WTC Demolition Evidence - Page 11

ktesibios · #**301** (**permalink**) 21-December-2005, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Radiation_Specialist

This topic sounds very serious, are you sure it has to be discussed in these forums?

Well, this is a forum dedicated to discussing conspiracy theories and the various 9/11 CTs are probably the premier CTs in current circulation.

Not to talk about them here would be like putting up a baseball forum and ruling all talk about the World Series off-limits.

JayUtah · #**302** (**permalink**) 21-December-2005, 08:57 PM

As with all conspiracy theories, the alleged conspirators are dumb enough to have undertaken their shenanigans in very illogical, inexplicable ways that leave boatloads of clues or other suspicious circumstances. But when it comes to legitimate researcher being able to uncover further evidence, the conspirators all of a sudden acquire superhuman powers of concealment and evasion that stymie everyone.

nomuse · #**303** (**permalink**) 21-December-2005, 09:23 PM

That's the essential conundrum, innit? The majority of conspiracy theories I have encountered require faking an event well enough to fool professionals, but poorly enough so the average man can detect the fake.

To give them credit, the conspirologists sometimes argue that the professionals are the _least_ capable of seeing a fake as their professional expectations blind them to the obvious. I do not find this a credible argument -- at the very least, part of what makes a professional is the ability to make dispassionate observations (to at the very least understand the role of observer bias).

Perhaps more at the heart of the conundrum is that reality is not constrained by expectations. This is why that which screams "fake" to the untrained observer is often that which convinces the trained observer.

Following this further leads into that strange place where the only version of the WTC collapses or the Apollo landing that would be acceptable to the "average, untrained" observer -- or, rather, the typical hoax claiment -- is one that is physically preposterous and easily unveiled as such by anyone with a minimal education.

The only remaining path for the conspiracy believer is to assume that science and engineering are nothing but "opinion"; rote learning, assumptions based on dusty textbooks and promulgated by professional associations but never, ever compared to reality. And that the skill and observation and, yeah, intellect of space scientists and astronauts and civil engineers and architects is essentially no more than that which the conspiracy believer uses to run checkout at Walgreens.

Only then can they find supportable their idea that since the towers did not collapse in the way their gut instinct tells them they should have, all the people who's job it is to know exactly how those towers should have behaved are confused, misled, or glibly lying.

Monique · #**304** (**permalink**) 21-December-2005, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Radiation_Specialist

This topic sounds very serious, are you sure it has to be discussed in these forums?

Do not worry. I take names, turn over to NSA.

PhantomWolf · #**305** (**permalink**) 22-December-2005, 03:02 AM

Well the thing I find the funniest is that the South Tower Collapse is like no Controlled Demo I have ever seen. The outer walls basically peeled like a banana spraying debris out over the nearby areas. Falling into it's own footprint, my foot. I often wonder if the CT's actually read what they write. They contradict themselves left and right, and say the most dumb things, even after it's pointed out to them multiple times they still seem incapable of getting basic facts correct. It's like they deliberately go out of their way to get things wrong.

Take the "engine fan" from the pentagon. The only engine it was specifically stated as not coming from was the very engine for that craft that the "missile" group claims it was from, the Global Hawk. And that's from their own sources. I think we really do need an emoticon of banging someone else's head on a wall, this one doesn't quite cut it.

Apocalypse7 · #**306** (**permalink**) 22-December-2005, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Well, I've been dangling the worm but no one is biting. So I'll just blurt it out.

When steel fails under heavy strain -- especially tensile failure -- it's practically explosive in and of itself. Take a bolt of, say, an inch in diameter and put it in the hydraulic strain rig and yank it to failure. When it finally goes, it's like a gunshot. The release of strain energy in something that can take a lot of strain is surprising to people who aren't familiar with it (and that includes various professors and self-professors of physics).

