"Animal" <nomail@mail.com> wrote in message
news:12ht793jctudrc8@corp.supernews.com...
agent86@justicespammail.com wrote:
On 30 Sep 2006 08:41:34 -0700, "gerry" <gerrytwo@hotmail.com> wrote:
Animal wrote:
Building structures are designed as a 'whole' All
individual members are dependant on the rest to perform properly.
Actually, not. The WTC was an anomaly in one way, the aluminum skin
acted as the main part of the structural support above the 40th floor,
Er, no. The perimeter wall was steel all the way to the top. The
building was clad in an aluminum siding.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc1.htm
"The outer box, measuring 208 feet by 208 feet (63x63 m), was made up
of 14-inch (36-cm) wide steel columns, 59 per building face, spaced
just over 3 feet (1 m) apart. On every floor above the plaza level,
the spaces between the columns housed 22-inch (56-cm) windows.
Yamasaki, who had a pronounced fear of heights, felt that the small
windows made the building feel more secure. The columns were covered
with aluminum, giving the towers a distinctive silver color. "
attached to floor joists that deformed from the heat of jet propellant
burning inside the tower after jet crash. Skyscrapers like the Empire
State Building are built with a steel superstructure to the top floor,
just like you build something with an erector set. The curtain wall
and the internal features - floors, elevator shafts, plumbing - are
added later. Knocking out a floor's worth of windows and exterior
walls on the Empire State Building, as the Mitchell bomber did in 1945,
did not compromise the building's structural integrity to any great
degree, nor did the raging fire after the crash.
That you got right.
Not really
This is hardly a "floor's worth of windows and exterior walls knocked out.
It's a picture of a hole caused by a B-25 flown into the Empire State
Building during WWII while lost in the fog on approach to Newark.
http://www.ww2guide.com/b25.shtml The plane had an estimated weight of
30,000 Lbs and was flying at an estimated 225 MPH at the time of the
collision, vs. an estimated 280,000 Lbs of a loaded and near-full fueled
767-223 that hit the North Tower WTC @ an estimated 490 MPH. (490/225) =
~2.18, (280,000/30,000) = ~9.33. The 767 hitting the WTC had 9.33x the mass
@ 2.18x the velocity, meaning the kinetic energy was (9.33)*(2.18)(2.18) =
44.34x that of the errant B-25.
So what are you trying to tell us? That you're genuinely skeptical that a
2-engined WW-II era prop job can't take down a skyscraper, but a modern jet
airliner hitting with 44 TIMES the kinetic energy (not even ACCOUNTING for
the fire caused by all that fuel) CAN?
If you REALLY have THAT much of a problem understanding the difference, then
you're way too ignorant to even be participating in this discussion... :O(
.
