RIGHT NOW: discovery channel is showing

[FourScore]

"Anatomy of a Collapse" about the WTC.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Tell us about it...

Please. I'm a non-TV type.

[ixion]

3. it supports the official theory that jet fuel melts commercial steel

:eyes:

[alittlelark]

9. You mean that theory that has been disproven

by many metallurgists ? Hey, what would they know????:crazy:

[GreenTea]

4. Good for you!!

[Warpy]

2. The PBS show?

It was great, structural engineers at the site along with the architect who designed the buildings.

I do wish they'd addressed #7 more fully, but I don't think the full report was out by the time the program ran.

[patrice]

5. Thanks.

[GreenTea]

6. Discovery, History Channel (Disney's) A&E channel all coinciding with Rove's

ABC made up drama tomorrow---SHAMELESS!

All to get republicans elected by way of FEAR in November.

[stillcool]

8. and it's so in your face...

and you're right...orchestrated on every channel that will put it out there. Those 9/11 coin commercials...taken from ground zero...blah, blah, blah... totally piss me off as well. Plus we've got all these military channels...oh what they've done to my tv. I'm down to Turner Classic Movies.

[maynard]

7. Thanks

I just set the VCR. It coincides with Bill Maher.....

[Up2Late]

10. It's a re-run from 2002, the old theory that this was based on...

...has been thrown out, or at least the 2002 NOVA version has been. NOVA has an updated version of their "Why the towers fell" show, which was on a few nights ago. I think it's called "Re-building at ground Zero" (from NOVA), or something similar.

Basically, instead of the Truss ends breaking, which caused the floors to fall, they now think that the truss ends DID hold, but as the floor trusses began to sag, it pulled the exterior columns inward, which eventually caused them (the exterior columns)to snap inward, causing the progressive collapse.

[FourScore]

12. That's along the lines of what they

were showing in this show. Basically it was pretty much the official story.

One thing I did find amusing: An MIT prof showed some demonstrations using small scale models. During one comparative demonstration, he stacked weights on a normal tall structure with an intact floor between top and bottom; it held the weights. Then, he stacked weights on top of a similar structure, yet missing the middle floor. Guess what it did? It was unstabe alright, but it fell over on it's side. It didn't collapse. Certainly didn't collapse in it's imprint.

He caught it before it hit the ground.

[Up2Late]

13. That's the old official story, the new show actually shows how the old...

...NOVA program got it wrong.

The NIST report is now the final report, but it wasn't finished when the old shows were made.

The new show even covers WTC7 a little, and how it's being rebuilt differently this time. The WTC7 NIST report is not out yet though.

Better, was the interview with one of the authors of the new book from Popular Mechanics. He said their new book covers a lot of the WTC7 story, including that their was a ruptured 9 inch diesel fuel pipe, that burned for 5 or 6 hours, in that building, something I had never heard before.

Once you get past the annoyingly glib comments by the host, it's a pretty good interview.

Here's that link: <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5782277>

[Justice Is Comin]

14. It also stands physics on its head

to say that a building can collapse on itself with resistance at the same rate it would collapse if there was no resistance.

That just can't happen. It has to take some fractional measure of time for the floors to give way, and these building were 1,350 feet high. Yet, even in the commissions report, both buildings reached ground level at free fall rate. :wow:

[ixion]

16. yep, exactly... and chemistry, too

jet fuel, diesel fuel... neither will melt commercial grade steel.

This is why people use aecetelyene torches to cut steel: because you have to have the focused heat of two combined gases (properly mixed, mind you) in order to cause commercial grade steel to lose integrity.

And then there are the physics involved, which simply don't add up at all.

[Junkdrawer]

17. Come on...anyone who believes physics is a conspiracy theorist...

Burning buildings fall at free-fall speed happen ALL the time. Why it happened three times already. Oh, sure, all three were at Ground Zero on 9/11, but that's just a coincidence.

:sarcasm:

[ixion]

15. but it was not a progressive collapse

There was no apparent resistence from floor to floor that you would expect. It would not gain speed as it fell, but it would lose speed, because it would require using energy to overcome inertia on each floor.

The problem is, inertia was not present. The floors seemed more than happy to oblige.

Mile high skyscrapers, as a rule, do not fall neatly down when they collapse of their own volition. The collapse would happen slowly, and it would be progressive. That is: a chunk would fall, causing another chunk to fall, causing another chunk to fall, and so on.

Here's the kicker, though. Even though the collapse didn't happen as the physics would predict, it's an anomalie that it happened at all. It's never happened before. Ever. And on that day it happened twice in as many hours, and took a third building down with it (in the same free-fall manner) that wasn't even hit.

Now that is some anomalie!

[BootinUp]

18. hilarious. n/t

[Up2Late]

11. Here's the link to the new show from NOVA...

...which is based on the final NIST report, a much better show than the old one:

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/>