Wow, that's very compelling, and hard to refute. It's as if the public
was counted on to be
complete idiots and ignore facts that would be played endlessly on video
without applying
even the most basic science to them. The truly sad thing is that this has
proved largely true.
Even the more conservative version of the pancake theory (the official
theory) is off by
20 seconds! And the single floor pancake (which is the pancake version
more consistent
with the video evidence) is off by 90 seconds!

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Mark E. Skeels"
  To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public."
  Subject: Re: [OT] Physics denies official 9/11 report.
  Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 08:14:36 -0600


  From the page:


  "The World Trade Center Towers as Bio-inspired Structures:
  Characteristics of their Design and Demise

  This work was presented at the 2006 Society for Experimental
  Mechanics
  Annual Conference
  Adam=92s Mark Hotel St. Louis, Missouri USA June 7, 2006
  by Dr. Judy Wood, professor of Mechanical Engineering "

  http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

  Mark

  Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
  > James Newtons Massmind wrote:
  >
  >
  >> 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.
  >
  > If it falls from the top, the weight of the top ceiling crashes on
  the
  > floor below. There it "shares" its energy and momentum, and both
  continue
  > to fall, however slower as if there were no floor below. And so on.
  To fall
  > nearly like free fall, I'm pretty sure the whole steel frame has to
  crash
  > at nearly the same time (between all floors).
  >> 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?
  >>
  >
  > Maybe because the load is much higher at the bottom, and a much
  lower
  > temperature is needed to soften it to a point where it gives in?
  But even
  > then, in order to fall in a time that's close to free fall, the
  whole steel
  > frame has to give in at nearly the same time. Which may be
  possible.
  >
  > Gerhard
  >
  >

Thanks for posting this.

-- =


Search for products and services at: =

http://search.mail.com

-- =

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