Technical Brilliance - BBC

[kookomula]

While searching for something else came across this drawing used to explain how the world trade centers fell, made me laugh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm

The something else was re. expected lifespan of WTC complex, someone on Loosechange was arguing about Larry Silverstein, 'are these the actions of a man who knew about prior collapse' kind of thing and I remembered a couple of years ago there was a lot of talk about the projected costs of bringing the towers down due to the asbestos (or removal of asbestos), I haven't heard much about that recently, only one post a few weeks ago.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=543 9

[KP50]

[ZUCO]

Quote from the first picture:

[Snowygrouch]

Yes its F*****G nonsense.

Even NIST say its wrong:

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers"

Para. 9

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

According to NIST; NOT ONE peice of structural WTC steel exceeded 600/650 degrees C.

In fact according to NIST; NONE of these parts exhibited ANY permanent microstuctural changes due to fire. This in fact according to my metallurgy lecturer Dr John Duradola, Oxford Brookes University suggests that the steel did not even reach tempering stages (about 400 degrees C).

So yes its junk science of the worst degree. What else do you expect from the BBC.....real research!!! HA HA HA!!!

Thats a good one... ..oh my.....BBC and research in the same sentence. Oh I havnt laughed that much in days.

Of course NISTs explanation was SO clear that not one of the other two official reports agree with its findings. In fact NONE of them agree with the findings of any other other reports.....Hmmmmmmm.

In fact NIST was not even tasked with making any analysis of the collapse beyone the initial point of failure. They did NO calculations after the first failure. WOW thats professional.

C.