some general observations on WTC collapse and conspiracy theorists
(herein known as "theorists"):
o "theorists" fail to understand subtle differences between formation
of instability, growth of instability, and collapse mechanisms.
o steel doesnt have to melt, it only has to soften in localized spots to
lose connection to core and periphery (the "hanger" problem.
o this last point speaks to an issue i heard another "theorist" (and an
engineer who should have known better) suggest, which is that jet fuel
wouldn't burn at steel's melting point. it didn't have to.
o "theorists" couldn't believe the buildings would fall straight down so
naturally. but none to my knowledge presented any model for developing
torques about the center of mass of the upper section of each building
during the initiation-to-collapse phase. without such a model, one would
not expect much rotation of the upper part of the building. and in fact
one of the buildings (i forget which one) did angle over slightly before
finishing collapse in a fairly vertical direction. the point is this:
even without perfectly symmetric dynamite blasts, the time between
initiation of instability (hangers dropping off) and the end of growth
of the instability leading to ultimate failure/collapse could be short
enough that asymmetry in upward or sidways support thrust during
collapse phase could not generate substantial torques required to change
the angular momentum of the upper structure. said differently,
"theorists" are assuming that non-dynamite models would be asymmetric
enough at failure to generate said torques. .
o "theorists" claim that the buildings couldn't come down because the
core support structure was just too damn strong to fail. but my
understanding of the collapse scheme is that the hangers let loose,
instability followed, and the upper part of the building started
collapsing, initially even if the core was still whole. but once you
deliver the potential energy of ten's of stories dropped thru several
stories in height, aint nothing gonna hold that building up. i never see
"theorists" deal at this level of analysis.
o i've seen some talk of seismograms which indicate there was a dynamite
blast in each building prior to collapse, i've found none of these
arguments convincing, nor accompanied with enough modeling to be capable
of distinguishing between energy release during collapse phase (in the
bin Laden theory) and dynamite blast (in the GW Bush theory).
a final observation (not a statistical sampling of all "theorists"): the
"theorists" i have all talked to who believe most in these theories seem
extremely apolitical. the US gov't is SO bad, that's its not worth even
talking about fighting thru any kind of organizational efforts. it's
just plain bad, and there's nothing we can do about it.
if some of the issues i've raised have been dealt with in the literature
originally cited here, i'd like to hear about it.