Laurence Doering wrote in news:47oh1kFgko4kU1
@individual.net:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:50:53 GMT, Wake Up! wrote:
>> "Wake Up!" wrote in news:Xns978626A6D8B0Atruth@
>>
>> Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
>> building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
>> definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
>> framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.
>
> Which, I guess, means all those engineers who spend so much time
> devising fireproofing materials for steel structural members
> in buildings have been wasting their time all these years.
There's a lot more evidence than what I put above.
>
> Imagine the money that could have been saved in the WTC towers
> alone -- all that fireproofing material sprayed on the buildings'
> steel structure could have been eliminated, and the costly and
> inconvenient effort to update the fire protection that was
> still not completed when the WTC towers collapsed was a
> colossal waste of time.
>
> If only they'd known what you apparently know -- that fire can't
> possibly reduce the yield strength of steel and cause structural
> failure.
I never said that. The chance of all the abnormalities being pure
coincidence is totally absurd.
>
> I guess all those web sites with pictures of what happened to
> the steel structure of Madrid's Windsor Building during a fire
> on February 2005 are fakes too, right?
>
>
> ljd
>
The Madrid Tower was not steel framed. The Twin Towers and WTC 7 were.
The Madrid Tower did not completely colllapse. The Twin Towers and WTC 7
did.
The Madrid Tower was a raging inferno for over 12 hours. The Twin Towers
and WTC 7 were had a few fires for a very short period of time.
The fire in the North Tower was **very small**. If not, why did
firefighters say it wasn't much and that all they needed was a couple of
lines? |