[Marxism] Re: Re: Pearl Harbor, etc.
schaffer at optonline.net
Mon Apr 11 08:12:53 MDT 2005
Macdonald Stainsby wrote:
> The only thing that would be ugly were if you were to forget that I
> have asked not to be called Mac. My name is Macdonald...
right, my apology .... i remembered your wishes on this matter about 10
seconds after i hit the Send button.
and i am going to take Carrol Cox's advice and shy away from further
9/11 discussions of this type onlist. truth is, the physics of these
collapses is interesting as all hell to me. but my blood pressure goes
too high when i hear dreamy explanations for why the buildings should
have keeled over like trees felled with a chain saw, rather than
collapsed straight down, if jet strike was the cause of failure.
[memo to "alternate theorists": you need enough torque generated by the
remaining and failing support structure to force the top of the building
to lean and roll over. that means highly asymmetric forces at the base
of the collapsing floors. yes, dynamite blasts uniformly placed around
the perimeter could match the near-zero rotation mode of collapse of
WTC's if each of the blasts caused a nearly clean local failure at
detonation time.. but to counter the prevailing bourgeouis theory, you
would have to show that the failure mode in their model would
__neccessarily__ generate the required torques, over a long eough time,
to roll the top part of the building. absent a plausible value/estimate
of this torque, arguments of the form "hey, it fell straight down just
like a dynamited building and just NOT LIKE a toppled tree" just won't
cut it. in fact, one of them (i always mix up 1 and 2) did actually
roll to one side slightly right at failure, but then came straight down
afterwards. this would be consistent also with an asymmetric failure
mode that generated enough torque during the initial collapse to roll it
slightly. but then as vertical collapse ensued, that is as the falling
base of the upper unit crashed into floors below, you could generate a
resisting torque to bring the previously gained angular momentum back to
zero. usually when you fell a tree, you notch it on one side first, then
top cut it from the other side. if you do it right, the weight of the
tree over the notch generates the torque to start rolling the tree, and
the presence of the notch means as the tree starts to "collapse", if the
notch is wide enough and doesnt shrink to zero size, the tree can't be
forced backwards. i've hung up more than one tree by notching it
incorrectly. the WTC could have failed asymmetrically, and sans notch of
a proper size, come straight down. in simplest terms, a plausible
explanation of a failure mode must take into account both energy and
angular momentum of the upper section of the collapsing buildings.
physics 101. i believe Don Hiatt, Bob, and MacDonald are all capable of
making arguments at that level, so this is not a matter of specialist
elitism. just do some homework if you want to debate technical matters.
otherwise, a suggestion: stick to the political aspects of the debate. ]
if anyone from the "alternate theory" camp wants to converse off list
about technicals, i'm game. if anyone is interested in discussing
construction practices in current times onlist, me also game, as that
was my original intent for posting the NIST report.
More information about the Marxism