The other effect is the cloud of crap from whatever has coated the object. Lab specimens are usually fairly pure. But go get a mild steel bolt and let it get a patina of oxides over several years. Or let it rust a bit. Or, if it's galvanized, let a bit of zinc oxide form (the formation of the zinc oxide barrier is why we galvanize). Now subject it to tensile failure. You get a "puff" of mechanically rejected coatings. We see this all the time in fastener failures in the field.

Or, alternatively, consider the failures of welded beam seats or other connective features on structural steel, or even the steel itself, that will have been coated with fireproofing material. That stuff dries brittle. You can chip it away with your fingernail if you're a bit persistent. If anything coated with that material snaps, the material is effectively aerosolized.

The release of strain energy can be experienced by breaking a wooden stick with both hands. If the stick breaks cleanly, you will feel some pain in your hands. This is the strain energy released in the fracture being applied mechanically to your hands as a shock -- a rapid application of force.

Because these aerosol clouds are seen in normal failure modes, there is simply no reason to consider them anomalous and no reason to postulate additional explanations for why we see them in WTC 7. The locations of these observed aerosols correspond to joints in the underlying structure, which is where the framework would be expected to fail under critical load.

As I mentioned earlier, the squibs seen in intentional implosive demolitions are intended to fail masonry walls -- whether structural or curtain -- so that they do not accidentally act in compression. They are not needed, and hence not used, in non-masonry curtain walls (e.g., glass and/or aluminum). They would be out of place in destroying the WTC 7 structure by implosion.

Why don't we see these aerosol puffs in controlled demolitions of steel-framed buildings that do not require squibs in the curtain walls? Because of how those buildings are meant to fail. You may cut some shear planes higher up, but most of the cutting happens down low, on the first one or two floors. Imagine what would happen if you suddenly evaporated the lower 40 feet of any structure. It would be suddenly in free-fall. There is no more load between, say, the 40th and 41st floor. Now imagine that you tilt the structure slightly so that when erstwhile columns on the collapse front hit the ground, they are eccentrically loaded and not axially loaded. Thus the loads are not transmitted all the way up the structure and don't cause failures way up high.

The WTC 7 structure failed all along its height and breadth, piecemeal, over a period of several seconds. Much of that has obviously been hidden by the curtain walls, but it can be seen in a careful examination of the video. The puffs of aerosol are more likely to be joint failures as critical loads ripple through the structure. The way the front face shows puffs in a sort of V-shaped progression up the front is exactly the pattern in which we would expect the structure to respond -- and fail -- due to a major failure lower down -- say, on the fire-affected floors and the location of the key transfer trusses over the power substation. Point failures on the 5th or 7th floor can create V-shaped progressive failures up to, say, the 30th floor.

The WTC 7 failure, carefully examined, shows me exactly what I would expect to see in the progressive failure of such a structure due to critical overloading at places where the structure becomes non-uniform and thus may concentrate load paths.

FEMA has all but rejected that hypothesis and the under funded bush 9/11 commission refused to even look into the collapse of World Trade Center building no. 7.

The FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse says:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.
Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

In a nut shell, FEMA has no idea why WTC 7 collapsed.

Allow me to reiterate on what I said about the collapses before...

"Look at it this way, if it was that easy to fell skyscrapers into their own footprint, don't you think that building demolition experts would be doing it that way too? Just blow a hole in the side of it, set it on fire, the whole structure falls straight to the ground. Or in the case of WTC 7, just set it on fire.

It's not gonna' happen."

PhantomWolf · #**307** (**permalink**) 22-December-2005, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apocalypse7

FEMA has all but rejected that hypothesis and the under funded bush 9/11 commission refused to even look into the collapse of World Trade Center building no. 7.

The FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse says:

"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.
Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

In a nut shell, FEMA has no idea why WTC 7 collapsed.

However the NIST report published this year, which did look into the collapse of Building 7, came to similar conclusions as Jay. FEMA's report was published a number of years back and since then others hve done that "Further research, investigation, and analyses needed to resolve this issue."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apocalypse7

Allow me to reiterate on what I said about the collapses before...

