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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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'

America in SHOCK as New Footage of Jill Biden's 'ELDER ABUSE' Emerges | Dems FURIOUS: 'Jill is EVIL'

Executions, reprisals and counter-executions - SS Polizei Regiment 19 versus the French Resistance

Paratrooper kills german soldier and returns wedding photos to his family after 68 years

AMeRiKaN GULaG...

'Christian Warrior Training' explodes as churches put faith in guns

Major insurer gives brutal ultimatum to entire state: Let us put up prices by 50 percent or we will leave

Biden Admin Issues Order Blocking Haitian Illegal Immigrants From Deportation

Murder Rate in Socialist Venezuela Falls to 22-Year Low

ISRAEL IS DESTROYING GAZA TO CONTROL THE WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT SHIPPING LANE

Denmark to tax livestock farts and burps starting in 2030

Woman to serve longer prison time for offending migrant men who gang-raped a minor

IDF says murder is okay after statistics show that Israel killed 75% of all journalists who died in 2023

Boeing to be criminally INDICTED for fraud

0:35 / 10:02 Nigel Farage Embarrasses Rishi Sunak & Keir Starmer AGAIN in New Speech!

Norway to stockpile 82,500 tons of grain to prepare for famine and war

Almost 200 Pages of Epstein Grand Jury Documents Released

UK To Install Defibrillators in EVERY School Due to Sudden Rise in Heart Problems

Pfizer purchased companies that produce drugs to treat the same conditions caused by covid vaccines

It Now Takes An Annual Income Of $186,000 A Year For Americans To Feel Financially Secure

Houthis Unleash 'Attacks' On Israeli, U.S. And UK Ships; 'Trio Of Evil Hit' | Full Detail

Gaza hospital chief says he was severely tortured in Israeli prisons

I'd like to thank Congress for using my Tax money to buy Zelenskys wife a Bugatti.

Cancer-causing radium detected in US city's groundwater due to landfill teeming with nuclear waste from WWII-era atomic bomb efforts

Tennessee Law Allowing Death Penalty For Pedophiles Goes Into Effect - Only Democrats Oppose It

Meet the NEW Joe Biden! 😂

Bovine Collagen Benefits


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: 1373
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 (1-79) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#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  


#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.

"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   20:40:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: FormerLurker, Original_Inten (#102)

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?investigations:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation&timeline=complete_911_timeline

May 2, 1968: Advert in New York Times Warns of WTC Danger, Shows Plane About to Strike One of the Towers

A civic group opposed to the building of the World Trade Center publishes a nearly full-page advertisement in the New York Times, warning that the new buildings will be so tall that a commercial airliner might crash into them. The group, called the Committee for a Reasonable World Trade Center, is mainly composed of New York real estate developers who are worried that the huge construction project will glut the market. Its leader is Lawrence A. Wien, a real estate mogul who is an owner of the Empire State Building in New York.

-----

It looks to me like to silence this civic group the WTC design team constructed bogus tests to get the results they needed as noted in the other follow up.

--------

The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson, carried out a second study later in 1964, of how the towers would handle the impact of a 707 (see Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001). However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 pdf file]

"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   21:03:18 ET  Reply   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.


"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   22:31:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: Destro (#103) (Edited)

However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.”

Hell, the NIST couldn't explain what happened to WTC7, they just ignored it as if it didn't collapse. They later said it was due to fire in order to fall within the official story guidelines, but offered ZERO evidence of such a thing.

Their analysis of the WTC towers collapse is outright bogus as well.


"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   22:33:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: Destro (#103)

It looks to me like to silence this civic group the WTC design team constructed bogus tests to get the results they needed as noted in the other follow up.

It looks to me in order to silence various civic groups, the government has outright lied in it's official reports, and pressured companies and universities to fire anyone who raises concerns over the official 911 fairy tale.

It already owns the press, so they need not worry about that...


"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   22:56:13 ET  Reply   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.

"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  2009-10-29   9:19:57 ET  Reply   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.

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  2009-10-29   9:22:12 ET  Reply   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.

"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  2009-10-29   9:39:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: Turtle, All (#23)

Being raised in a steel mill town, I have known since I was a kid that steel quickly loses its strength when heated.

You got more bullshit than a bull! Does not matter what the topic, the person, or place, you have done it all. Talk about ignoramuses! You are the biggest bragadoccio on this forum and 99/44% of it is a figment of your imagination. The next thing you will claim is that you taught Einstein. Why don't you just stick to playing with your pud pug?

LACUMO  posted on  2009-10-29   12:18:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: Turtle, LACUMO (#110)

Being raised in a steel mill town, I have known since I was a kid that steel quickly loses its strength when heated. You got more bullshit than a bull!

Are you LACUMO arguing steel does not lose its strength when heated? If so why do they fire proof structural steel?

"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  2009-10-29   12:34:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: Destro (#111)

Are you LACUMO arguing steel does not lose its strength when heated?

I didn't say or imply that that was the case. Apparently you did not get the jest of my reply. I simply stated that turtle claims to be an expert on everything, np matter the subject.

I do know that what the government has been spewing lies as to what happened on 9-11. They are hoping the people will buy into their lies. Turtle has and will continue living in his fantasy world of make believe and knowitall.

I'm sorry, didn't mean to post something that was over your head.

LACUMO  posted on  2009-10-29   12:46:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: LACUMO, Turtle (#112)

I'm sorry, didn't mean to post something that was over your head.

Your cursing at turtle made me lose your point. In any case what turtle wrote was 100% correct. So I did not understand why you needed to attack him as a know it all on a point he was 100% right on.

"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  2009-10-29   12:51:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#114. To: Destro (#113)

Since the gov treats it like an abberration I can only do the same. Evidently they believe that for some unfathomable reason yet to be officially explained, only these two buildings will ever behave in the manner in which they did. Otherwise the economy would be booming with all the mandated retrofitting going on especially on the WTC 7 type buildings (which evidently can't withstand the force of other buildings falling around itor a localized fire) of which there are millions.

mininggold  posted on  2009-10-29   13:23:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: Destro (#113)

Your cursing at turtle made me lose your point. In any case what turtle wrote was 100% correct. So I did not understand why you needed to attack him as a know it all on a point he was 100% right on.

The turtle is just some gov lacky posing as a free spirit. But his head is back in his shell until he is summoned again.

mininggold  posted on  2009-10-29   13:26:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: mininggold (#114)

You have a higher opinion of Americans and for what passes as regulations than I do. I see America since Reagan de-regulating as much as possible. We have 8 years of Bush were regulation meant to make things deregulated.

"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  2009-10-29   13:35:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: Destro (#113)

I'm sorry, didn't mean to post something that was over your head.

LACUMO  posted on  2009-10-29   15:01:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#118. To: LACUMO, Turtle (#117)

Your cursing as a reply made me not care what you wrote.

"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  2009-10-29   15:59:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#119. To: Destro (#118)

Your cursing as a reply made me not care what you wrote.

Go back and read #110 and tell me where I cursed. You must be a lamebrain too!

LACUMO  posted on  2009-10-29   19:42:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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