Jed Rothwell wrote:

> Harry Veeder wrote:
> 
>> I suspect the WTC towers were designed with a structural weakness
>> to make any future demolition easy.
> 
> ABSOLUTELY NOT! That would be insane. The WTC Towers were one of the
> strongest structures made up to the 1970s. They withstood the effects
> of the crashing airplanes and fire far longer than any previous
> structure could have, or than most would today.
> 
> They collapsed because millions of tons of steel and concrete fell
> about 6 meters when one of the floors finally collapsed. The force
> from that immediately sheered the next floor supports, and the ones
> below that, one after the other. This was obvious from the metal
> recovered from the wreckage. It is easy to tell the difference
> between metal that was melted and broken from heat, and metal that
> was broken by the force of falling weight. In any case, putting
> explosives in the lower floors would be pointless. They would not be
> needed. The energy of the falling building was roughly equivalent to
> a small nuclear bomb. It far exceeded the force you could achieve
> with conventional explosives.

That is my point. The building was designed to withstand
a severe _horizontal_ blow, but it was not designed to withstand
a severe _downward_ blow. The inability of the structure
to withstand a vertical shock would make its future demolition
a breeze.


> Along the same lines, having the
> airplanes fire missiles into the building before they struck would be
> ridiculous. The energy release from a missile is trivial compared to
> the kinetic energy from an airplane, and that kinetic energy is far
> smaller than the energy release from the burning jet fuel. The fuel
> has enough potential energy to drive the aircraft  for hours at close
> to the speed of sound! Firing a missile first would be like hitting
> someone with a pillow first and then hitting him with a Mack Truck
> going at 60 mph. Why bother with the pillow?
> 
> A missile is effective that it can be guided to the target and it
> causes intense damage to the machine it strikes.
> 
> - Jed
> 

Harry

Reply via email to