OT: Building 7 (was: Re: Insteon now or wait?)

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"E. Lee Dickinson" <lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>

> >Charlie Sheen
>
> First thing, I have no opinion either way. I have spent a ton of time >
reading all of these articles and watching the videos, and mostly
> have come to only one conclusion: it is fascinating.

And, it shows how a pretty basic set of agreed upon and excruciatingly
documented facts - things we've all seen, probably dozens of times -  can be
seen from an amazingly wide variety of viewpoints.  It's a very apt example
of the phenomena I've been talking about concerning product liability.
Building 7 is a great example of how facts can be interpreted pretty wildly
by a random assortment of people.  Even we "smart guys" can't agree on
something we know so well.  (-:

> One thing that bothers me in particular is Building 7, which was not
> impacted by an airplane, which showed a textbook demolition, which
contained
> a government emergency response center, which was a block away from WTC I
> and II... that one bothers me a little.

I agree that the cause of B7's collapse isn't as straightforward as the Twin
Towers.  There's a humongous page at:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

That asks, among other things about the North tower collapse:

"But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building
which supported the antenna to evidently give way nearly simultaneously, if
not cutter charges?"

Statements like that bother me.  The jet fuel, burning as evenly as any
roaring fire I've ever seen, heated the supports uniformly.  Metal gets
extremely plastic when hot.  Had the jets struck higher, there might not
have been no collapse.  But they struck low enough so that the tremendous
weight of the upper floors resting on the uniformly weakened supports of the
impact floors caused them to buckle and the pancaking began.

I've read that later studies have concluded, based on recovered debris, that
the fire burned much hotter than originally estimate.  There was a hell of a
chimney effect as well as no shortage of oxygen at that height.  You
probably couldn't design a more efficient way of setting the building on
fire in the middle.  The jet delivers the payload deep into the center of
the building, smashing holes in both sides to assure good cross ventilation.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture7%20(squib1).jpg

Alleges to show a squib exploding but I don't see it.  Some exploding tank
of some gas or liquid or a part of the overall debris cloud just shot from a
strange angle.   If you look into the cloud, you can see the face of
Beelzebub, too!  :-)

But the site does raise some interesting questions and reminds us the whole
truth may never be known.  My pet theory is the WTC were about to be
condemned so rather than face the demolition costs, someone funded a team of
terrorists to do what building owners have been doing since there's been
insurance.  Torch it for the money!  (Just a joke, please don't sue me, WTC
building owner(s)!)

 I wonder if the owner of record isn't a Saudi front man?  Hey, when Tony
Soprano needs a building torched, he keeps it in the family.  OK, humorous
commentary aside, back to pancaking.

What surprises me is how many people seem to believe only cutter charges can
pancake buildings.  The facts (as I know them) are that unless there's
*significant* sideways force, buildings *always* tend to come *straight*
down just the way they were built - *straight* up.

The jet's impact caused some moderate swaying but that was damped long
before the end.  Even if the eastern most supports failed first, which would
make you believe it would tip that way, the transmission of the load upon
failure of the eastern supports would be nearly instantaneous to the other
supports.  Within less than few seconds, they, too would snap like twigs
even if they weren't damaged.  They would suddenly be carrying double their
load rating, if not more and down the building would come - straight down.

That's what it *wants* to do because of inertia.  Every piece of debris
wants to plunge straight down to earth unless acted upon by additional
forces.  There's some confusion about that because some debris *is* ejected
violently sideways from the bellows action of the floors squeezing together.
That's why some tragically identifiable material like wallets were found
blocks away.  But the bulk of the heaviest matter falls straight down and is
pulverized by action of the building disintegrating.  Once the supports
collapse, for a brief millisecond all the filecabinets, desks, chairs and
furnishings try to support the fast-approaching floor above and get
pulverized.

Earthquake damage is different.  Buildings sway back and forth until
something snaps, often near the base.   The top of the building is already
in motion and it stays in motion and can fall far from the base (unless the
ground moves back to "catch" it, that is).  Think Kobe and the images of
large buildings, still intact and lying on their sides.

When Charlie Sheen first became a Building 7 "questioner" I sent an email to
my dad and a civil engineering friend that outlined many of the issues
raised by the collapse of Building 7.  They scoffed at it, and both said
they believed the building was hit by the "peel" - the skin and contents
being forced explosively out of the building as each floor collapses.  You
can see it as a rubble cloud that hovers around the perimeter of each
collapsing floor.

The surprise is *not* that #7 collapsed, but that more nearby buildings
didn't.  The lowest nearby building would take the greatest debris load
started from the greatest height.  The debris would accrete uniformly,
consisting of mostly concrete and steel dust from the beginning to the end
of the entire collapse of the tower.

I'd have to look again, but I think it's entirely possible that as the
planes hit, a lot of jet fuel continued on past the building (it hit with a
lot of sideways kinetic energy from the jet) and onto Building 7 and the
street.  Is Building 7 in a position to absorb that "overspray?"  I can't
seem to find a simple layout diagram of the buildings and the direction of
impact.  If it was in a position to take a bolus of jet fuel and then some
flaming debris, it's subject to the same fire-induced damage that collapsed
the other buildings,  When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras (or
cutter charges)!

You are right about it making fascinating reading!

--
Bobby G.