>     "One would think that adding heavy cross
>      members every 20 floors or so might
>      prevent the entire structure from
>      pancaking like that"
>
> I wonder what the 'load' of oh, say, what? ten
> stories is as it collapses down upon the next
> story ... isn't that **the new load** that
> that the floor space *then* needs to support -
> - the full ten stories that just came down? Not
> to mention the inertial effects that the mass
> of ten stories has gained in ten feet (or more)
> of distance ...
>
> As it was, I am assuming that the vertical support
> steel structural members (both external, along
> the external walls and internal) *failed* on
> one story initially -
>
> - now there is no means of providing support to the
> above vertical steel structural beams and hence the
> stories above - you have lost your tie-in to those
> supporting steel beams that were holding the above
> stories over your current floor and head ... the floor
> above will pancake down, overload the current floor
> (and each succeeding floor), probably sheering lateral
> tie-ins (each time) to the vertical steel structure
> supports by overload and quite likely bowing-out
> those steel vertical members as well ... floor after
> floor ... till ground is reached ...
>
> I too watched that ghastly sight - many times yesterday ...
>
> Jim
>

> Chris Pringle wrote:
> >I was quite interested to hear from one of our structural engineers earlier
> >today. Apparantly it wasn't the aircraft that caused the buildings to
> >collapse. The buildings were designed to take the hit of an aircraft.
> >
> >What brought the buildings down was the fire. The buildings hadn't been
> >designed to survive a fire. When the structure became warm, the steel
> >supports were no longer strong enough to support the weight of the building
> >and so it gave way.
> >
>
>
> While watching the towers collapse [again and again, ugh], I was
> struck by the way the entire structures simply pancaked vertically
> [had they fallen "over", they would have wiped out half of Manhattan],
> picking up speed as they went, and wondered how on earth do you
> build a building that does just that.
>
> I heard several interviews with structural engineers, and not one
> had the balls to address this particular issue. They all said, "we
> designed for hurricanes and wind loading and [small] fires ......,
> but not for anything like this .....".
>
> At any rate, turns out the reason for the collapse dynamics is
> because they build these things as a tube within a tube, with an
> inner tube bearing most of the weight, and the outer tube a series
> of girders up the outside wall - but there are essentially "no"
> structural elements connecting the two. This is what the paper
> said today.
>
> Take a close look at pictures of the 1st tower collapsing, and
> one of the "obvious" things you are similar length girders flying
> off in all directions. These are about the length of one story
> height or so.
>
> Small wonder they came down the way they did. One would think
> that adding heavy cross members every 20 floors or so might
> prevent the entire structure from pancaking like that, and
> might add only minimally to the overall cost.
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
> email listservKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
>

>
>On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 07:42:21PM -0400, Dan Michaels wrote:
>> Chris Pringle wrote:
>> >I was quite interested to hear from one of our structural engineers earlier
>> >today. Apparantly it wasn't the aircraft that caused the buildings to
>> >collapse. The buildings were designed to take the hit of an aircraft.
>> >
>> >What brought the buildings down was the fire. The buildings hadn't been
>> >designed to survive a fire. When the structure became warm, the steel
>> >supports were no longer strong enough to support the weight of the building
>> >and so it gave way.
>> >
>>

>How structurally sound is an egg carton?
>Does it fulfill it's function?
>
>
>> >As the WTC was built around corner
>> >beams and not a robust internal lattice,
>> >once the planes took out one of those
>> >corner ribs it was inevitable.
>> .............
>
>A naive view that completely overlooks the effects
>of the fire which serves to weaken the structural
>steel with time ...
>
>I don't think that 'corner rib thing' is anywheres
>near being accurate either - someone is just
>'throwing stuff out there' IMNSHO.
>
>Jim
>
>
>

