"CHARLES ANGELICH" wrote to "MIKE ROSS" (20 Dec 02  02:16:00)
 --- on the topic of "Word Trade Center"

 CA>> I'm not a demolitions expert but those on the TV
 CA>> documentaries seem to be telling me it's not all that easy
 CA>> to drop a building?

 MR> Perhaps it is in the interest of those who do demolition to
 MR> publicize how really difficult their job is?

 CA> That thought has occurred to me. Could be they are putting on a
 CA> 'smoke-n-mirrors' show for the cameras.

I've seen demolitions where fireworks were set off for the sake of the
spectators and cameras, so that's not entirely out of the question. 


 CA>> Maybe someone should explain this 'theory' of pancaking to
 CA>> them?

 MR> Did you ask them? Maybe someone else should stick to
 MR> computer topics instead of speculating on demolition and
 MR> civil engineering, huh?! 

 CA> Why? Are there restrictions on what persons may speculate about
 CA> here? No one bothered to mention them to me.

 CA> I read quite a few speculations about computers in this echo by
 CA> persons unqualified to even speculate. Should I point this out
 CA> when it happens or should I not assume authority I do not have?

I think my reply has crossed a line and hope you accept this appology.
It was uncalled for. Actually, first I felt your remark was a personal
attack but in hindsight it is because of a misunderstanding in that we
were talking about apples and oranges.

Foremost, a lot of demolitions have to deal with old steel girder box
frame construction which used to be how tall buildings were made in the
past. Modern constructions use a different method which distributes the
loads to the outer shell, the corners, and the inner core. Those older
steel beam boxes are much more difficult to demolish because the overall
strength was distributed among each little cube. Again I over-reacted...

 Mike
 ****

... Great, now you're communicating by tag again
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30