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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Viral Biden Brain Freeze During Debate Sparks Major Question: Who’s Really Running the Country?

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


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: 1560
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

Comments (1-60) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#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.

"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-28   14:02:55 ET  Reply   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.

"We have oil. We have Putin - all that Russians think they need." - Vladimir Dubin, senior researcher at the Moscow-based Levada Centre.

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


#63. To: Kamala (#30) (Edited)

Many, many witnesses reported molten iron or metal at the WTC.

The outside decorative "facade" (sic) was made of low grade metal similar to rebar. Rebar is the "mutt" of scrap steel with a very low melting point. I would bet this "molten steel" was the facade.

belmontconservative  posted on  2009-10-28   14:20:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: randge (#59)

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.

My self cleaning oven heats up to 600 degrees I believe. The oven has never melted at that temperture. The TC fire was way way above 500 degrees.

belmontconservative  posted on  2009-10-28   14:33:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: noone222 (#58)

CIA/MOSSAD knowledge and involvement? I am without doubt (Dancing Israelis were actually arrested on 9/11 for terrorist suspicions let us not forget). Remote piloted drone planes? I don't buy it.

"We have oil. We have Putin - all that Russians think they need." - Vladimir Dubin, senior researcher at the Moscow-based Levada Centre.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   14:35:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: Destro (#62)

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.

If there are similiarly built buildings I wonder if they have been retrofitted to prevent another such occurrence?

mininggold  posted on  2009-10-28   14:39:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: belmontconservative (#64)

Centigrade.

randge  posted on  2009-10-28   14:39:26 ET  Reply   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.

"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-28   14:39:59 ET  Reply   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.

"We have oil. We have Putin - all that Russians think they need." - Vladimir Dubin, senior researcher at the Moscow-based Levada Centre.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   14:59:09 ET  Reply   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. ..."

"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France

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


#71. To: Destro (#69)

I just want to know if the gov has made the retrofitting of similiar built structures a priority as it has been known to do in the past with various entities when they unexpectedly fail and there is a large loss of life.

mininggold  posted on  2009-10-28   15:10:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: belmontconservative, Kamala (#63)

I would bet

In which engineering reference do I find "I would bet"?

"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-28   15:38:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: Lysander_Spooner (#0)

Magnetic forces to blame for 9/11 tower collapse

No, no, no. It was because the terrierists ate a lot of spicy food the night before, and that extra gas blew the towers apart.

Hell, it's about as good of an explanation as the one presented here.


"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-10-28   15:39:55 ET  Reply   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.

"We have oil. We have Putin - all that Russians think they need." - Vladimir Dubin, senior researcher at the Moscow-based Levada Centre.

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


#75. To: mininggold (#71)

I just want to know if the gov has made the retrofitting of similiar built structures a priority as it has been known to do in the past with various entities when they unexpectedly fail and there is a large loss of life.

And cause the business community to spend money? The airlines did not want to upgrade cockpit doors for safety and lobbied against it - mostly Republicans took their blood money but some Dems did too.

"We have oil. We have Putin - all that Russians think they need." - Vladimir Dubin, senior researcher at the Moscow-based Levada Centre.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   15:42:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: mininggold, Destro, all (#71)

I just want to know if the gov has made the retrofitting of similiar built structures a priority as it has been known to do in the past with various entities when they unexpectedly fail and there is a large loss of life.

It would appear that THE CRICKETS HAVE LANDED.

Related would be to ask where the Forensic Engineering Examination of the collapsed structure (standard when there is a loss of life) was published?

Why did the Bush Junta stand adamantly opposed for nearly a year to an official examination of the events of 911?

Why, when one was finally allowed, was it limited to exploring ONLY intelligence failures?

Why has the Chairman of that Commission's Report distanced himself from it saying that the government routinely and repeatedly lied to the commission?

There are considerably more valid questions than answers. That those questions remain devoid of official inspection is in and of itself a curious datum.

"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-28   15:44:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Original_Intent, mininggold (#76)

It would appear that THE CRICKETS HAVE LANDED.