>Chris Pringle wrote:
>
>>I was quite interested to hear from one of our structural engineers earlier
>>today. Apparantly it wasn't the aircraft that caused the buildings to
>>collapse. The buildings were designed to take the hit of an aircraft.
>>
>>What brought the buildings down was the fire. The buildings hadn't been
>>designed to survive a fire. When the structure became warm, the steel
>>supports were no longer strong enough to support the weight of the building
>>and so it gave way.
>>
>
>
>While watching the towers collapse [again and again, ugh], I was
>struck by the way the entire structures simply pancaked vertically
>[had they fallen "over", they would have wiped out half of Manhattan],
>picking up speed as they went, and wondered how on earth do you
>build a building that does just that.
>
>I heard several interviews with structural engineers, and not one
>had the balls to address this particular issue. They all said, "we
>designed for hurricanes and wind loading and [small] fires ......,
>but not for anything like this .....".
>
>At any rate, turns out the reason for the collapse dynamics is
>because they build these things as a tube within a tube, with an
>inner tube bearing most of the weight, and the outer tube a series
>of girders up the outside wall - but there are essentially "no"
>structural elements connecting the two. This is what the paper
>said today.
>
>Take a close look at pictures of the 1st tower collapsing, and
>one of the "obvious" things you are similar length girders flying
>off in all directions. These are about the length of one story
>height or so.
>
>Small wonder they came down the way they did. One would think
>that adding heavy cross members every 20 floors or so might
>prevent the entire structure from pancaking like that, and
>might add only minimally to the overall cost.
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
>email RemoveMElistservTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
>
>
>
>
>

>The cross members required to support the load of 20 stories falling at
>9.8 meters per second would require exponentially stronger members below
>to support 40 stories falling at 9.8 meters, etc.  Otherwise someone
>could pick the weak spot and hit it.
>
>This would actually add tremendously to the cost of the building.
>
>Furthermore, the building held up long enough that they could have
>gotten everyone who was not hurt by the initial blast, including the
>firefighters if they understood how long they had, and had better plans
>in place.
>
>As has been said so many times before, we are learning some terrible,
>but necessary lessons because of this.
>
>The building did what it was supposed to do.  It is not necessary to
>beef every other or every future high rise up to withstand the truly
>extreme forces the WTC withstood.  You can't account for everything,
>and, like actuaries, we have to find a point where the safety systems in
>place meet the costs associated with them.
>
>Of the 50,000 people who were inside the building at the time fo the
>attack, probably less than 10% will have died.  Please don't
>misunderstand - it is an unacceptable loss for us - but financial
>backers and the engineers who must cut costs will ultimately design the
>building for the stresses placed on it 99.999% of the time, and not well
>enought for that extra one thousandth of a percent which would have
>allowed some 10k pound of jet fuel to burn on several floors for several
>hours without collapsing.  They will then say that in the one in a
>million chance that the building had undergo those stresses, and 90% of
>the population of the building escaped largely unscathed, then it would
>be good enough.
>
>I would be surprised to find many people on this list who design a GFI
>into their circuitry for the one in a million chance that it would be
>dropped into the tub, when it is not used anywhere near one.
>
>-Adam
>
>Dan Michaels wrote:
>
>>Chris Pringle wrote:
>>
>>>I was quite interested to hear from one of our structural engineers earlier
>>>today. Apparantly it wasn't the aircraft that caused the buildings to
>>>collapse. The buildings were designed to take the hit of an aircraft.
>>>
>>>What brought the buildings down was the fire. The buildings hadn't been
>>>designed to survive a fire. When the structure became warm, the steel
>>>supports were no longer strong enough to support the weight of the building
>>>and so it gave way.
>>>
>>
>>
>>While watching the towers collapse [again and again, ugh], I was
>>struck by the way the entire structures simply pancaked vertically
>>[had they fallen "over", they would have wiped out half of Manhattan],
>>picking up speed as they went, and wondered how on earth do you
>>build a building that does just that.
>>
>>I heard several interviews with structural engineers, and not one
>>had the balls to address this particular issue. They all said, "we
>>designed for hurricanes and wind loading and [small] fires ......,
>>but not for anything like this .....".
>>
>>At any rate, turns out the reason for the collapse dynamics is
>>because they build these things as a tube within a tube, with an
>>inner tube bearing most of the weight, and the outer tube a series
>>of girders up the outside wall - but there are essentially "no"
>>structural elements connecting the two. This is what the paper
>>said today.
>>
>>Take a close look at pictures of the 1st tower collapsing, and
>>one of the "obvious" things you are similar length girders flying
>>off in all directions. These are about the length of one story
>>height or so.
>>
>>Small wonder they came down the way they did. One would think
>>that adding heavy cross members every 20 floors or so might
>>prevent the entire structure from pancaking like that, and
>>might add only minimally to the overall cost.
>>
>>--
>>http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
>>email listservSTOPspamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
>spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestSTOPspamEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu
>
>
>
>

