On 04/07/2006, at 4:10 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
The WTC towers were designed to withstand an impact by a 707 fully
loaded with 23,000 gallons of fuel, yet the planes that actually hit
them had less than half that amount (10,000 gallons) on board and much
of that was expelled in the fireball associated with the impact.
They did withstand the *impact*. In that sense, the design worked.
But it seems clear that a combination of many factors, including
where on the towers the plane struck (and so how much mass was above
the damaged floors), fire (kerosene, office furniture, aluminium from
the plane) weakened already damaged beams and trusses whose
insulation had also been damaged in the impact, lead to the
initiation of progressive collapse.
The other "mystery" is that the South Tower went down first. It was
struck far lower, and so had far more mass above the damaged portion.
I'm finding this whole thread really weird because I'm usually the
skeptic of official reportage, but in this case, I just don't see
anything beyond some bad maths and some wishful thinking by haters of
the neocons (and I normally count myself among those).
Did the Bush Administration use 9/11 to further an agenda in the
Middle East after it happened? Undoubtedly, and Blair did the same.
Did it bring down the towers and fake portions of the attacks, or
even directly instigate the attacks to those ends? Not a chance.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