"Look at it this way, if it was that easy to fell skyscrapers into their own footprint, don't you think that building demolition experts would be doing it that way too? Just blow a hole in the side of it, set it on fire, the whole structure falls straight to the ground. Or in the case of WTC 7, just set it on fire.

It's not gonna' happen."

Firstly they didn't fall into their own footprints, the debris crashed into surrounding buildings and some were found hundreds of metres away. If a controlled Demo Company did that sort of job they'd never get any work again. Secondly, the debris was nearby the base of the towers because that's where it's most likely to fall. Gravity is the force that dictates where things go, and most of it's going to fall, straight down. There are very few cases where buildings don't fall directly down when they collpase, and in fact most of the structures I have seen which toppled were done with controlled demos. Thirdly, each building has its own unique structure, what works for destroying one building doesn't necessarily work in any other case. Buildings 4 and 6 had plenty of damage and fires and didn't fall, why? Because they were built in a different manner. They didn't have the fatal flaws of the other 3 buildings. What that means is that you can't just set a fire and hope. It will depend on the structure. Take the Malasyia Tower fire for example. The fires in that collapsed 7 floors, but because of the structure being more redundant and not relying on those floors for its strength it stood. The same situation in the WTC or even probably the Sear's Tower would be a far more disasterous situation.

Think about it this way. You can build a coffee table with the use of a flat top and 4 round legs. If you accidently break a leg, the table will still stand, though you'd have to be careful with it. If however you build a coffee table with just two solid rectangular legs, one at each end, and then break one, you're got no chance of making it stand up. Both suffered the similar damage, but you get a different result because of the construction. The four legged table has redundancy, the two legged one doesn't. The same thing hppens in buildings. Whereas most have 150% plus, the WTC buildings had about 110% which ws quickly overcome by the progressive damage.

Finally. Demo Compnies are hired to do a job for certain reasons. First they need to determine how to bring down a building without damage to the surroundings and safely for the people in the area. Secondly they need to determine the best way to do that and the way that is most effiecent. The WTC collapses were neither. They were ineffecient ways of collapsing a building and did severe damage to the surrounding areas (Building 4 and 6 had to be dismantled because they were irrepairable.) In the end using the same logic as your argument we might as well say, that since a Tornado can level a house, why bother dismantling one to get rid of it, just wait for a tornado to hit it.

Peter B · #**308** (**permalink**) 22-December-2005, 07:02 AM

I’ve been thinking about the idea that toppling buildings should collapse to the ground intact, spraying their debris around the impact point. This appears to be the instinctive view of people who are suspicious of the fate of WTC 1 and 2.

Footage of demolished buildings is the sort of thing that occasionally crops up on the evening news, probably because it looks impressive. Now I know I’ve seen footage of tall brick industrial chimneys being demolished, and the process seems to go something like this: an explosive charge is set off at the base of the chimney; the chimney tilts; when the chimney is tilted somewhere between 30 and 60 degrees, it begins to fragment; and at the end, the fragmented chimney smacks into the ground. In other words, what strikes the ground still has roughly the shape of the chimney, but most of the brickwork is broken up, with groups of bricks, or individual bricks, all following slightly different paths to the ground.

I suspect that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are expecting that WTC 1 and 2 should have done much the same thing as I described above. What they see instead is (in the first collapse) the top part of the building start to topple, then have the whole thing plummet vertically. They’re suspicious that the toppling doesn’t continue.

I think I can see where the disconnect occurs, and to explain it I’m going to call on that most famous sinking ship, the Titanic.

When the wreck of the Titanic was discovered, I know I was surprised to hear that it had split into two parts. But the key to the reason was contained in the descriptions of the sinking which circulated before the wreck was found: at one point in the sinking, the rising stern dropped back towards the horizontal, and people at the time seem to have attributed this to the way the ship was flooded.

