Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
|
I'm responding as I read...
So they agree that the crash damage was not significant in that "the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure." I'm glad we got this one out of the way. The outside was moderately damaged, and the inside was probably not damaged at all. This means that the focus of the blame for the collapse falls almost singularly on the fire.
I have read many observations of molten steel, or steel that has become so hot that it has melted completlty and is in liquid form, in the basements of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. One Dr. Keith Eaton, a renound structural engineer, toured the hrounds after the collapses. He wrote in an article:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith Eaton
They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6)
|
While it is possible for a fire that was aided by jet fuel and office furniture and such could theoretically cause steel to lose it's strength, we've already established that it cannot melt the steel. Please watch
this video (in wmv format).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Narrator
This is six weeks later...and as we get closer to the center of this it gets hotter and hotter. It's probably 1500 degrees.
|
These descriptions are not consistent with the fires that would have resulted from the collision.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
|
I'm in Appendix II, I'll answer this when I can.