essentially disintegrates in mid-air.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Nov 13th, 2005 at 10:30:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry,  I was of course referring to the first tower and the video showing the top stories of the building toppling over.

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
by Gjermund E Jansen (gjans1@hotmail.com) on Sun Nov 13th, 2005 at 10:56:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series