----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlie Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 5:08 PM Subject: Re: More on progressive collapse at WTC.
> > On 05/07/2006, at 12:10 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote: >> 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. > > There is plenty of draught in a high-rise with smashed windows. Yet there was very little wind that day. You've seen the plumes of smoke in the picture. > >> 800C is a best case temp and WTC was not even close to a best case. > > Plot of an office fire with and without sprinklers here: > > http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/ > strucfire/CaseStudy/Others/default.htm > > You'll see the real fire reached 1400 degrees for a while. If it had been enclosed perhaps, but those smashed windows allow for very significant heat escape wind or no wind. I think you have to allow for for some median level of temperature and heat, but considering that very soon after the impact you had people standing in the gaping hole it could not have been near the top end of potential temperature, nor could extremes of temperature have lasted long. People run away from heat even in chaotic situations. > >> >> I'm not saying there was a grand conspiracy, but that the >> explanantions so far are incomplete and do not fully explain the >> collapse. > > Individually, no. Together, they show a myriad of conditions which > combined to weaken the structure enough to bring the thing down. That is pretty much similar to my premise, only I place much less significance on heat than you do. I think there were failures that have not been revealed/discovered and that among those failures are the more important reasons for the overall collapse. >> >> I need to ask you for a cite on that one. I can't find any >> information >> that posits molten AL at the Pentagon. >> > > Molten Alaska? ;-) > > I remember a report from the time, but can't find a cite right now, > so disregard it for the moment. It might have been simply speculation on someones part. I know that at the Pentagon some eyewitnesses are purported to have seen a bright white flash, a possible sign of some aluminum burning, but that is not confirmed well enough AFAIK, has not been supported by evidence AFAIK, and remains a speculation. But with the amount of shredded aluminum and god knows what combustables in a building dedicated to war, it remains very possible. >>>> >>>> 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. > > It is. But it's hardly a "lack of a hole", it's a big hole. > Certainly! I think some commentators not having thought it through very well think the plane should have left the same puncture-footprint in the Pentagon as the planes did in the WTC. But the materials impacted are in no way comparable and the structure of the buildings are in no way alike. Their bad. xponent Clear Days Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
