Re: Re: Insteon now or wait?

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"E. Lee Dickinson" <lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eai34b$clq$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >There were plenty of experts who would have told
> > you jet plane impacts could not have brought down the World Trade
Center.

> There are still plenty that would say that:
>
> http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Fascinating.  I had read Charlie Sheen was leading the pack, what with his
background in metallurgy, engineering and building design (humma, humma!).
I think people were troubled by how much the collapse looked like deliberate
building demolition we've all seen on TV.  It parallels some of the other
comments about people's interpretation of events (can light bulbs explode)
based on what they've seen elsewhere, even on TV or in the movies.

Oddly enough one of the things that troubled me the most about the collapse
was how eerily it was presaged in the 1999 movie "Independence Day" which
showed CGI images that looked very much like the WTC collapse to come.
That's probably because they realized that without a large angular moment
(such as an earthquake might cause) the building's weight will cause it to
fall in on itself.

In this case, if you understand how the burning jet fuel worked, it's quite
easy to understand why the building pancaked.  Anyone who's ever seen an
overloading shelving unit collapse (me!) knows that when you overload
supports, they'll fail and, in turn, cause the supports underneath them to
fail.

Why didn't the buildings "fall over" as so many conspiracy theorists think
they should have?  Well, there was no "sidewise" force other than the
initial impact, which wasn't enough to tip them at that instant and whose
swaying effect (estimates range from 6" to a foot) had been damped by the
time of collapse.  All the stored energy in the building is from the cranes
that lifted the building material during its construction.  It's all very
vertically oriented and therefore, so was the collapse.

It's also interesting to note that survivability assessments *had* been
done, but using smaller, lighter 707's of the time the building was built,
not the much larger planes that hit.  Like X-10, it worked well for the time
it was developed, but the changing environment has challenged many of the
underlying design assumptions of the time.

--
Bobby G.