>Adam, you're probably correct in all you say. Now
>compare to/conjecture about the construction of the
>Empire State Bldg --> which is what I have been trying
>to get people to consider.
>
>
>
>At 07:02 PM 9/13/01 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>The cross members required to support the load of 20 stories falling at
>>9.8 meters per second would require exponentially stronger members below
>>to support 40 stories falling at 9.8 meters, etc.  Otherwise someone
>>could pick the weak spot and hit it.
>>
>>This would actually add tremendously to the cost of the building.
>>
>>Furthermore, the building held up long enough that they could have
>>gotten everyone who was not hurt by the initial blast, including the
>>firefighters if they understood how long they had, and had better plans
>>in place.
>>
>>As has been said so many times before, we are learning some terrible,
>>but necessary lessons because of this.
>>
>>The building did what it was supposed to do.  It is not necessary to
>>beef every other or every future high rise up to withstand the truly
>>extreme forces the WTC withstood.  You can't account for everything,
>>and, like actuaries, we have to find a point where the safety systems in
>>place meet the costs associated with them.
>>
>>Of the 50,000 people who were inside the building at the time fo the
>>attack, probably less than 10% will have died.  Please don't
>>misunderstand - it is an unacceptable loss for us - but financial
>>backers and the engineers who must cut costs will ultimately design the
>>building for the stresses placed on it 99.999% of the time, and not well
>>enought for that extra one thousandth of a percent which would have
>>allowed some 10k pound of jet fuel to burn on several floors for several
>>hours without collapsing.  They will then say that in the one in a
>>million chance that the building had undergo those stresses, and 90% of
>>the population of the building escaped largely unscathed, then it would
>>be good enough.
>>
>>I would be surprised to find many people on this list who design a GFI
>>into their circuitry for the one in a million chance that it would be
>>dropped into the tub, when it is not used anywhere near one.
>>
>>-Adam
>>
>>Dan Michaels wrote:
>>
>>>Chris Pringle wrote:
>>>
>>>>I was quite interested to hear from one of our structural engineers earlier
>>>>today. Apparantly it wasn't the aircraft that caused the buildings to
>>>>collapse. The buildings were designed to take the hit of an aircraft.
>>>>
>>>>What brought the buildings down was the fire. The buildings hadn't been
>>>>designed to survive a fire. When the structure became warm, the steel
>>>>supports were no longer strong enough to support the weight of the building
>>>>and so it gave way.
>>>>
>>>
>>>While watching the towers collapse [again and again, ugh], I was
>>>struck by the way the entire structures simply pancaked vertically
>>>[had they fallen "over", they would have wiped out half of Manhattan],
>>>picking up speed as they went, and wondered how on earth do you
>>>build a building that does just that.
>>>
>>>I heard several interviews with structural engineers, and not one
>>>had the balls to address this particular issue. They all said, "we
>>>designed for hurricanes and wind loading and [small] fires ......,
>>>but not for anything like this .....".
>>>
>>>At any rate, turns out the reason for the collapse dynamics is
>>>because they build these things as a tube within a tube, with an
>>>inner tube bearing most of the weight, and the outer tube a series
>>>of girders up the outside wall - but there are essentially "no"
>>>structural elements connecting the two. This is what the paper
>>>said today.
>>>
>>>Take a close look at pictures of the 1st tower collapsing, and
>>>one of the "obvious" things you are similar length girders flying
>>>off in all directions. These are about the length of one story
>>>height or so.
>>>
>>>Small wonder they came down the way they did. One would think
>>>that adding heavy cross members every 20 floors or so might
>>>prevent the entire structure from pancaking like that, and
>>>might add only minimally to the overall cost.
>>>
>>>--
>>>http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
>>>email EraseMElistservEraseMEmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
>>@spam@piclist-unsubscribe-request@spam@spam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu> >>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
>spamBeGonepiclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspammitvma.mit.edu
>
>
>
>
>

