Chris:
You're right that the melting point is a black herring. But a weakening of the structure on one side, on a few floors, wouldn't cause the building to collapse into dust, in free-fall time, in its own footprint. I appreciated your referencing the _Popular Mechanics_ article, but, as I said in my response in July, I was disappointed to find the science there worse than that of the conspiracy theorists.
Mike
[mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Christopher R. Maden
Mike - Just curious if you had seen this site -
http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2004/10/wtc7_a_part_1.htm
I like the fact that he concentrates on WTC7 which
avoids many disputable aspects such as excessive jet
fuel or unusual building construction techniques.
Granted, even if true this only proves a coverup not
necessarily conspiracy with the suicide pilots.
all very interesting..
cheers,
David
BTW - I've been offline for a week at burning man and
impressed to see so much list activity in recent days.
--- "Acree, Michael" <acreem@...> wrote:
Chris:
You're right that the melting point is a black
herring. But a weakening of the structure on one
side, on a few floors, wouldn't cause the building
to collapse into dust, in free-fall time, in its own
footprint. I appreciated your referencing the
_Popular Mechanics_ article, but, as I said in my
response in July, I was disappointed to find the
science there worse than that of the conspiracy
theorists.Mike
From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Christopher R. Maden
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 5:02 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Fw: Eyewitness on WTC
basement
explosions--before the planehitMichael Edelstein forwarded:
> Fuzzy Math and Hard Science: For steel to melt, it
must reach a
> temperature
> of 2,770 degrees Fahrenheit. Fire-protected steel
such as that in
> Building 7
> can withstand even greater heat.
>
> Working from the assumption that gasoline fires
burning in the
> atmosphere
> rarely reach 1,500�F, Prof. Eager showed that the
fires fueled by
> hydrocarbon fuels could not have exceeded 1,700�F.This is an often-repeated canard of WTC critics.
The 2,770 �F temperature is for steel to reach a
liquid state. Soft,
mushy steel, while short of melting, is not going to
hold up a building.
For those of you who have watched a blacksmith work,
compare the effect of
a hammer on cold, black iron, red-hot iron,
white-hot iron, and a pool of
molten iron (which blacksmiths never reach). The
red-hot iron is well
short of melting, yet the hammer can shape it much
more easily than it can
cold metal. 1,700 �F is more than enough to soften
and weaken structural
steel.Critics of the official WTC explanation owe it to
themselves to read the
March 2005 _Popular Mechanics_ cover story,[1] so
that their critiques are
at least grounded in good science, rather than
endlessly repeating
half-understood inaccuracies. This goes in the
"evolution is only a
theory" category.~Chris
[1] "9/11: Debunking The Myths." _Popular
Mechanics_, March 2005. <URL:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
>
--
Christopher R. Maden, Principal Consultant, crism
consulting
XML-SGML-HTML-DTDs-schemas-XSL-DSSSL-conversion-training-ebooks-B2B