> As for the 'building don't fall down like that claim', how 
> many 47-story building collapses have there been?  After a 7 
> hour fire?  How many 110-story buildings have had planes 
> smack into them?

Please re-read the initial post. The building I was pointing to was a 47
story, all steel frame building. I even repeated in a later post that I
don't feel anyone knows enough about the physics of the twin towers to say
that there was anything wrong there. Again, building 7 is the one that
doesn't make sense.

Others have said that the weight of the top floor would accelerate the lower
floors and account for the rapid fall. That is an interesting point, which
may very well be correct. I don't know. I would love to hear from someone
who does. However, from all the videos, it is very clear that it started
falling from the bottom, not the top. If fires heated the steel, why
wouldn't the top have fallen first?

Others have said that the building was badly damaged as shown in photos from
other angles. I haven't found any photos of building 7 showing damage.

> Just because the professor stating the question is a smart 
> guy doesn't mean he's not nuts.  Linus Pauling was a 
> Nobel-prize winning smart guy, and he turned into an orange 
> flavoured froot loop.

This professor is well regarded.

> Look like the Mythbusters are going to have to torch a 
> 47-story building and see what happens.

That, I might pay to see...

---
James.
 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist