Re: Is this faked?
- From: "AllYou!" <Idaman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 16:08:03 -0400
"Chris" <c.dynak@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:03ifg.47$Mb6.45@xxxxxxxxxxx
But was it really an attack? Everyone knows truss rods won't melt in
a regular fire.
They didn't melt, they were weakened.
Last year, or maybe even earlier than that, Jupiter went on this rant that no building made of steel had ever collapsed due to fire, and that an open flame such as that on the WTC towers on 9/11 would never get hot enough to "melt solid steel truss rods", and so the towers would never have collapsed just due to the fire. While he fell short of outright claiming a conspiracy, he did claim that the fire from the planes could not have caused the collapse of the towers.
Obviously, he's wrong on all counts. Steel buildings have regularly collapsed due to open fires because, as we all know, the steel doesn't have to reach the melting point before the beams, columns, and *trusses* can be substantially weakened due to heat. In fact, that's why virtually all fire codes require the steel is such buildings to be insulated. It's to substantially delay the effects of the heat on those members so that there's a greater chance of extinguishing the fire before they fail. Duh.
.
- References:
- OT: Is this faked?
- From: jupiter49
- Re: Is this faked?
- From: QuiGon
- Re: Is this faked?
- From: jupiter49
- Re: Is this faked?
- From: AllYou!
- Re: Is this faked?
- From: Chris
- OT: Is this faked?
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Pat Paulsen finally makes it
- Previous by thread: Re: Is this faked?
- Next by thread: Re: Is this faked?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