>Adam, you're probably correct in all you say. Now
>compare to/conjecture about the construction of the
>Empire State Bldg --> which is what I have been trying
>to get people to consider.
>
>
>
>At 07:02 PM 9/13/01 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>The cross members required to support the load of 20 stories falling at
>>9.8 meters per second would require exponentially stronger members below
>>to support 40 stories falling at 9.8 meters, etc.  Otherwise someone
>>could pick the weak spot and hit it.
>>
>>This would actually add tremendously to the cost of the building.
>>
>>Furthermore, the building held up long enough that they could have
>>gotten everyone who was not hurt by the initial blast, including the
>>firefighters if they understood how long they had, and had better plans
>>in place.
>>
>>As has been said so many times before, we are learning some terrible,
>>but necessary lessons because of this.
>>
>>The building did what it was supposed to do.  It is not necessary to
>>beef every other or every future high rise up to withstand the truly
>>extreme forces the WTC withstood.  You can't account for everything,
>>and, like actuaries, we have to find a point where the safety systems in
>>place meet the costs associated with them.
>>
>>Of the 50,000 people who were inside the building at the time fo the
>>attack, probably less than 10% will have died.  Please don't
>>misunderstand - it is an unacceptable loss for us - but financial
>>backers and the engineers who must cut costs will ultimately design the
>>building for the stresses placed on it 99.999% of the time, and not well
>>enought for that extra one thousandth of a percent which would have
>>allowed some 10k pound of jet fuel to burn on several floors for several
>>hours without collapsing.  They will then say that in the one in a
>>million chance that the building had undergo those stresses, and 90% of
>>the population of the building escaped largely unscathed, then it would
>>be good enough.
>>
>>I would be surprised to find many people on this list who design a GFI
>>into their circuitry for the one in a million chance that it would be
>>dropped into the tub, when it is not used anywhere near one.
>>
>>-Adam
>>
>>Dan Michaels wrote:
>>
>>>Chris Pringle wrote:
>>>
>>>>I was quite interested to hear from one of our structural engineers

>>>>and so it gave way.
>>>>
>>>
>>>While watching the towers collapse [again and again, ugh], I was
>>>struck by the way the entire structures simply pancaked vertically
>>>[had they fallen "over", they would have wiped out half of Manhattan],
>>>picking up speed as they went, and wondered how on earth do you
>>>build a building that does just that.
>>>
>>>I heard several interviews with structural engineers, and not one
>>>had the balls to address this particular issue. They all said, "we
>>>designed for hurricanes and wind loading and [small] fires ......,
>>>but not for anything like this .....".
>>>
>>>At any rate, turns out the reason for the collapse dynamics is
>>>because they build these things as a tube within a tube, with an
>>>inner tube bearing most of the weight, and the outer tube a series
>>>of girders up the outside wall - but there are essentially "no"
>>>structural elements connecting the two. This is what the paper
>>>said today.
>>>
>>>Take a close look at pictures of the 1st tower collapsing, and
>>>one of the "obvious" things you are similar length girders flying
>>>off in all directions. These are about the length of one story
>>>height or so.
>>>
>>>Small wonder they came down the way they did. One would think
>>>that adding heavy cross members every 20 floors or so might
>>>prevent the entire structure from pancaking like that, and
>>>might add only minimally to the overall cost.
>>>
>>>--
>>>http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
>>>email TakeThisOuTlistservKILLspamspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
>>.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestRemoveMEmitvma.mit.edu> >>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
>RemoveMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu
>
>
>
>
>

