ONLY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION CAN COLLAPSE A BUILDING CLEANLY ON ITS FOOTPRINT
The following post on the Green Party of Minnesota discussion list was set off by the crash and resulting explosion of a tanker truck filled with gasoline on one of the entrance ramps to the Golden Gate Bridge. The fire melted the steel support of the entrance ramp which cause it to collapse.
Since 9/11 truth literature has claimed that fire does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel and that the girders of steel framed buildings have NEVER collapsed because of fire, the collapse of the entrance ramp to the Golden Gate Bridge would seem to be a counter example.
I don't yet have a complete answer to this seeming counterexample to the claim that fire cannot melt steel. But I am still focusing on matters I am relatively certain of. And one matter is that the ONLY way to collapse a building quickly on to it footprint without damagine everything nearby is by a controlled demolition, that is by painstakingly calculating where the explosives need to be positioned and the precise times and sequences in which the explosives need to detonate to bring the building down cleanly on its footprint. An earthquake or sufficiently stong wind would bring the building down on everything surrounding it. Motar shells or bombs dropped from above would bring the building down on its surroundings also.
It is possible to demolish buildings piece by piece with a wrecking ball but that could take months, depending on the building's size. The only way to bring buildings down cleanly on their footprints is by painstakingly calculating the prepositioning of explosives and the sequence in which they will detonate.
From : "rhalfhill@juno.com"
To : discuss@mngreens.org
Cc : discuss@mngreens.org
Subject : Re: [discuss] Rosie, 9/11, and the SF overpass
Date : Wed, May 02, 2007 05:02 AM
Just go through the process I went through in reaching the
conclusion that the fall of the World trade Center Towers had to be
caused by a controlled demolition. I didn't realize it was possible
to clear buildings away by taking a few weeks to carefully
preposition explosives and then cause the building to fell cleanly
into its basement, instead of debris from the building falling all
over the surrounding area, until I read about buildings being removed
to make way for newer buildings in the course of urban renewal in
downtown Minneapolis. The only way I had known to remove buildings
previously was to crash wrecking balls into them and spend several
months tearing them down. I remember being surprised that it was
possible to bring buildings down cleanly by controlled demolition.
When did you first learn that it was possible to cause buildings
to collapse into their basements by spending a few weeks preplanting
explosives? Weren't you surprised? I know I was.
So even if fire can melt steel, a fire would not cause the World
Trade Center Towers to fall cleanly into their basements and that is
the way they did fall. A fire would vary in temperature in different
parts of the building and the steel girders would have been exposed
to the fire for different lengths of time since the fire would reach
the girders at different times. The chances are virtually nill that
a fires would cause each structual element to fail at precisely the
moment necessary for the buildings to collapse into their basements
instead of falling all over their surrounding area. Only a
controlled demolition could have caused WCT 1, 2, and 7 to fall as
they did.
If the planes that struck Towers 1 and 2 were filled with
explosives, that would have caused the towers to fall over everything
around them, not collapse into their basements. And World Trade
Center Tower 7 was not even struck by a plane.
As for fire causing steel framed buildings to collapse, I have
seen pictures of burned buildings with their steel frames intact on
various 911 discussion Groups. I asked an architect about this at a
meeting of a local 911 Meetup Group and he answered that not only
could fire not produce a high enough temperature to cause the steel
girders to become ductile enough to buckle but that, since metal is
such a good conducter of heat, the heat of the fire would be
conducted throughout the entire length of the girder too rapidly for
the fire to have much effect on the girder where the fire was located.
I did google the melting point of steel and its melting point was
around 2800 degrees Fahrenheit and I understand that even the hotest
fires don't get higher than 1100 degrees Fahrenheit.
So your architect told you one thing and my architect told me a
different thing. The only way to settle this is to find an
archtecture textbook that says fire has never caused a steel framed
building to collapse or one that says it has.