I assume by crickets you meant the sound of crickets because I was not responding. Beforse your post I already posted a reply @ #75. No crickets involved. This is not a conversation we are having across the lunch table to expect a real time response.

"We have oil. We have Putin - all that Russians think they need." - Vladimir Dubin, senior researcher at the Moscow-based Levada Centre.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   15:48:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Destro, randge, TwentyTwelve, christine, all (#74)

Nice Strawman.

Skyscrapers are not boxers.

Neither are human bodies made of high grade structural steel.

You have totally avoided the point of the data.

The difference in size between the type of aircraft allegedly used as a missle was nearly insignificant compared to the specs for the kind of aircraft the building was designed to withstand an impact from.

Independent engineers have asserted that the structures were robust enough to withstand an impact from a much larger and faster 747.

All you are doing is attempting to obscure the data. You are hoist by your own Petard.

You are a disinformation shill identified as such by your methods and tactics.

"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-28   15:51:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: Destro, mininggold, Kamala, randge, TwentyTwelve, christine, all (#75)

I just want to know if the gov has made the retrofitting of similiar built structures a priority as it has been known to do in the past with various entities when they unexpectedly fail and there is a large loss of life.

And cause the business community to spend money? The airlines did not want to upgrade cockpit doors for safety and lobbied against it - mostly Republicans took their blood money but some Dems did too.

You are avoiding a perfectly valid question.

The correct, and honest, response is "Yes or No"?

I'll even repeat mininggold's question for you:

I just want to know if the gov has made the retrofitting of similiar built structures a priority as it has been known to do in the past with various entities when they unexpectedly fail and there is a large loss of life.

To which I will append my relevant related questions:

Related would be to ask where the Forensic Engineering Examination of the collapsed structure (standard when there is a loss of life) was published?

Why did the Bush Junta stand adamantly opposed for nearly a year to an official examination of the events of 911?

Why, when one was finally allowed, was it limited to exploring ONLY intelligence failures?

Why has the Chairman of that Commission's Report distanced himself from it saying that the government routinely and repeatedly lied to the commission?

"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-28   15:56:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: Original_Intent, randge, TwentyTwelve, christine, mininggold (#78)

The difference in size between the type of aircraft allegedly used as a missle was nearly insignificant compared to the specs for the kind of aircraft the building was designed to withstand an impact from.

I just demonstrated that a small increase of mass changes greatly the force of impact so your statement is wrong.

"We have oil. We have Putin - all that Russians think they need." - Vladimir Dubin, senior researcher at the Moscow-based Levada Centre.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   15:56:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: Original_Intent, mininggold, Kamala, randge, TwentyTwelve, christine (#79)

The correct, and honest, response is "Yes or No"?

Really? I can respond as I like. I know of no changes to building codes in America but that does not mean non happened.

America is run by oligarchs who constantly want to eliminate or water down any safety regulations that they have to pay for and so lobby their pro business cronies - mostly Republicans to eliminate such rules - see my cockpit analogy. Hell, a book/movie called the 'Towering Inferno' in the 70s was all about how they were building sky scrapers to be death traps so it is very possible they knew when they built them they were unsafe buildings. .

How can you get fire fighting equipment that far up? Rescue people? You can't.

"We have oil. We have Putin - all that Russians think they need." - Vladimir Dubin, senior researcher at the Moscow-based Levada Centre.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   16:03:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: Destro, randge, TwentyTwelve, christine, mininggold, Kamala, all (#80)

I just demonstrated that a small increase of mass changes greatly the force of impact so your statement is wrong.

No you posted a strawman purporting to prove a known physical principle.

However, this is also a matter of scale.

The difference between a fly and a gnat hitting a windshield is not significant they both become icky goo.

The difference between an arrow and a crossbow bolt hitting a screen door (which is basically what the facade of the towers was - but on a very large scale) is the same. They both penetrate the screen and the house remains standing.

By throwing numbers around you hope to obscure the matter of scale and whether the small differences between the mass of a 767 and a 707 is significant.

You have made an unproven assertion you have not proved that assertion.

I could further demolish your argument but am not inclined to waste my time.

"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-28   16:10:14 ET  Reply   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.