> At 06:20 PM 9/13/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Dan Michaels" <oricomEraseMEUSWEST.NET>
> >To: <RemoveMEPICLISTEraseMEspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
> >Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:35 PM
> >Subject: Re: [OT]: Structural Collapse - Engineering Debacle ???
> >
> >
> >> Hopefully, you at least took the time to look at the
> >> links shown below.
> >>
> >
> >I studied them intently.
> >
> >You'll also find I posted the rather lengthy
> >treatise on:
> >
> >"TUBULAR SYSTEMS/Vierendeel tube system"
> >
>
>
> Well then, any comments about WTC versus ESB construction?
> [outside of engineering efficiencies].

>What's the relative cost? Will the extra
>material balloon the costs?
>
>What about labor the labor/time, cumulative
>for 110 stories worth -
>
>- or was this for just to locations/floors,
>as proposed earlier - which I don't think
>that's practical to stop a series of floors cascading/pancaking down on each
>other?
>
>Does the extra material *really* contribute
>anything except when *deep* into a failure
>scenario?
>
>The original design (as freely quoted here)
>called for 2 hours worth of fire exposure/duration -
>giving enough time to evacuate - should the specs
>be rewritten to now mandate that the building
>*NOT* collaspse due to fire - in light of all
>the collateral damage that occurred?
>
>Will the extra material contribute excessively
>to weight?
>
>Jim
>
>
>

>Good - hopefully, these issues will all be reviewed in
>public forum in coming months.
>
>However, the ESB might fail, it certainly wouldn't
>pancake 102 floors straight down in 8 seconds.
>
>
>
>At 01:03 AM 9/13/01 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>What's the relative cost? Will the extra
>>material balloon the costs?
>>
>>What about labor the labor/time, cumulative
>>for 110 stories worth -
>>
>>- or was this for just to locations/floors,
>>as proposed earlier - which I don't think
>>that's practical to stop a series of floors cascading/pancaking down on each
>>other?
>>
>>Does the extra material *really* contribute
>>anything except when *deep* into a failure
>>scenario?
>>
>>The original design (as freely quoted here)
>>called for 2 hours worth of fire exposure/duration -
>>giving enough time to evacuate - should the specs
>>be rewritten to now mandate that the building
>>*NOT* collaspse due to fire - in light of all
>>the collateral damage that occurred?
>>
>>Will the extra material contribute excessively
>>to weight?
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>>

>Remeber the airplane striking the 14th St Bridge in DC on take off?  The
>Pentagon is virtually on the other side of that bridge.
>
>Local (DC) radio had a statment from a local "offical" that we cann't
>consider closing Regan National Airport since 10,000 people are employeed
>there.
>
>Personally I think we should consider closing it or exchange Regan National
>for Bowling Air Force base.  I belive Congressional workers consider Regan
>National to be very "handy", maybe they will rethink this.
>
>Kev
>

>I have been following this thread with interest.
>Thank you all who have contributed for your reasoned and
>thoughtful submissions. This has been the one thing
>that has stopped me from switching off OT.
>
>Right, that's buttered you all up 8-)
>I have a question. Does it really make economic sense to
>go so high pushing all engineering disiplines to the limits
>or does personal/corporate/city/state ego also come into the
>equation to justify building the structure ?
>
>Either way, in the light of recent events, I would think that
>risk assesments on skyscrapers worldwide are now been revised
>particularly by the Insurers and the revised insurance costs
>could make some of these buildings no longer viable.
>
>As a personal aside, I have been up a couple of these buildings
>in the USA and Canary Whafe in the UK and quiet frankly they scare
>Willies out of me. (Hell, even the Post Office Tower in London did that)
>yet I felt safe at the bottom of a South African Gold Mine.
>There is obviously something wrong with the way my brain is
>constructed.
>
>Regards
>
>Chris Carr
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
>[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
> At 01:03 AM 9/13/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >What's the relative cost? Will the extra
> >material balloon the costs?
> >
> >What about labor the labor/time, cumulative
> >for 110 stories worth -
> >
> >- or was this for just to locations/floors,
> >as proposed earlier - which I don't think
> >that's practical to stop a series of floors cascading/pancaking down on

