>
> This is demented. I could see & smell the fires from six miles away.
> Joseph, you're a smart guy. How can you believe this torrent of crap?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
It's really really simple... Engineering(or economics) degree not required.
Which is more resistant to torsional flex?
1) A cardboad box stood on end. 2) A cardboard box stood on end with it's top cut off.
Tick Tick Tick
*2* Add windload, and you have a cardboard box that flattens and falls on it's own.
Locally, the San Lorenzo river flooded in 1982 it took out most of the briges to downtown that straddled it. The bridges didn't have a problem with the water rushing under them(almost to the deck), they didn't have problems with cars and trucks that had been driving over them for thirty or forty years.
But they had a serious problem with the full size redwoods that came barrelling down the river and, after hitting the brige abuttments(no biggie there either) turned sideways and dammed the flow of the river. The cranes couldn't get the trees out of the way fast enough to keep the force from literally pushing the bridges sideways and they cracked and gapped .
They weren't designed for that type of mechanical force.
I suggest that the lack of a "top of the box", wind load, and horrific damage to the general structure of the building brought the WTC down.
Just having wind openly rushing through the damaged area changes EVERY piece of the engineering calculations used to design the building and it's capacity for withstanding structural strains and pressures.
That's all I have to say about it. The whole issue is a red herring calculated (intentionally or subconciously)to divert folks from the issue of WHY someone might hate us enough to WANT to fly a plane into the WTC.
Leigh http://www.leighm.net
-- Zero Surprises: No virus found in this outgoing message // lcm Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.3/15 - Release Date: 6/14/2005