Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: Conspiracy v. fact 9/11 [View all]Frank_Norris_Lives
(114 posts)46. My apologies.....
....I hadn't noticed a response to my comment before which I will address.
1. Bazant's paper of 2001 did not address the dissipation of material at all.
2. His paper of 2008 tries to play down the dissipation of material: "But, if the object has much empty space, as in the
case of the twin towers, one must expect a similar behavior as in penetration of a hard missile
into a rigid foam, in which case almost no mass is spread laterally."
Someone forgot to remind him of the core.
Nevertheless, anyone who thinks that Block C will retain enough rigidity and mass to crush the entire lower, undamaged building of more robust materials will find comfort dancing with angels on the head of a pin.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The engines of the plane that hit the Pentagon energetically dissasembled themselves when they diges
AtheistCrusader
Feb 2013
#2
Um, the south tower core columns up to floor 50 or so are visible standing in the dust
AtheistCrusader
May 2013
#78
Luckily, there's VIDEO of that exceedingly short period of time. Remember that? nt
greyl
Mar 2013
#22
That is the 10' EXIT hole in the Pentagon E ring - not the entrance hole in the facade.
hack89
Mar 2013
#50
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place
stevebreeze
May 2013
#76
There's nothing resembling sound premises or valid logical inferences in your argument
William Seger
Mar 2013
#59