> On Apr 6, 2008, at 2:15 AM, Apptech wrote: >> WTC failure modes > > Unprecedented type of attack on uniquely constructed > building yields > never-before-seen failure mode. This is supposed to make > engineers > highly suspicious? Note that your quoting me in that manner appears to make me say the opposite of what I did. But, no, the above should help make engineers less suspicious. The material about very high temperature steel being removed from the building weeks after the event may be better fodder for consideration. Again, one needs a suitable factual basis before even material like that should be allowed to arouse more than suspicion. While the material that I have read says that this is totally unexpected in the claimed circumstances, I have not heard any opinion from experts in related areas. While it does seem strange to me that near molten steep should exist at any stage in the process, it's not inconceivable that it may have been and therefore would need expert comment. > Actually, I'd like to see "conspiracy theories" added to > the list of > things forbidden to "discuss" on PICList... The unfortunate thing about conspiracy theories is that a certain proportion of them turn out to be partially or almost correct. While one can indeed get swamped by the majority rubbish ones, totally excluding them from consideration leads to loss of data. Which is not always a bad thing :-). An example of a subsequently confirmed conspiracy theory is my previously cited CIA "Rendition" flights all over the world. An example of a rubbish one which gave it's commercial makers much capital and has done much harm is the "Apollo Moon landings never happened" claims. For the latter, competently explain away the still visible lunar LASER-targetable corner reflectors, still happily returning visible reflections on demand, before proceeding to the other claims. Russell -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist