Text 33651, 106 rader
Skriven 2006-07-16 19:14:12 av Jeff Smith (1:14/0)
  Kommentar till text 33620 av Gregory J. Deyss (1:267/150)
Ärende: Change
==============
Hello Gregory.

16 Jul 06 12:57, you wrote to me:

 JS>> Hello Gregory.

 JS>> 15 Jul 06 12:26, you wrote to Ross Cassell:

 RC>>>> I see you have backed off the argument over the buildings
 RC>>>> designs on what planes it could take.
 GD>>> backed off? No not at all. They way these buildings were
 GD>>> constructed in is unlikly that that would fall in a pancake
 GD>>> fashion they way they did. There is only one logical explanation
 GD>>> for this.


 JS>>     Then you need to do some more research of the facts
 JS>> to prevent
 JS>> drawing the wrong conclusion. I don't know that much
 JS>> about structual
 JS>> engineering but I am capable of seeing why and how the
 JS>> WTC collapsed.
 JS>> What is your excuse for jumping to the wrong conclusion?
 GD> It is not logical for the buildings to fall in a pancake fashion
 GD> because of the way that they were designed. There is only one way to
 GD> force this to occur and that be charges as used in a controled
 GD> demolition.


   No insult intended Gregory but you need help. It has been explained
to you numerous times in numerous ways by a number of people. Each
stating why the WTC collapsed and explaining how it happened. You clearly
are either unable to understand or are unwilling to accept anything that
contradicts what you choose to believe. Talk about a closed mind. <sigh>


   The WTC's strongest structual feature was it's steel perimeter columns.
It was that feature that contained most of the colapse of the floors and
kept the colapse of the floors vertical. I have explained why the WTC
collapsed and provided the reasons why it colapsed in the way that it did.
How a particular building colapses is in a large part based on the way it
was constructed and the engineering priciples used in that construction.
That is clearly evident in this case.


   Except for you of course.


 GD> FACTIOD The melting point of IRON is as follows
 GD> Melting Point: 1535.0 øC (1808.15 K, 2795.0 øF)


   The steel in the area of concern in the WTC didn't have to melt. All
that was required was for the steel to be weakened. The heat generated
by the burning of the 35 tons (24000 Gallons) of jet fuel was easily
able to achieve that. In the area of the impact the only support that
the trusses had that supported the 208ftx208ftx4in cement floors were
the relatively small steel "L" brackets used to secure them to the
perimeter columns. Once those failed because of the dammage caused by
the impact and the heat generated by the burning of the fuel. The 100,000
tons of falling weight of the upper floors was just too much for the still
intact lower floors to support.


 GD> We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined
 GD> to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt
 GD> with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no
 GD> heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete
 GD> had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. Then it is
 GD> impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of
 GD> this floor more than 257? C (495? F). Now this temperature is nowhere
 GD> near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower
 GD> collapse. It is not even close to the first critical temperature of
 GD> 600? C (1,100? F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is
 GD> nowhere near the quotes of 1500? C that we constantly read about in
 GD> our lying media. "In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building
 GD> Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments
 GD> at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings.
 GD> These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building.
 GD> Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of
 GD> the steel beams reaching 800-900? C (1,500-1,700? F) in three of the
 GD> tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of
 GD> 600? C (1,100? F), no collapse was observed in any of the six
 GD> experiments."


    Before I will continue this discussion I insist that you do better
research so that you can get correct facts and figures. People are pretty
much correcting just about everything you have to say. I don't mind
discussing the matter with you but you DO need to get your act together
and stop reading those conspiricy theory websites. Doing my research I
noticed one that just about mirrored what you have said and the language
used to say it.


    Isn't there a word for that?


 GD> --- FMail/Win32 1.60
 GD>  * Origin: Capital Station BBS Troy, NY  Telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org
 GD> (1:267/150)

Jeff

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin:  Twin_Cities_Metronet - New Hope, MN USA  (1:14/0)