What instead had happened was that the ship split in two. The stern was lifted high out of the water. More than ten thousand tons of steel and ship fittings were standing up at a severe angle out of the water. The Titanic’s structure was designed to be supported by water, and lifting it out of the water subjected it to strains it wasn’t intended to bear. As a result, the ship sheared near the fulcrum – the point where support was removed – the point where the ship entered water. And the shear was strong enough to completely rip the ship into two main parts.

The same effect could be achieved if the ship (possibly any ship) was moved half way into a dry dock, and the dry dock was lifted out of the water. Half the ship would be supported by the dock, and would happily sit where it was. The other half of the ship, hanging out over the end of the dry dock, would sag as soon as the dry dock was lifted.

The same thing with large buildings. Conspiracy theorists seem to want the building to collapse to the ground intact or near intact, like the chimney. Instead, almost as soon as the structure was subjected to strain beyond its design envelope, it shattered. As a result, the constituent pieces fell with a ballistic trajectory set up by the previous motion of the whole. A lot fell onto the structure below, and was caught up in the general collapse. But the material which had started to fall outside the building’s footprint is what landed away from the footprint.

twinstead · #**309** (**permalink**) 22-December-2005, 10:41 AM

It all just seems so simply a matter of the buildings not doing what somebody thinks they should do, thus looking at the entire event with suspicion even if their expectations are flatly wrong.

In that respect the 911 and moon hoax conspiracies have much in common, IMO.

PhantomWolf · #**310** (**permalink**) 22-December-2005, 11:46 AM

Exactly.

With HB's you have them going "I expect to see stars in the photos, and they aren't there. Regardless of what the experts and laws of physics say, I expect stars and since they ren't there it was all faked."

With 9/11 CT's you get "I expect a building to react to fire and plane crashes in a certain way and it didn't. It doesn't matter what the Experts and laws of physics say, I expected it to do it my way and since it didn't it must have been faked."

ryanmercer · #**311** (**permalink**) 22-December-2005, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monique

Do not worry. I take names, turn over to NSA.

Heh I actually work for DHS. Heh.

JayUtah · #**312** (**permalink**) 22-December-2005, 03:07 PM

FEMA has all but rejected that hypothesis...

No, FEMA declined to state a conclusion citing insufficient evidence and investigation. That hasn't stopped other people from carrying out additional investigation. You're adept at pointing out the people who declined to comment, but you're ignoring the people who are on record.

Further, I said nothing about diesel fuel or anything else. My point is simply that we have a plausible failure progression, and that the aerosol puffs seen during the failure progression are an expected and explicable effect of such a progression. There is no need to resort to unsubstantiated, counter-indicated, and unparsimonious theories to account for it.

Look at it this way, if it was that easy to fell skyscrapers into their own footprint, don't you think that building demolition experts would be doing it that way too? Just blow a hole in the side of it, set it on fire, the whole structure falls straight to the ground. Or in the case of WTC 7, just set it on fire.

None of the buildings discussed "fell into their own footprint".

Apocalypse7 · #**313** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 05:07 AM

Actually, they did fall "into their own footprint" since they fell straight down and didn't topple over.

The fact that the collapse of the towers damaged surrounding structures is a given considering that WTC 1 & 2 were 110 stories tall. Surely no one is suggesting that a professional demolition crew could have brought the twin towers down into a neat and tidy pile of rubble?

PhantomWolf · #**314** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apocalypse7

Actually, they did fall "into their own footprint" since they fell straight down and didn't topple over.

The fact that the collapse of the towers damaged surrounding structures is a given considering that WTC 1 & 2 were 110 stories tall. Surely no one is suggesting that a professional demolition crew could have brought the twin towers down into a neat and tidy pile of rubble?