"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen

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


#84. To: Destro, Original_Intent, randge, TwentyTwelve, christine, mininggold (#80)

I just demonstrated that a small increase of mass changes greatly the force of impact so your statement is wrong.

As I just demonstrated, the 767 had LESS mass than the fully loaded 707. I also showed that your example was a bit flawed, where you were using a force equation to show kinetic energy, and calculating that incorrectly as you were using velocity rather than acceleration.


"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-10-28   16:22:03 ET  Reply   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.

"We have oil. We have Putin - all that Russians think they need." - Vladimir Dubin, senior researcher at the Moscow-based Levada Centre.

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


#86. To: Destro, mininggold, Kamala, randge, TwentyTwelve, christine, all (#81)

The correct, and honest, response is "Yes or No"?

Really? I can respond as I like. I know of no changes to building codes in America but that does not mean non happened.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to the question.

Repeating, for reference, mininggold's question for you:

I just want to know if the gov has made the retrofitting of similiar built structures a priority as it has been known to do in the past with various entities when they unexpectedly fail and there is a large loss of life.

Your answer translated into quibble free plain English is: NO to your knowledge NO changes were made to any building code or structure as a result of the collapse of the towers as chronicled in the "Official Conspiracy Theory®".

Where was the Forensic Engineering Examination and Report published?

"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-28   16:36:12 ET  Reply   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.


"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen

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


#88. To: Original_Intent, mininggold, Kamala, randge, TwentyTwelve, christine (#86)

Your answer translated into quibble free plain English is: NO to your knowledge NO changes were made to any building code or structure as a result of the collapse of the towers as chronicled in the "Official Conspiracy Theory®".

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Upgrading+building+codes+post+9%2F11.+(Insiders+Outlook)- a0105369952

Following the New York City and Washington, D.C. attacks many voices uttered the demise of future skyscrapers of great height. The argument was that such towers presented an inviting target for terrorist attack. Another argument, financial in nature, was that developers would never be able to find companies willing to risk their employees' lives by occupying such towers and risking future attack of similar scale.

Keep in mind that most experts say that there is no modern skyscraper designed to withstand the devastating effects of the impact and subsequent explosions.

Various engineering committees will issue a host of position papers by year-end addressing issues of safety and security for new structures.

Upgrading structural materials will provide more fire resistance with the use of reinforced concrete cores or concrete-encased steel exterior columns.

"We have oil. We have Putin - all that Russians think they need." - Vladimir Dubin, senior researcher at the Moscow-based Levada Centre.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   16:48:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: FormerLurker (#83)

Neatly done.

"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-28   16:51:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: Original_Intent (#89)

Neatly done.

Thanks. It's basic high school math and simple physics pretty much.


"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-10-28   16:54:46 ET  Reply   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?

"We have oil. We have Putin - all that Russians think they need." - Vladimir Dubin, senior researcher at the Moscow-based Levada Centre.

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


#92. To: Destro, mininggold, Kamala, randge, TwentyTwelve, christine, FormerLurker, all (#88)

Nothing more than an attempt to obscure the answer to the question that you did not want to answer i.e., that 9 years after the event NO building codes have been changed as a result of the towers collapse on 911.

And NO Forensic Engineering Examination of the structural remains was EVER conducted.

"But Holmes the dog did not bark in the night."
"That is the curious item Watson... ."

"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-28   17:01:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: Destro, FormerLurker (#91)

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?

It's in the FEMA Report.

Be your own research librarian.

"An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you know and what you don't. ~ Anatole France

Original_Intent  posted on  2009-10-28   17:04:18 ET  Reply   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.


"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen

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


#95. To: Destro (#65) (Edited)

Remote piloted drone planes? I don't buy it.

http://www.sysplan.com/About% 20SPC

Dov Zakheim is also a Rabbi. He was 2 Trillion "short" at the Pentagon, and had access to remote control technologies and military protocol, and you think 5 high fivers makes a Mossad operation.

Just Check out System Planning Corp. They remote control large aircraft.

Brief Excerpt from their website:

System Planning Corporation (SPC)’s success supporting U.S. defense initiatives is rooted in its commitment to innovative solutions through advanced technology development.

