Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av alanwatts
1. Kan du eller någon annan här med god matematisk kunskap här förklara formlerna på ett mer lekmannamässigt sätt i bazantwtcstory.pdf och även varför den skulle vara en bra teori. Är det helt sant att den rapporten är från den 13 september 2001 och sedan uppdaterad 22:a september 2001 eller är det jag som ser fel? Det måste vara _världshistoriens_ snabbaste teori någonsin på katasrofhändelse av denna storlek. Så fort går det inte att få något Peer Review:at och jag undar verkligen om den har genomgått peer review, för jag ser ingen information om det övht där. Tacksam för länk till om banzanwtcstory är peer reviwe:ad och så vill jag även ha orginalrapporten från den 13 september. Dvs det som dessa herrar har lyckas sätta ihop på bar a två dagar efter olyckan, skulle vara väldigt intressant att se.
Artikeln publicerades i januari 2002. Se:
länk
Som du ser där har de också publicerat tre uppföljande artiklar.
Addendum to "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis" (March 2002)
Discussion of "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis" (July 2003)
Closure to "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis" (July 2003)
Här har du lite material från The University of Sydney som kanske är lättare att förstå för en lekman:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
Citat:
The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.
There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.
The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.
Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.
The author respect people's right to question theories, but at the present time the author does not believe there is enough evidence for him to change his views on this incident.
