Re: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Letter to Congressman

On Jul 13, 4:20=A0pm, Day Brown <daybr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[snip]
> Where is the NIST re****t on why WTC 7 collapsed?

     Well, there was a re****t, but it suggested more work needed to be
done.  I'm not sure what your questions are though.  The only real
problem that the NIST had wrt WTC 7 was deciding which one of
several credible explanations was the "right" one for that building.
The magnitude of damage, the length of the fires, the unique
substructure
and foundation of that building, all made it obvious to the Fire
Department
that it was a gonner from the time they abandoned it.  If anything the
designers and the construction crews should be proud that it lasted as
long as it did.

> Gordon Ross shows us a
> photo of the twin towers taken from across the river, and you can see
> the core columns still standing above the cloud of dust after the floors
> 'pancaked'.

  So?  It's not like there were some 60 stories of them or so.  There
was
was 2 stories remaining?  By the time the building got down there
it wasn't a single coherent strucuture.  That the last few feet of
a column that long didn't buckle isn't all that interesting.  Great
stuff
for some masters candidate thesis (more like a senior analysis
project)
but hardly particularly interesting to anyone versed in the subject of
structural collapse.

? I dont claim to know what happened. I dont actually have a
> theory. I am awaiting a credible explanation, and have not seen any of
> you present one.

    Many have been presented.  The problem is deciding which one
is best.  I tend to apply Oc***'s razor in sorting them out. Most of
them are fairly similar.  Dynamic amplification of a falling mass is
huge.
Once those upper floors started to move, nothing was going to stop it,
nor really slow them down much.