----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlie Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 9:48 AM Subject: Re: More on progressive collapse at WTC.
> > 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. Yet kerosene in an semi-enclosed space likely doesn't burn much hotter than 350C. You have to have free access to oxygen to even get it to burn at 500C. 800C is a best case temp and WTC was not even close to a best case. I'm not saying there was a grand conspiracy, but that the explanantions so far are incomplete and do not fully explain the collapse. > >> 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. I need to ask you for a cite on that one. I can't find any information that posits molten AL at the Pentagon. > >> 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. > That's a fairly easy one actually. The wings were not as strong as the limestone and concrete it impacted and the wings crumpled/folded against the fuselage on its way into the building. Most of the plane shattered (AL does this on impact) or was shredded by the tough steel reinforced columns inside the building. (An interesting point is that the steel in the columns was spiral wound reinforced, an popular method back in the 40s. I have personally seen such columns damage a wrecking crane during a building demolition at the hospital I worked at. The crane failed, but the building still stood. The demo co. claimed the building would be razed in 3 weeks and 3 months later it broke their crane with only half the building torn down. Right as they were smashing a mural of the Virgin Mary. Irony overload!<G>) Purdue U has an excellent simulation of the Pentagon crash that shows how the plane was shredded into pieces. http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/ especially: http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/image1/10sep02slow.gif xponent Whittling Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