> >other?
> >
> >Does the extra material *really* contribute
> >anything except when *deep* into a failure
> >scenario?
> >
> >The original design (as freely quoted here)
> >called for 2 hours worth of fire exposure/duration -
> >giving enough time to evacuate - should the specs
> >be rewritten to now mandate that the building
> >*NOT* collaspse due to fire - in light of all
> >the collateral damage that occurred?
> >
> >Will the extra material contribute excessively
> >to weight?
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Dan Michaels" <oricomspamBeGoneUSWEST.NET>
> >To: <RemoveMEPICLIST@spam@spamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
> >Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 12:35 AM
> >Subject: Re: [OT]: Structural Collapse - Engineering Debacle ???
> >
> >
> >> jvpoll wrote:
> >> >    "One would think that adding heavy cross
> >> >     members every 20 floors or so might
> >> >     prevent the entire structure from
> >> >     pancaking like that"
> >> >
> >> >I wonder what the 'load' of oh, say, what? ten
> >> >stories is as it collapses down upon the next
> >> >story ... isn't that **the new load** that
> >> >that the floor space *then* needs to support -
> >> >- the full ten stories that just came down? Not
> >> >to mention the inertial effects that the mass
> >> >of ten stories has gained in ten feet (or more)
> >> >of distance ...
> >> >
> >> >As it was, I am assuming that the vertical support
> >> >steel structural members (both external, along
> >> >the external walls and internal) *failed* on
> >> >one story initially -
> >> >
> >>
> >> This ????
> >> +----------------+
> >> |                |
> >> |                |
> >> |     +----+     |
> >> |     |    |     |
> >> |     |    |     |
> >> |     +----+     |
> >> |                |
> >> |                |
> >> +----------------+
> >>
> >> or this ????
> >> +-----+----+-----+
> >> | \   |    |   / |
> >> |   \ |    | /   |
> >> +-----+----+-----+
> >> |     |    |     |
> >> |     |    |     |
> >> +-----+----+-----+
> >> |   / |    | \   |
> >> | /   |    |   \ |
> >> +-----+----+-----+
> >>
> >> Which is gonna do better? Which is more likely to
> >> have the broken part crash "outwards", sparing
> >> the floors below? Which is more likely to come down
> >> 110 stories like an elevator down an empty shaft?
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
> >> .....piclist-unsubscribe-request@spam@EraseMEmitvma.mit.edu> > >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
> >[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
> [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
>
>

> designed for having a plane full of jet fuel to crash and burn inside.

> The towers withstood the impact just fine.  They said eventually the steel

> supports would melt and then it comes down.  The paper said that there was

> 13000 gallons of jet fuel in each of the planes that hit the towers.

> (Boeings site says the capacity of a 767 is 23,980 gal.)

>

> They interviewed demolition experts that said that there is a tremendous

> amount of potential energy in a build like that, and once the release of

> energy starts, you can't stop it.  They said that is basically what they

> do with the imploding of buildings.  Some small charges start the release,

> and the rest just continues.

>

>Apparently to be REALLY effective pyramids need to be built at the centre of
>gravity of the visible land masses (as viewed from space) as the Great
>Pyramid, apparently, is. As there is only one such spot per hemisphere and
>the great Pyramid has already taken one you best hurry :-). (And I have no
>idea where the apparent cofg of the Southern hemisphere land masses is but
>odds on it's in water.)
>
>
>
>         RM
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
>(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics