As I understand it the heat of the fire about 2/3 of the way up the
building caused a failure of the supports at this level from each
corner to the central lift shaft. Once this had occurred the weight of
the building above caused this level to collapse and impact on the level
below. This failed on impact also and there was a progressive collapse
after this. Each floor was essentially suspended from the corners -
there wasnt much strength in the central shaft. If the fire had been at
the top of the building the collapse probably wouldnt have happened.
No matter what the motives of the govt for such a plot, I think it would
be far fetched to suggest that the whole thing was engineered to justify
the war. I just dont believe GB or others have the power/competence to
achieve such an outcome, even if they thought of it Conspiracy theories
are good fun but they have to have some credibility
R
Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
On Sunday 17 September 2006 23:08, Andrew Patterson wrote:
But you know, if people can come up with
scientific reasons showing why the buildings must have been
blown up by other methods, they should submit it to some
structural engineering journal and they can have a debate
with some experts.. convince the experts and then I'm willing
to give it a bit of credence (you could write everything I
know about the behaviour of steel under load at high
temperatures on a tiny little postit note, so who am I
to question people who actually do this stuff for a living?)
Disregarding the politics entirely, a serious investigation of exactly how and
why the buildings collapsed is very important forensics for those who design
and build such buildings.
Liz
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
