News Focus
News Focus
icon url

whalebait

12/14/09 11:04 PM

#87767 RE: whalebait #87766

And, if you're up to it, perhaps
you can give some insight to the dynamics of a fueled +/- 350,000# 767 flying at +/- 500mph at the moment of impact with a building. I know you've mentioned it before, but I'm thinking your estimate might be a little low.
icon url

woofer

12/14/09 11:38 PM

#87769 RE: whalebait #87766

aren't you the same person that used to go around saying that the towers had '4 inch thick steel'? If so, what was that supposed to mean?

whalebait, maybe Sox was talking about this. I don't know but I thought it was a possibility.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apb.pdf


icon url

woofer

12/14/09 11:46 PM

#87770 RE: whalebait #87766

One more about the 4" steel. FEMA had no explanation for why the steel was so thin at the ends of some columns, but they said further investigation was necessary. And then NIST never bothered addressing it once they got the steel if I remember correctly. Come to think of it, there were quite a few things that FEMA thought needed further investigation...and NIST never bothered following up. That's one of my little mini projects that I'm working on, but it's way back on the list of things for me to do.

icon url

SoxFan

12/15/09 9:25 AM

#87790 RE: whalebait #87766

Yes I did and upon further checking I was mistaken as there were some cores that had 4.91 inches of thick steel.



Actually as usual your thinking is flawed as conservation of momentum would not explain why the lower floors collapsed with such little resistance but would show that they should have slowed the decent but it did not – so if you have any inkling of physics then something prevented that from happening. Now it doesn’t take even a slow learner to figure out what would prevent that from happening.