[Phys-L] Re: Here we go again. WTC brought down by aircraft, not.

[Bernard Cleyet <anngeorg@PACBELL.NET>]

  How accurately could the pilots have
> aimed the planes to hit near the charges?


Very good thank you.

The third building was on fire, and there certainly was some shaking of it
> due to the first two towers collapse.

Again thanks -- I had never read it was on fire.  If it had been built,
like the two towers, w/ inadequate insulation no surprise.  The key I
had read was the impact shook off the insulation (sprayed on) making the
beams vulnerable.  Furthermore, haste resulted i the insulation not
being up to code.  About the strength, this depends on the steel.  there
is one steel that is designed to maintain its strength at a much higher
temp. than typical structural steel.


listserv.ac.il/~metal/class.doc

Figure 13.19
Effect of temperature on the strength of various types of steels (after
B. K. Bardhan-Roy, "Fire Resistance-Design and Detailing," Chapter 14 in
Handbook of Structural Concrete, F. K. Kong, R. H. Evans, E. Cohen, and
F. Roll, Eds., Pitman Advanced Publishing Program, 1983, pp. 14-16)


Although the strength loss may be recovered (depending on the level of
temperature) on cooling, one should consider the load-carrying capacity
of the steel in the high-temperature condition with respect to its
ability to support the loads imposed on the structure without failing
while the conditions of high temperature exist.  Excessive deformation
in a steel structure exposed to fire may be aggravated by the reduction
in modulus of elasticity at high temperature.


[from the fig. High strength alloy steel bars loose half their strength
at 600 deg C.]


Because this topic was discussed in a newsletter, I have an 11 meg file
of pertinent info.  including FEMA PDFs, the above, etc.  Interested may
apply for an e-mail attachment.  If your IP rejects it I'll split it.

bc, who thinks this is easier than reinventing the wheel, and someday
will have a web site


John Clement wrote:

> If there is a conspiracy, what benefit is there in covering up evidence of
> explosive sabotage?
>
> The third building was on fire, and there certainly was some shaking of it
> due to the first two towers collapse.
>
> So the main argument the various authors have made is that no other steel
> frame building has collapsed due to fire.  Then there are other pieces of
> evidence such as puffs of smoke and seismic data.  I would be fairly
> skeptical of this extra data without some means for verifying it.
>
> When I was in engineering, it was well known that steel frame buildings
> could collapse due to fire and that insulation was necessary to prevent such
> collapse.  Many accounts talk about the impossibility of melting the steel,
> but are silent about the strength of steel at high temperatures.  As I
> recall it loses its rigidity long before it actually melts.  While I am
> certainly not an expert on this, I do know from experience that just because
> something has not yet happened, that does not mean it can never happen.  It
> is likely that all 3 buildings had similarly inadequate insulation.
>
> It is fun to speculate, but I tend to doubt that the government engineers
> are that bad.  And why would they try to cover up more evidence or
> terrorism?  I would suspect that Bush would welcome even more evidence to
> push his agenda.  Just think of all the things he could push through to
> thwart the inside conspirators?
>
> Incidentally my comments had assumed charges at the base.  The conspiracy
> speculators assume charges planted higher up, which would make the collapse
> look like the result of the collision.  How accurately could the pilots have
> aimed the planes to hit near the charges?
>
> John M. Clement
> Houston, TX
>
>
> > Yes, that's why I subjected it, "Here we go again."
> >
> > bc, who does wonder about the third building's collapse; only two
> > aircraft.
> >
> > Shapiro, Mark wrote:
> >
> >
> > > That's for sure!
> > >
> > > Mark
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l