Saying that they fell into their own footprint means that all the rubble fell within the area of ground where the buildings stood, this is blatently untrue. If you want to say that they didn't topple over, but fell roughly straight down, then fine, but falling down around where they stood isn't falling into their own footprint. Say what you mean rather than just parroting incorrect terminology from CT sites.

Now if you -do- mean that they didn't topple over, explain why they should have? All the buildings I have seen that have toppled over only did so with demolision crews organising them to do so. Buildings that have fallen by themselves all go straight down due to gravity.

turbonium · #**315** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phunk

Note the kink in the roofline indicated by the blue arrow (coincidentally, right where the east penthouse used to be). Notice the damage on the front of the building, along a line down from where that penthouse used to be. Notice how much farther the roofline is sagging by the time of that second frame. And what a coincidence, those "squibs" on the front side of the building appear right after the west penthouse disapears. Are you going to claim there wasn't massive internal collapse going on already at that point?

Yes, the east penthouse has collapsed. But, the "squibs" or "puffs" rapidly and sequentially eject from low to high floors. on the north face and along the southwest corner of WTC 7. Any pressure resulting from the penthouse collapse would be from the top down.

The link below is a video showing WTC 7 collapse from a different angle. It also shows the bottom begins to collapse while the floors above remain intact.
http://www.pixparty.com/turbonium/in...&videoid=10876

Apocalypse7 · #**316** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 05:36 AM

Quote:

No, FEMA declined to state a conclusion citing insufficient evidence and investigation.

The FEMA report doesn't state that there was a "insufficient investigation."

What it says is...

""The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.
Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

What it says is that the "hypothesis' for the collapse of WTC no. 7 has a "low probability."

Sounds to me like there was an investigation.

PhantomWolf · #**317** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 05:49 AM

The old FEMA report says "Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." That is that same as saying that they have had "insufficient investigation" to resolve them.

Again the question has to be, why do you rely on the older FEMA report and yet totally ignore more recent ones such as NIST's 2005 release that have had the Further research, investigation, and analyses FEMA was suggesting?

Apocalypse7 · #**318** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

All the buildings I have seen that have toppled over only did so with demolision crews organising them to do so. Buildings that have fallen by themselves all go straight down due to gravity.

What building has ever fallen straight down due to gravity and not implosions?

Link please.

Peter B · #**319** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 05:56 AM

Turbonium said:

Quote:

Yes, the east penthouse has collapsed. But, the "squibs" or "puffs" rapidly and sequentially eject from low to high floors. on the north face and along the southwest corner of WTC 7. Any pressure resulting from the penthouse collapse would be from the top down.

That's if the collapse started at the top.

But let's just imagine that the collapse started on the 4th or 5th floor, as the FEMA report theorises. What would happen then?

The way I see it, the penthouse collapses because its support has been undermined. (This is the way castle towers were brought down in medieval sieges - by removing the support.) As a result, you'll see the first signs of failure around the 4th or 5th floor, and the signs will move up the building as each floor has the material supporting it removed from beneath.

So the penthouse collapse isn't the cause of these dust puffs. Instead the penthouse collapse and the dust puffs have the same cause - failure progressing its way up the building.

sfarq1 · #**320** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Buildings that have fallen by themselves all go straight down due to gravity.

Do you have examples of this, I would really like to see them?

PhantomWolf · #**321** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apocalypse7

What building has ever fallen straight down due to gravity and not implosions?

Link please.

Nice to see that the old game of ignore the question and shift the burden of proof is still alive and well in CT town.

But since you ask, here's more than one just to start you off.

Cairo, Egypt. January 27, 2004: Cause - Fire and illegal work.

Quote:

The structure collapsed accordion-style into a pile of rubble about two stories high.

Foogia, Italy. November 11, 1999: - Cause: Underground work.
Photo in story clearly shows the floors piled on top of one another.

Quote:

One man who was rescued from the rubble, Salvatore Taronne, 19, said from his hospital bed, "In the heart of the night I heard my bed shake, like an earthquake. Then I heard creaking noises, but I couldn't understand what was happening.
"All of a sudden I found myself deep in chunks of cement. It was dark, and I didn't have the strength to scream."

