Re: [Phys-l] another nail in the coffin (9/11)

[Bernard Cleyet <bernardcleyet@redshift.com>]

You're correct.  Tho I've many times driven under that freeway, and on, 
more, I've never noticed exposed beams.  My point is still valid, as I 
understand the force of the collision removed the inadequately bonded 
insulation in the towers' spans.  Gasoline fires easily weaken steel w/ 
a resultant failure.  Cry your eyes out conspiracy theorists.

"Sunday's fireball apparently erupted precisely at the Achilles' heel of 
the skyway - the underside of the pier where all of the supporting steel 
girders are bare and unprotected by concrete or anything else, according 
to Berkeley civil engineering professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl."



http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_5780891?nclick_check=1


bc, wanted to test w/ a model and kerosene, and now doesn't need to.



Brian Whatcott wrote:

> At 08:11 PM 4/29/2007, you wrote:
>  
>
> > Gasoline fells reinforced concrete bridge approach.
> >
> > http://www.examiner.com/San_Francisco
> >
> > bc doubts the sl. less energy content of jet fuel than gasoline will not
> > vitiate the argument.
> >    
>
>
> Not sure which argument BC has in mind. Concrete (and of course,
> stout wooden beams) have much more fire resistance than
> steel beams or columns, which apparently comprised
>  the overpass structure.
>
>
>
> Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka! 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
> https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
>
>
>