SPC was founded in 1970 by Dr. Ronald L. Easley. His vision was to bring together an elite staff to conduct unbiased national security research for the Department of Defense and other agencies of the federal government.

Initially, SPC staff focused on research and studies in the areas of arms control; nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare; advanced technologies; ballistic missile defense; and continuity of government. Soon, SPC branched into the manufacture of electronic systems, prototyping and manufacturing radar systems to precisely measure the radar cross section (RCS) of the new generation of stealth platforms. As a result of this work, SPC emerged as a major leader in the low-observables community.

Today, we at SPC have increased and refined our core competencies to meet emerging national requirements and anticipate future needs. The defense, homeland security, and domestic preparedness challenges facing our nation have never been more complex, and SPC continues to lead the way in this rapidly changing frontier.

EDIT: Oh yeah ... I ain't gonna fuck around with this thread because I'm tired of the BS. I told ya what I thought and that's it. You don't have to agree.

The U.S. Govt has become a tyrannical butcher; U.S. taxpayers are accomplices to international murder and mayhem. If you satisfy your fears by bowing to this butcher, you forfeit your humanity and possibly your soul.

noone222  posted on  2009-10-28   17:12:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: FormerLurker, Original_Intent (#90)

You had to jigger the results for the outcome though over reporting the fuel and speed used in tests for the first airplane and under reporting the fuel for the 9/11 airplane to get the results. All I was demonstrating is that a little bit of mass more affects the kinetic energy substantially more.

Here is the data parameters used for the first test crash and not your numbers.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson

Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001: WTC Structural Engineer Says Trade Center Designed for 707 Crashing Into It

The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. He concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly. [GLANZ AND LIPTON, 2004, PP. 138-139, 366] 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). In 2002, though, Robertson will write, “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.” [ROBERTSON, 3/2002]

The planes that hit the WTC on 9/11 are 767s, which are almost 20 percent heavier than 707s. [SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 10/9/2001; NEW YORKER, 11/19/2001]

"We have oil. We have Putin - all that Russians think they need." - Vladimir Dubin, senior researcher at the Moscow-based Levada Centre.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   17:14:02 ET  Reply   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.

"We have oil. We have Putin - all that Russians think they need." - Vladimir Dubin, senior researcher at the Moscow-based Levada Centre.

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


#98. To: noone222 (#95)

I don't buy the idea of remote piloted drone planes. Sorry.

"We have oil. We have Putin - all that Russians think they need." - Vladimir Dubin, senior researcher at the Moscow-based Levada Centre.

Destro  posted on  2009-10-28   17:18:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: Destro, Original_Intent (#96)

You had to jigger the results for the outcome though over reporting the fuel and speed used in tests for the first airplane and under reporting the fuel for the 9/11 airplane to get the results.

Huh? I used Boing's specifications, and simply used the true amount of fuel from Boston to LA rather than the fuel a plane would carry from New York to Beijing.

The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers.

Seems like your source is the one doing the "jiggering". The max takeoff weight of the 707 is 336,000 lbs., not 263,000. The cruising speed of the 707 is significantly more as well, as it's listed at 607 mph, whereas the 767 is listed at 530 mph.

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

Yeah, but AA Flight 11 was reportedly travelling at no more than 470 mph...

The planes that hit the WTC on 9/11 are 767s, which are almost 20 percent heavier than 707s. [SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 10/9/2001; NEW YORKER, 11/19/2001]

That is a lie, pure and simple. FULLY LOADED, true. HOWEVER, the actual planes that hit the towers were NOT full loaded and carried less than half the fuel they could carry, so that makes the "20% heavier" allegation pure BS, they were in fact a little over 10% LIGHTER.


"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-10-28   17:34:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: Destro (#97)

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.

Pure BS. The majority of the fuel burnt up in fireballs outside the buildings, and the fuel itself was burnt up in minutes. The fires were regular office fires consisting of furniture and carpetting.

As far as the speed, did you read what you posted?

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).


"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen

FormerLurker  posted on  2009-10-28   17:37:29 ET  Reply   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...


"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen

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



      .
      .
      .

Comments (102 - 119) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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