On Nov 4, 3:59 am, Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 09:28:22 -0700, wrote:
On Nov 2, 8:28 pm, John Husvar wrote:
In article ,
pyotr filipivich wrote:

After a Computer crash and the demise of civilization, it was learned
"cncfixxer1" wrote on Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:35:54
GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :
Has to do with volume and speed of air ... the same as bellows that were
used in blacksmithing.

Years ago a neighbors house burned down and the metal beams actually melted
... not twisted but melted..
That was from just wood and air

Stainless steel grills are suppose to stand up to bbq fires. They
do, but not when the fire is augmented with coal and a forced draft.

It needn't even require forced draft. Some African blacksmiths use
charcoal fired forges made of tile pipe hanging from a tree limb or
another handy support.

The pipe has a grate and is open bottom to top with a hole in the side
for the smith to insert workpieces.

Just the natural draft from the heated air up the pipe drawing in cool
air at the bottom can keep the forge hot enough to burn/melt steel.

Way I figure it, the natural draft from the fires in the two main WTC
buildings was probably more than enough to generate enough heat to
weaken the floor trusses. When one gave way, everything above that
slammed into those floors and all of that pancaked into the lower floors.

No conspiracy needed, just lots of fuel and natural draft from the
chimney effect of a tall building with big holes in its sides.

Sorry, but there's not the slightest chance that fire contributed
meaningfully to the collapse of WTC2, because:

1) There was little or no jet fuel in the building.

2) The carpets and furniture were fire resistant.

3) Even if there was an adequate supply of readily combustible fuel
present, 56 minutes is not enough time to develop a fire intense
enough or large enough in extent to weaken the steel enough, given the
thermal mass of steel and concrete present (every floor had hundreds
of thousands of kg of steel and over one million kg of concrete).

Come now, the aircraft were carrying heavy fuel loads and in addition
there was a large diesel fuel in at least one of the buildings for the
back-up generators.

There are several videos around showing the impact of Flight 175 with
WTC2; check 'em out.
It's plain to see that, immediately upon impact, a misty cloud of fuel
forms on the opposite side of the building...and it then ignites into
a fireball that is big enough (assuming a lower flammability limit of
0.6% by volume) to account for approximately ALL of the 10,000 gallons
estimated by the government to have been on the plane at impact.


In fact, contrary to the conspiracy theorists arguments of "cover up"
there have been a number of studies published in peer reviewed
journals. I read one in either the Civil Engineering or Mechanical
Engineering Association's publication that was extremely detailed in
describing both the failures and the causes of the failures.

The article questioned both the design and construction of the Towers
and speculated about whether it would be possible to build a tower
that would be proof against another such incident.

Journals of this sort are read by a very large percentage of working
engineers and if there had been either faulty details or calculations
in the article I'm sure that someone, somewhere, would have commented
on it.

One of the things that seems so strange about the whole conspiracy
theory is that the majority of the people that subscribe to it are not
professional engineers and, quite simply, do not have enough technical
knowledge to evaluate the event.


Well, Bruce in Bangkok, when they ignore something like the
indisputably obvious fact that MOST of Flight 175's jet fuel burnt up
outside the building, and then go on to make claims that "the jet fuel-
fed fire reached 1000 degrees centigrade blah-blah-blah" (in a
remarkably short 56 minute time frame no less), with a thermal mass of
almost 2E6 kg present, I started asking questions.

And I've found it's more a matter of "human psychology", apparently,
than it is a matter of "technical knowledge".

Have you ever heard the saying: "A man that should call everything by
its right name would hardly pass
the street without being knocked down as a common enemy."?

Put simply, it's only strange because you are apparently unfamiliar
with human natu There are careers involved here; there is "group
think" involved here; there is an aversion to the notion that our own
government may be complicit involved here, etc.

For a recent notable example of this, look what happened to Dr. James
Watson, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of
DNA and the man most responsible for the Human Genome Project.

Dr. Watson made the mistake of publicly stating that there are IQ
differences between races, and now finds himself forced to resign from
his lab. Universities and museums have also canceled his lectures, and
he is now being labeled a "racist". All this for merely stating what
he believes to be an obvious scientific truth, albeit a highly
politically incorrect one. Do you follow?