sci.energy.hydrogen

Jeff McCann wrote:

> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jeff McCann wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You and the rest of the conspiracy nutters are trying to make a
>>> mockery of a national tragedy, for reasons known only to yourselves,
>>> or perhaps your psychiatrists. That offends me personally.
>>
>>
>> Well! So, objective analysis is out?
>
>
> Nope. but I've yet to see one that deals with the actual, as opposed to
> imaginary, facts

Facts aside, how do I deal with these observations?
/F77/

>>> the WTC Towers were brought down by airliners intentionally crashed
>>> into them by Islamic terrorists.
>>
>> WTC7 was hit by an airliner!? I hadn't heard that before......
>
> Nope, it collapsed from massive structural damage compounded by
> prolonged uncontrolled fire.

Ok, lets see what we have here. I'll spot you the premise that the core
was compromised by fire. And that is questionable.

Typical redundant strength in a high-rise is some 8 to 10. I had read 20
for the towers but, have no reference yet for WTC7. So with 9, it means
you can remove 8 out of every 9 outer columns before the load becomes
critical. Yet there was some mechanism that caused _all_ the outer
columns of WTC7 to fail simultaneously and completely. This is the
observation. What I lack is a suitable hypothesis.

>
> Jeff

Best, Dan.