[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Friday 24 August 2007 11:38, Ralph Smithen wrote: > Hi Tom, > > thanks for you response :) > > On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 09:50 +0100, Tom Potts wrote: > > On Thursday 23 August 2007 19:36, Ralph Smithen wrote: > > > Why did WTC7 collapse? > > > > Theres a saying - never attribute to malice that that can be attributed > > to stupidity. > > Sin comentario. > > > The stupidity there was simply cheap and nasty underengineering - the > > insulation was pathetic and so failed. > > Did you watch the PBS video clip where Silverstein admits that "they > made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse"? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awcqSy_UsXs > Please note that this is an admission of controlled demolition. > > The 911 Commission (whose Executive Director was Zelikow) report makes > *no mention* of the collapse of 7 WTC. > http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm > > Also, one should notice that it is extremely unlikely that a collapse > due to evidently asymmetrically distributed small fires should cause the > building to fall neatly into its footprint. Not true - these things are designed like that - not to fall down but thats the way it works: you take the horizontal stress away at on side (fire) and the stress on the other sheers the building across so a hole floor goes almost instantaneously. > Here's a clip from the BBC of the Windsor building (a 32 story > steel-framed building in Madrid) conspicuously failing to collapse after > being utterly devastated by fire in February 2005. but it didn't have 'this'll never happen so we'll spray a bit of foam on that will blow off with a sparrows fart' insulation on it. The real tragedy of the implementation in the WTC towers was that if a fire had started the chimneying effect in the building spaces would have blown the insulation off anyway. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th2bnG_7UyY > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4261315.stm > The BBC article is headed by "Madrid skyscraper faces collapse", yet in > the body it reveals that the fire is out (2 hours before the article was > published). Hmmm. It looks a different design - major column up the middle that goes to the top and everything hangs off it so you have to have a really big fire to waste the central column. Remember you've got reporters reporting here - no chance of any knowledge of structural engineering so logic such as: its a tower on fire and the shoddily built wtc fell over so this one which is built in Spain where they build a lot of functional buildings and know what they're doing will fall over too... And little chance of correcting themselves either It is unfortunate that at the time the US were looking for an excuse to go kick bottom and you may find that the complete lack of any evidence of collusion by Iraq and using that as part of the litany of lies used as an excuse to invade may make you wonder whether they would actually stage something as horrific as 11/9. The answer is yes they would - however as the problem is more complicated than organising a preprandial drink in a brewery you can be safely assured they didn't actually do it. But they would re-write history to say they did it if they felt something was to gain from that. Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html