Robert Seeberger wrote:
----- 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:
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>)
That's not all about the Pentagon. They had started a program of
reinforcing the exterior against an Oklahoma City-style bomb attack,
which included the use of Kevlar among other things, and the plane
happened to crash into the side they'd reinforced first. So if it had
hit any other side, it would have been more spectacular.
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
