John Coviello wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Veeder"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: S. Jones makes claims about 9/11 attack
Jones Beene wrote:
John Coviello wrote:
H.V: Do buildings that suffer structural failure collapse so
quickly and cleanly? If not, then the events of 9/11 require
alternative explanations..
Yes...if the buildings had been designed to be demolished.
You switched me with John Coviello. ;-)
Yes, but of course it does not *have to be* part of the design,
necessarily, but it would be interesting to hear if it was indeed
part of it. That may end up being a red herring - and there are
too many of those floating around - such that it becomes a big
distraction away from the ONE salient fact mentioned by Harry and
many others. Steve Jones, a t least in this endeavor, is a giant
leap more diligent (and brave) then people are giving him credit
for.
In the end this was almost a "free fall" - such as happens in
controlled demolition and that cannot be presumed to be the result
of pure coincidence, since no other building of this type has EVER
gone down from fire, or in a similar fashion. But two other
points - one scientific validate that suspicion.
A documentary on TV said the WTC twin towers were designed differently
from other tall steel boxes. The outer walls formed a square tube-like
structure. It may be no other buildings quite like the twin towers has
ever
suffered a fire.
The statement above applies only to WTC-1 and WTC-2, both of which were
hit by planes and obviously suffered some structural damage (even if
there are questions about if the fires were actually hot enough to melt
steel and cause the buildings to fall).
Steel has a great reputation, and it always _sounds_ strong ("steel
belted radials -- almost as good as fiberglass!"). But, here's
something that may have been mentioned before in this group -- can't recall:
On a smaller scale than skyscrapers, where one finds both wood frame and
steel frame buildings of roughly similar size and shape, in a good hot
fire, and all else being equal, a wood-frame building will typically
stand _longer_ than a steel-frame building before collapsing.
Wood doesn't melt. Wood beams must burn through from the outside, and
retain a lot of their strength until much of the wood has burned away.
Steel, on the other hand, heats clear through immediately by conduction,
and loses most of its strength long before it actually melts.
Cold-forging iron is a lot more difficult than hot-forging, even though
the typical blacksmith's forge is a lot cooler than the melting point of
iron.
The issue of whether the fire was hot enough to _melt_ the steel beams
may be another red herring -- it just had to be hot enough to soften
them enough so that the already damaged supports for one floor broke.
However, the statement above
does not apply to WTC-7, which was not hit by any planes, was not
designed differently from other tall steel boxes (it was just a regular
building), and did not have raging fires (even though fire has never
brought down a steel framed building anyway). So, what caused WTC-7 to
collapse on the afternoon of 9/11/01 remains a myster, and I believe it
is fair to entertain alternative explanations.
<SNIP>