Robert Halfhill rhalfhill@juno.com
http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL)
*Write AOL to complain, here: aolaccessibility@aol.com, or call 1-
888-212-5537.
http://RedLavenderInsurgent.blogspot.com
http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL)
*Write AOL to complain, here: aolaccessibility@aol.com, or call 1-
888-212-5537.
http://RedLavenderInsurgent.blogspot.com
Since 9/11 truth literature has claimed that fire does not burn at a high enough temperature to melt steel and that the girders of steel framed buildings have NEVER collapsed because of fire, the collapse of the entrance ramp to the Golden Gate Bridge would seem to be a counter example.
I don't yet have a complete answer to this seeming counterexample to the claim that fire cannot melt steel. But I am still focusing on matters I am relatively certain of. And one matter is that the ONLY way to collapse a building quickly on to it footprint without damagine everything nearby is by a controlled demolition, that is by painstakingly calculating where the explosives need to be positioned and the precise times and sequences in which the explosives need to detonate to bring the building down cleanly on its footprint. An earthquake or sufficiently stong wind would bring the building down on everything surrounding it. Motar shells or bombs dropped from above would bring the building down on its surroundings also.
It is possible to demolish buildings piece by piece with a wrecking ball but that could take months, depending on the building's size. The only way to bring buildings down cleanly on their footprints is by painstakingly calculating the prepositioning of explosives and the sequence in which they will detonate.
From : "rhalfhill@juno.com"
To : discuss@mngreens.org
Cc : discuss@mngreens.org
Subject : Re: [discuss] Rosie, 9/11, and the SF overpass
Date : Wed, May 02, 2007 05:02 AM
Just go through the process I went through in reaching the
conclusion that the fall of the World trade Center Towers had to be
caused by a controlled demolition. I didn't realize it was possible
to clear buildings away by taking a few weeks to carefully
preposition explosives and then cause the building to fell cleanly
into its basement, instead of debris from the building falling all
over the surrounding area, until I read about buildings being removed
to make way for newer buildings in the course of urban renewal in
downtown Minneapolis. The only way I had known to remove buildings
previously was to crash wrecking balls into them and spend several
months tearing them down. I remember being surprised that it was
possible to bring buildings down cleanly by controlled demolition.
When did you first learn that it was possible to cause buildings
to collapse into their basements by spending a few weeks preplanting
explosives? Weren't you surprised? I know I was.
So even if fire can melt steel, a fire would not cause the World
Trade Center Towers to fall cleanly into their basements and that is
the way they did fall. A fire would vary in temperature in different
parts of the building and the steel girders would have been exposed
to the fire for different lengths of time since the fire would reach
the girders at different times. The chances are virtually nill that
a fires would cause each structual element to fail at precisely the
moment necessary for the buildings to collapse into their basements
instead of falling all over their surrounding area. Only a
controlled demolition could have caused WCT 1, 2, and 7 to fall as
they did.
If the planes that struck Towers 1 and 2 were filled with
explosives, that would have caused the towers to fall over everything
around them, not collapse into their basements. And World Trade
Center Tower 7 was not even struck by a plane.
As for fire causing steel framed buildings to collapse, I have
seen pictures of burned buildings with their steel frames intact on
various 911 discussion Groups. I asked an architect about this at a
meeting of a local 911 Meetup Group and he answered that not only
could fire not produce a high enough temperature to cause the steel
girders to become ductile enough to buckle but that, since metal is
such a good conducter of heat, the heat of the fire would be
conducted throughout the entire length of the girder too rapidly for
the fire to have much effect on the girder where the fire was located.
I did google the melting point of steel and its melting point was
around 2800 degrees Fahrenheit and I understand that even the hotest
fires don't get higher than 1100 degrees Fahrenheit.
So your architect told you one thing and my architect told me a
different thing. The only way to settle this is to find an
archtecture textbook that says fire has never caused a steel framed
building to collapse or one that says it has.
Robert Halfhill rhalfhill@juno.com
http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL)
*Write AOL to complain, here: aolaccessibility@aol.com, or call 1-
888-212-5537.
http://RedLavenderInsurgent.blogspot.com
http://halfhillviews.greatnow.com (SITE NOW BANNED ON AOL)
*Write AOL to complain, here: aolaccessibility@aol.com, or call 1-
888-212-5537.
http://RedLavenderInsurgent.blogspot.com
posted by Robert Halfhill at 7:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home