Create a Ning Network!
9/11 Scholars Forum
Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
Join 9/11 Scholars Forum
I cannot see why any thinking person accepts the official version. It does not stack up.
The beer can example is beautiful in its simplicity and many people can grasp this simple analogy.
Yes, it was a simplification. But if crush-down or progressive collapse does not work with something uniform like a beer-can it cannot possibly be applied to a structure that is stronger at the bottom than at the top. Chuck Baldwyn's diagram is a useful reinforcement of this.
"Richard Gage on the crush-down crush-up theory of Bazant to know what bunkum it is.“Evidently this crush down model and theory is complete nonsense, but it is the official explanation(s) of the WTC 1 destruction on 9/11! A small, fairly weak part C, 95% air, cannot possibly crush a big part A of similar structure"
Gage is clearly wrong in that the lower parts of the building are not similar. The thickness of the steel, and thus it's load handling capacity, are greater trending towards the lower floors as seen in Chuck Boldwyns diagram, here:
Still, this fact does not detract from your analogy, it only reinforces it! 1.4% of the buildings mass was in the portion above the gash! A good thought experiment!
Someone did a similar scaling of a B767 to a beer can, and found the 767 skin to be way thinner than when scaled to the size of 0.1mm aluminum can. It would be less than the thickness cheap aluminum foil ~ 0.01mm. (My calculation was 0.006 mm) Of course the can has no steel reinforcement ribs or wingbox, but it does serve to portray the fragility of a 767 fuselage. Thanks for the comment (and for making me thirsty).
Welcome to9/11 Scholars Forum
Sign Upor Sign In
© 2017 Created by James H. Fetzer.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.