On 04/07/2006, at 3:12 PM, Andrew Paul wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
This chap has done some research and found a few cases of
progressive collapse in steel-frame high-rise buildings.
http://911myths.com/html/progressive_collapse.html
While none of these perfectly replicate the conditions at the WTC,
they do show that once the load exceeds the structural integrity,
progressive collapse is initiated.
So we've established that the fire was hot enough to initiate the
phase change in the steel (any heat over 600C), we've established
that there have been other cases of progressive collapse.
No, we may have established that 600C impacts on the strength of
steel, but we haven't established that the fire ever got that hot.
How did we demonstrate that?
Someone earlier posted that kerosene burns at up to 800C.
I don't recall seeing much of a fire in the videos, mostly smoke
(yea, I know the saying :)), compare it to films of burning
buildings, where you actually see flames. And we had people
standing in the holes the impact made, looking out, and
firefighters on the radio wandering past the floor, maybe even on
it, people going down the stairs through it, and in lifts even.
None of this seems like good evidence that a 600C fire was burning
on the floor.
And on that topic, why didn't we get a raging inferno at the Pentagon.
We did - much of that plane melted away.
The plane had as much fuel, and no 70 stories for it to fall, yet
we see books on the side of the impact hole, un-scorched even. It
seems odd we get a steel warping fire in two crashes and barely a
barbeque at the third.
And then there is the question of the hole in the Pentagon, or
rather the lack of a hole.
Ask Matt Rhodes about the hole.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
