Text 13504, 105 rader
Skriven 2005-09-28 17:47:56 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
  Kommentar till text 13475 av Dan Ceppa (1:138/666.0)
Ärende: looting in NO.
======================
28 Sep 05 11:10, Dan Ceppa wrote to Roy Witt:

 DC> On 27 Sep 05  11:29:58, Roy Witt got back to Dan Ceppa
 DC> -> Re: looting in NO.

 RW>>> Ummmm, why would steel beams need a fire retardent applied?

 DC>> To keep their structural integrity.

 RW>> Since steel won't burn, that's not logical. What's logical is that a
 RW>> fire retardant wouldn't allow the steal to be annealed, which is
 RW>> what happened at the WTC.

 DC> I never said it would burn.  The objective was to keep heat from
 DC> weakening the structure

That's what I said...annealling means to soften steel.

 DC>  before standard fire fighting could handle the situation. The
 DC> incident was far from standard...

Yeup.

 DC>> out rather quickly.  But, it started other fires, far hotter and
 DC>> longer lasting.  It was those fires that weakened the beams causing
 DC>> their failure.  Once enough of those beams failed, the "pancake
 DC>> effect" took place.

 RW>> The impact of the airliner loosened the internal cross beam joists
 RW>> and most of them were disconnected, which allowed the entire weight
 RW>> of the floor to be transferred to those remaining verticle beams.
 RW>> The design was engineered to withstand a smaller aircraft than what
 RW>> hit it. That's

 DC> The 707 is not that much smaller.

Quite a bit smaller.

 DC> The main difference was the impact speed expected.  The terrorists
 DC> hit at and above cruising speed.  And, if your scenarior was true,

Well, according to the architect who designed and supervised the building,
that's what happened.

 DC>  the buildings would have almost immediately collapse.  They did not.

Not according to the architect...

 RW>> what caused the structure to buckle and fall. It didn't help matters
 RW>> any that the fire started by that jet fuel helped to weaken every
 RW>> beam and vertical support, by annealing them so that they couldn't
 RW>> bear the weight they were designed for in the first place.

 DC> You need to see _Why the Towers Fell_.

I've seen it.  Pay attention to what the architect says about the
structural damage and how the impact and fires affected the structural
strength of the steel uprights, including the mention of the loss of the
cross connecting beams and how that affected the rest of the uprights.

 DC> Though the impact of the jets did cause damage, the overall
 DC> structures held.

Yes, but it was inevitable that they'd come down.

 DC> Yes, the jet fuel caught fire, but the fuel was rapidly consumed.  It
 DC> is the secondary fires that were started that caused the beams to
 DC> weaken.

Annealling them while others were severed. IE: they were converted to soft
steel which wasn't able to support what was above.

 DC> Had those secondary fires been able to be contained, the structures
 DC> would still be standing.

Perhaps.

 DC> Notice that the second tower hit was the first to go.  The primary
 DC> reason for that is that supporting beams still left had a much
 DC> greater weight to support.  More of the structural beams were
 DC> taken out by the more "glancing" blow.

I'd say whoever planned that sequence of events knew what he was doing.

 DC> As to the first tower, the more direct hit took out the center
 DC> stairs/elevators etc, thus isolating those above from escape
 DC> and those below from any chance of providing aide.  Very
 DC> few of those in the upper stories escaped, no more than
 DC> 6 or so, IIRC.

Some of those escaped over the side...made a big splat on the ground too.

 DC> But, the primary reason for the overall collapse remains:  That
 DC> is the loss of the fire retardant on the steel beams that was
 DC> accomplished in the initial impacts.

Nope...fire retardant doesn't work in the annealing oven and it won't stop
the annealing process in a fire of such magnatude as was in the TWC.



Roy

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA * (1:1/22)