In article <1188430893.344733.186230@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
<gfhdtr6yd6ry@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Engineer Gordon Ross MEng. at the Indian YMCA, London on the 8th June
>2007 analyses the destruction of the Twin Towers of the World Trade
>Center on September 11th 2001.
>
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615
>
http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html
Mr. Ross, your conclusions and sums and methods have been proven
wrong. In my previous letter I offered you the chance to fix and
update your calculations out of professional courtesy. Out of
respect for your abilities, I said it would be easy for you to do. I
had hoped that you would take a harder look at that issue, and take
another look at the rest of your paper, but you have chosen not to
do so. Your response was nothing more than, .fake but
accurate.. This is a disgusting manner for any engineer to
respond. Sir, retract your paper or fix your calculations.
Ross's response;
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/RossResponsetoAnonymous.pdfhttp://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_2_Greening.pdf
I intend to show that Mr. Ross. article is incorrect in at least four
im****tant ways:
(i) An error in the calculation of the kinetic energy of the `
falling section after the first impact.
(ii) An over-estimation of the energy required to pulverize the
WTC 1 concrete.
(iii) The argument that the initial elastic deflection would
propagate 24 storeys below the impact floor.
(iv) The use of a safety factor of 4 in the calculation of the
elastic strain energy.
--
a d y k e s @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