Islamabad, Parkistan. 10th October 2005: Cause: - Earthquake.

In this case, many, many, mnay buildings collapased straight down.

There are far more then this too, from Brooklyn, Korea, Japan, Israel, Germany, Lebanon and more.

Now, show why you believe that the WTC should have toppled over rather then falling directly down.

phunk · #**322** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbonium

Yes, the east penthouse has collapsed. But, the "squibs" or "puffs" rapidly and sequentially eject from low to high floors. on the north face and along the southwest corner of WTC 7. Any pressure resulting from the penthouse collapse would be from the top down.

The link below is a video showing WTC 7 collapse from a different angle. It also shows the bottom begins to collapse while the floors above remain intact.
http://www.pixparty.com/turbonium/in...&videoid=10876

I didn't say it was a top down collapse. Perhaps I wasn't clear, sorry. I was using the penthouse collapses as evidence that what was holding them up had fallen out from under them. The collapse started lower down in the building, and progressed upwards. That's the main reasion you see most of the bulk of the building start to come down at once, unlike WTC 1& 2 which were top-down. The collapse started on middle of the lower floors and progressed upwards and outwards. When the 'upwards' hit the top of the building, the penthouses fell. The falling material in the middle of the building was the final staw in the progressive collapse and the collapse spread outwards to the facade of the building very rapidly.

Monique · #**323** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apocalypse7

What building has ever fallen straight down due to gravity and not implosions?

Link please.

So you do not like way building fall. However, failure analysis show mode of failure expected for unusual design of WTC towers. Please site flaws in failure analysis.

sfarq1 · #**324** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

There are far more then this too, from Brooklyn, Korea, Japan, Israel, Germany, Lebanon and more.

Now, show why you believe that the WTC should have toppled over rather then falling directly down.

Because the WTC was made of steel and not concert like the examples you showed. Do you have any pictures of steal structure buildings collapsing straight down?

Monique · #**325** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sfarq1

Because the WTC was made of steel and not concert like the examples you showed. Do you have any pictures of steal structure buildings collapsing straight down?

Do not need pictures. Failure analysis show how collapse occur. Design of WTC tower unique in some interesting aspect. Result is as you saw.

If you disagree, I suggest you show flaws in failure analysis.

twinstead · #**326** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monique

Do not need pictures. Failure analysis show how collapse occur. Design of WTC tower unique in some interesting aspect. Result is as you saw.

If you disagree, I suggest you show flaws in failure analysis.

Yes, the reason the buildings fell the way they did is spelled out in minute detail in the analysis. You are correct, Monique, with your usual elegant simplicity; anybody suggesting the failure analysis is incorrect has the responsibility to show exactly how it is flawed instead of waving their hands about how they just didn't 'fall' right.

Monique · #**327** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twinstead

Yes, the reason the buildings fell the way they did is spelled out in minute detail in the analysis. You are correct, Monique, with your usual elegant simplicity; anybody suggesting the failure analysis is incorrect has the responsibility to show exactly how it is flawed instead of waving their hands about how they just didn't 'fall' right.

I am simple woman

Gillianren · #**328** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monique

I am simple woman

Only for given definitions of "simple," Monique. (Let me just say again, btw, how much better your English is than my any-other-language.)

Monique · #**329** (**permalink**) 23-December-2005, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Only for given definitions of "simple," Monique. (Let me just say again, btw, how much better your English is than my any-other-language.)

merci

I have much practice here.

sfarq1 · #**330** (**permalink**) 24-December-2005, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monique

Do not need pictures. Failure analysis show how collapse occur. Design of WTC tower unique in some interesting aspect. Result is as you saw.

If you disagree, I suggest you show flaws in failure analysis.

What failure analysis shows the global collapse of the core?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode