[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Disney Heiress, Other Major Dem Donors: Dump Biden

LAWYER: 5 NEW Tricks Cops Are Using During DWI Stops

10 Signs That Global War Is Rapidly Approaching

Horse Back At Library.

This Video Needs To Be Seen By Every Cop In America

'It's time to give peace another chance': Thousands rally in Tel Aviv to end the war

Biden's leaked bedtime request puts White House on damage control

Smith: It's Damned Hard To Be Proud Of America

Lefties losing it: Rita Panahi slams ‘deranged rant’ calling for assassination of Trump

Stalin, The Red Terror | Full Documentary

Russia, Soviet Union and The Cold War: Stalin's Legacy | Russia's Wars Ep.2 | Documentary

Battle and Liberation: The End of World War II | Countdown to Surrender – The Last 100 Days | Ep. 4

Ethereum ETFs In 'Window-Dressing' Stage, Approval Within Weeks; Galaxy

Americans Are More Likely To Go To War With The Government Than Submit To The Draft

Rudy Giuliani has just been disbarred in New York

Israeli Generals Want Truce in Gaza,

Joe Biden's felon son Hunter is joining White House meetings

The only Democrat who could beat Trump

Ukraine is too CORRUPT to join NATO, US says, in major blow to Zelensky and boost for Putin

CNN Erin Burnett Admits Joe Biden knew the Debate questions..

Affirmative Action Suit Details How Law School Blackballed Accomplished White Men, Opted For Unqualified Black Women

Russia warns Israel over Ukraine missiles

Yemeni Houthis Vow USS Theodore Roosevelt 'Primary Target' Once it Enters Red Sea

3 Minutes Ago: Jim Rickards Shared Horrible WARNING

Horse is back at library

Crossdressing Luggage Snatcher and Ex-Biden Official Sam Brinton Gets Sweetheart Plea Deal

Music

The Ones That Didn't Make It Back Home [featuring Pacman @ 0:49 - 0:57 in his natural habitat]

Let’s Talk About Grief | Death Anniversary

Democrats Suddenly Change Slogan To 'Orange Man Good'


9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: Magnetic forces to blame for 9/11 tower collapse
Source: The Independent
URL Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s ... 911-tower-collapse-924509.html
Published: Jul 24, 2009
Author: Steve Connor
Post Date: 2009-07-24 16:54:32 by Lysander_Spooner
Keywords: None
Views: 1443
Comments: 119

Magnetic forces to blame for 9/11 tower collapse

By Steve Connor

Wednesday, 10 September 2008

Scientists can finally explain why the Twin Towers collapsed on September 11, despite the temperature of the fires being well below the 1,500C melting point of the steel girders holding up the buildings.

The discovery that unusual magnetic forces within the girders made them weak at temperatures of about 500C explains away the conspiracy theories that have spread like wildfire since the disaster.

Sergei Dudarev, of the UK Atomic Energy Agency, found that steel loses its strength above 500C because its molecules undergo a physical transition from one state to another due to magnetic fluctuations. "The steel didn't melt, it just became soft. It is an unusual state and the temperatures in the Twin Towers were high enough to cause it because the thermal insulation was knocked off the girders through the impact with the aircraft," he said.

"Understanding how materials behave means we can find the right 'medicine' to make steel stronger at high temperatures... and if our work can be used for other applications, such as safeguarding tall buildings against disasters, so much the better," he said.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 109.

#5. To: Lysander_Spooner (#0)

It's not an unusual state. Any blacksmith can tell you that when heated at temperatures well below the level produced in the WTC fires, steel and iron weaken and become malleable. Some conspiracy nuts think that the only way steel can weaken is if it's heated to complete liquification; they were only demonstrating their own ignorance.

And, by the way, some nut started the story of a pool of molten steel at Ground Zero, still liquid days after the collapse. Simply impossible. Even a nuclear explosion wouldn't have that effect. Nobody did a metallic analysis that showed this was steel or any other normal metal. What was seen was a greyish puddle of a variety of fluids, including water, paint, melted plastic, various industrial liquids, that had mixed together from the fire, collapse and fire fighting efforts at the WTC.

Shoonra  posted on  2009-07-24   23:58:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Shoonra (#5)

Any backyard griller can tell you that their grills never collapse to the ground at free fall speed despite grilling all day.

Government stooges like you have a special place reserved for you in hell.

RickyJ  posted on  2009-07-29   4:32:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: RickyJ (#44)

Any backyard griller can tell you that their grills never collapse to the ground at free fall speed despite grilling all day.

Well, to be fair, that's not a good analogy. Backyard grills are built to withstand that kind of heat without collapsing. The heat is not near the melting poing of a grill.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-10-28   12:29:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: SonOfLiberty (#48) (Edited)

Neither is the temperature of burning kerosene. In fact, burning charcoal burns at a much higher temperature that jet fuel does in an open flame burn at STP.

randge  posted on  2009-10-28   12:34:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: randge (#49)

You don't need to melt steel just heat it up enough for it to weaken. Like I said - why do they fireproof structural steel then? Insurance scam?

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   12:40:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: Destro (#51)

You don't need to melt steel just heat it up enough for it to weaken

I have not seen convincing evidence that the steel in this building got anywhere near the 500°C claimed to cause the weakening spoken of above.

Sorry for your poor understanding of science.

I'm not a scientist or engineer, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe neither are you. I've studied physics and chemistry, so I'm not a complete dolt at these things. No reason to get personal here.

randge  posted on  2009-10-28   13:35:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: randge, Destro, TwentyTwelve, christine, all (#59)

You don't need to melt steel just heat it up enough for it to weaken

I have not seen convincing evidence that the steel in this building got anywhere near the 500°C claimed to cause the weakening spoken of above.

Sorry for your poor understanding of science.

I'm not a scientist or engineer, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe neither are you. I've studied physics and chemistry, so I'm not a complete dolt at these things. No reason to get personal here.

Oh, it is absolutely necessary for a shill to get personal. It is one of their primary tactics in avoiding facts and issues.

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-28   14:02:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Original_Intent, randge, TwentyTwelve, christine (#61)

You don't need to melt steel just heat it up enough for it to weaken I have not seen convincing evidence that the steel in this building got anywhere near the 500°C claimed to cause the weakening spoken of above.

Also, citing evidence of high rise fires for buildings NOT built like the WTC was where the outer shell was part of the structure over a boxed frame construction and did NOT have a plane of that size fly into them as an apples to apples comparison is just not acceptable. I can't take it serious as a comparison. That is common sense.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   14:10:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: Destro, randge, TwentyTwelve, christine, all (#62)

You don't need to melt steel just heat it up enough for it to weaken I have not seen convincing evidence that the steel in this building got anywhere near the 500°C claimed to cause the weakening spoken of above.

Also, citing evidence of high rise fires for buildings NOT built like the WTC was where the outer shell was part of the structure over a boxed frame construction and did NOT have a plane of that size fly into them as an apples to apples comparison is just not acceptable. I can't take it serious as a comparison. That is common sense.

As with all Strawman Arguments you leave out any data not accounted for in the "Official Conspiracy Theory®" i.e., that these particular buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 which is very close in size to the aircraft that did hit the towers.

And did I adduce other fires into the argument? NO. So, you commit another related fallacy that of the Red Herring.

What kind of plane hit WTC 7?

Why did CNN report WTC 7's imminent collapse an hour in advance and BBC report that it had collapsed 25 minutes ahead of the fact?

What heating mechanism are you employing to justify the simultaneous, symetrical in 360 degrees, uniform collapse of the towers?

We've already ruled out the two Strawmen of Jet Fuel, and Paper Fires.

What removed the underlying support columns which, at the very least, should have severely limited the rate of collapse?

At this point in the game I have little time for shills, and brain dead apologists seeking to avoid the logical conclusions i.e., that the buildings were brought down intententionally and that the aircraft crashed into the buildings were merely cover to obscure the actual mechanisms by which the buildings were intentionally collapsed.

911 was a PsyOp to provide justification for war and the evisceration of the Bill of Rights.

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-28   14:39:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: Original_Intent, randge, TwentyTwelve, christine, mininggold (#68)

were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 which is very close in size to the aircraft that did hit the towers.

No, the 707 is much smaller. Sorry. If you can't get that right what can I say about the rest of the assertions made?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b767.htm#at

The 767-200 provides several advantages over the 707. Because of its wide-body configuration, the 767 offers 50 percent more floor space and nearly twice the volume of the 707. The 767 can carry a heavier payload, has a greater range and flies higher than the 707.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   14:59:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: Destro, randge, TwentyTwelve, christine, all (#69)

There is only one minor problem with your misleading argument - the facts. As the following excerpt illustrates:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Other engineers are on public record as saying that the World Trade Center would even survive an impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

However, the actual aircraft involved in the World Trade Center impacts were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, and consequently, would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the Boeing 767 has a maximum range of 7,600 miles (12,220 km)). The aircraft would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

Government sources estimate that each of the Boeing 767's had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board at the times of impact.

To give you some idea how much jet fuel this is, an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot tank contains 10,000 gallons (1 US gallon = 0.13368 cubic feet). So a novel way of destroying high-rise buildings is to load an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot glass tank of jet fuel into a Ryder truck, drive it into the ground floor lobby, break the glass, set light to the fuel and walk away, the high-rise should collapse in about an hour (after all, 12,000 gallons of diesel was all it took to bring down WTC 7). Look mom, no explosives needed. ..."

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-28   15:09:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: Original_Intent, randge, TwentyTwelve, christine, mininggold (#70)

Yea, they are not the same - not even remotely close. That is like saying a boxer who is 5'5" is close to body mass of a boxer who is 6' or even 5'9"

Plug those numbers in an equation that calculates mass x velocity makes nonsense of you assertion that these airplanes are basically the same.

Kinetic energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity x velocity (K.E.=1/2 x m x v 2).

Force=Mass x Acceleration

Let us pretend mass is 100 and velocity is 500 result = 50,000

Let us increase mass by a little 125 and velocity stays at 500 result = 62,500

That tells me increase in mass even slightly increases kinetic force by large degrees if speed remains the same.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   15:40:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: Destro, Original_Intent, randge, TwentyTwelve, christine, mininggold (#74)

Plug those numbers in an equation that calculates mass x velocity makes nonsense of you assertion that these airplanes are basically the same.

Kinetic energy = 1/2 x mass x velocity x velocity (K.E.=1/2 x m x v 2).

Force=Mass x Acceleration

Let us pretend mass is 100 and velocity is 500 result = 50,000

Let us increase mass by a little 125 and velocity stays at 500 result = 62,500

Did you even consider the fact that the aircraft was carrying less than half the fuel it could carry?

You are assuming the maximum load of fuel, well ok, let's look at that for a minute...

A gallon of jet fuel is about 6.5 pounds.

If we are talking about only 10,000 gallons of fuel out of a possible 23,980 gallons on the 767, then that's 13,980 gallons less than max.

So, 6.5 lbs/gal * 13,980 gallons = 90,870 lbs.

Considering the towers were supposed to handle a 707 with FULL tanks, the weight of the 707 remains at 336,000 lbs.

The max weight of the 767 is 395,000 lbs., take away the weight of the fuel that wasn't onboard, we have 395,000 lbs. - 90,870 lbs. = 304,130 lbs.

That means the 767 was (336,000 lbs. - 304,130 lbs.) = 31,870 lbs. lighter than the 707 that the towers were designed to handle.

Your example for F=ma is flawed by the way, you are showing velocity in your example, not accelation, which would be rate of change of velocity.

Kinetic energy is as you say, E=1/2mv2

Thus, for a velocity of 500 fps and a mass of 100 lbs., the equation would become;

E= 100/2 * (500 * 500) = 12,500,000 foot pounds.

For a mass of 125, the equation becomes;

E= 125/2 * (500 * 500) = 15,625,000 foot pounds.

So here we have an increase of 3.125 million foot pounds. Ok.

Now, look at the actual numbers. 500 fps is a bit low, where if the plane was traveling at 500 mph the speed in feet per second is 733 fps, so let's use that.

If there is 31,870 lbs. less mass, then the difference in kinetic energy is as follows;

E = 31,780 lbs/2 * (733 ft/s * 733 ft/s) = 8,537,522,210 foot pounds

SO, the 767 aircraft that struck the WTC had approximately 8.5 BILLION foot pounds LESS kinetic energy than a 707 would have had.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-10-28   16:15:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: FormerLurker, Original_Intent, randge, TwentyTwelve, christine, mininggold (#83)

The mass of the the two different airplanes alone produces significant differences in kinetic energy outcomes if fuel was factored to zero.

That is all you or I can say without seeing the original test results. I was refuting the suggestion that they differences between plane models were slight when in reality every square foot of mass magnifies the kinetic force at speed. It is not the same. The boxer analogy is correct.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   16:30:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: Destro (#85) (Edited)

The mass of the the two different airplanes alone produces significant differences in kinetic energy outcomes if fuel was factored to zero.

Thing is, the planners were calculating for a fully fueled 707, and the 767 was not flying without fuel, it had 10,000 lbs. out of a possible 23,980 lbs.

I was refuting the suggestion that they differences between plane models were slight when in reality every square foot of mass magnifies the kinetic force at speed.

Square footage relates to area, not mass. Mass would be a function of the density of that square footage. Regardless, the mass is known for the worst case scenario, which is max takeoff weight. Besides only carrying half of the possible fuel load, it is doubtful the plane was fully packed to the brim with cargo...

So the net outcome is that the 767 aircraft was MUCH lighter than the 707 taken into consideration of the WTC design, thus, struck with much less force than which the towers were designed to withstand.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-10-28   16:42:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: FormerLurker (#87)

the net outcome is that the 767 aircraft was MUCH lighter than the 707 taken into consideration.

A transcontinental aircraft flying from Boston to LA without fully loaded tanks? Can I see your source?

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   16:58:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: Destro (#91)

A transcontinental aircraft flying from Boston to LA without fully loaded tanks? Can I see your source?

The plane wasn't flying across the ocean on a true transcontinental flight, it was simply flying a cross country flight.

From the 9/11 Commission Report;

An airliner traveling at hundreds of miles per hour and carrying some 10,000 gallons of jet fuel plowed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan. At 9:03, a second airliner hit the South Tower. Fire and smoke billowed upward. Steel, glass, ash, and bodies fell below. The Twin Towers, where up to 50,000 people worked each day, both collapsed less than 90 minutes later.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-10-28   17:05:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: FormerLurker (#94)

After some googling it seems the original test of the 707 crash did not take into account the fire damage only the impact damage and the speed used for the test was was off by a factor of 3 or so less then the 9/11 crash. See just above.

So it looks like we were both using wrong figures for mass/velocity.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   17:17:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: Destro, Original_Intent (#97) (Edited)

the speed used for the test was was off by a factor of 3 or so less then the 9/11 crash. See just above.

A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing (see February 27, 1993).

AA Flight 11 was traveling at 470 mph when it struck the tower, whereas the study showed the towers could withstand a heavier 707 at 600 mph.

470 mph = 689 feet per second
600 mph = 880 feet per second

880 - 689 = 191 feet per second

The amount of energy that was released upon impact was off by a factor of 36,481 since the kinetic energy equation is most influenced by energy, not mass, since velocity is squared.

E = 1/2 mv2

A difference of 191 fps equates to a (191 * 191) increase in energy. That means, besides the lighter 767 having a factor of 30 thousand or so pounds less weight, the energy would be 36,481 times less as well due to the decreased velocity. That's a WHOLE BUNCH less energy upon impact than a fully loaded 707 flying at it's anticipated speed of 600 mph.

Note: Edited values, apparently hit wrong key on calculator in earlier post...

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-10-28   17:49:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: FormerLurker, Original_Intent (#101)

Why did you cherry pick? The first 707 crash test test was at a speed of under 200 mph. The second test was calculated at 600 but the fire such a crash was generated WAS NOT CONSIDERED.

So the first test test is at very low speeds - do the math on that why don't you. The second test has the higher speed but when they did not consider the effect of the fire afterwards from such a crash.

So there is no hook to hang your hat on here. We have building that seems to have been designed around incomplete or unrealistic crash tests. In fact if you google some more as I did you will find people in the 60s said as much regarding the crash test data.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   20:40:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#104. To: Destro, Original_Intent (#102) (Edited)

The first 707 crash test test was at a speed of under 200 mph. The second test was calculated at 600 but the fire such a crash was generated WAS NOT CONSIDERED.

The fire was no worse at 600 than at 200 mph, AND the fuel was spent after the first few minutes, so it is not a factor. In fact, at a lower speed, MORE fuel may have entered the building as the fuel may have lingered in the buildings rather than being blown out the other side.

Besides, the building easily withstood the impact. The impact would have affected the building in the first few seconds. There was no immediate catastrophic failure, indicating the cause of the collapse was due to something other than the impact.

Besides, if it were due to structural instability, the top of the tower would have broken up and taken the path of least resistance, ie. it would have toppled over.

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-10-28   22:31:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: FormerLurker (#104)

First of all - neither of us has access to the original crash test data from the 60s.

Also, the crash test was done as a way to shut up critics of the WTC project who did not want to see the buildings go up. It was part of a Federal jobs program that ran out small businesses that were in the area - a run down area but still viable - since the 20s. I think it was an area that was Manhattan's radio parts district where you could go and but radio tubes, transistors and other such items wholesale.

I honestly don't think people were more honest back in 1964 than they are now. I don't see why you trust govt testing then but not now?

I am suspect of the whole thing but My original comment was that I objected to the fact that this earlier test from the 60s somehow proves anything. It does not in my eyes.

And like I said before - because of this mania the real 9/11 conspiracy questions remain unanswered and taint those that do ask such questions.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-29   9:19:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: Destro (#107)

And like I said before

Over and over and over and over and over and over ad nauseum.

noone222  posted on  2009-10-29   9:22:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: noone222 (#108)

Over and over and over and over and over and over ad nauseum.

But you guys are not saying anything new either. You are flies stuck in the honey pot trap.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-29   9:39:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 109.

        There are no replies to Comment # 109.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 109.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]