In article <ga498u$lhv$1@news.albasani.net>, Steve Terry
 scribeth thus
> wrote in message
>news:db669621-6d56-4acf-a4d2-5fbb532f1668@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>On Sep 7, 9:58 pm, "Steve Terry"  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>> news:3061da90-70cd-484d-b868-340f66e35403@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 7, 5:10 pm, "Low Life #3"  wrote:
>> > "Dave Farrance"  wrote in
>> > message
>> >news:qfs7c4d6rf374ign98dlid3cn27fqjv47i@4ax.com...
>> >> : "Low Life #3"  wrote:
><snip>
>>> Fire from the twin towers brought down tower 7. Why is it so many people
>>> want to underestimate the structural damage done by fire?
>>
>>Even the fires in the twin towers were nowhere near hot enough to melt
>>the steel. They were initially kerosene fires (from the jet fuel) and
>>after most of this had burned off (it didn't take long), the office
>>contents continued to burn.
>>
>You don't have to even approach melting the steel for a building to 
>collapse.

No...

>It largely depends on how heavily loaded the structure is to it's collapse
>point in the first place.

Yes.. But how did they manage to heat WTC 7 so very evenly?..
>
>Quite obviously the buildings involved were very heavily loaded
>
>Look at the hundreds of tons 


How do you know how heavy that aerial stack was?..

>of aerial structure alone on tower two,
>all had hundreds of tons of roof mounted A/C equipment as well,
>and water tanks, don't forget each meter cubed of water is a metric ton!
>never mind internal loads!
>Of course will all that massive top loading they are going to fall straight
>down


Are they?.

>, it's a miracle they don't anyway.

Really?..

>>
>>In 2005, for example, a skyscraper in Madrid burned for 24 hours -
>>portions of the building fell away, but it did not collapse.
>>
>Obviously a much lighter loaded and stronger framed structure

And how do you know that?..

-- 
Tony Sayer