[Marxism] Re: Re: Pearl Harbor, etc.

Les Schaffer 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.

Les Schaffer

More information about the Marxism mailing list