|
THE MIRACULOUSLY CHANGING PHYSICS OF THE WTC COLLPASE - Media and science establishment complicity in the crimes of Sept 11 Page 2 of 3. Go to page 1 3 Boeing 707 320B . Max take off weight 336,000 lbs. Cruising speed 607 mph. Boeing 767. Max take off weight 450,000 lbs. Cruise speed 530 mph. So although it’s true that a 767 is heavier than a 707, I was under the impression that 607 mph is faster than 530 mph. [[It's the opinion of many experts that the WTC towers didn't collapse because of the impact of the crashes, but rather as the result of the catastrophic effects of the burning jet fuel. Prof. Ted Kranthammer of Pennsylvania State University estimates jet fuel temperatures ranged from 1,000-3,000°F… ...The heat output from these fires is estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial energy generating station.]] 3000F is about 1650C. It seems that the world discovered a lot of new things about kerosene between Sept 2001 and June 2002. Now we know that kerosene is the fuel to use for large commercial power stations. And you don’t even need a properly designed furnace. [[These temperatures are much higher than what would have been expected from typical office furnishings and wouldn't have been figured into the original design... this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames… Without the protection of the fire-resistive coating, the intense heat from the burning jet fuel was allowed to heat the floor trusses to the point at which they sagged and eventually failed. During a British Broadcasting Corp. interview, structural engineer Chris Wise said, “It was the fire that killed the building. There's nothing on earth that could have survived those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning.” This type of failure produced two fatal structural problems. First, with the failure of the floor trusses, the exterior walls were no longer tied to the core. Without this critical connection, the exterior walls were allowed to buckle from the weight of the structure above them. Once this occurred, the weight of the huge mass above the impact point started to fall, gaining momentum and crushing the structurally intact floors below. The added weight from each floor falling on the floor below it added to the pancaking effect, producing a progressive collapse, which resulted in the catastrophic failure of both structures.]] Notice that Chris Wise’s comments and analysis from the BBC articles of Sept 13 and 14 have been included as an authoritative opinion, but the embarrassing faux pas about the steel actually melting - at 800C - has now been quietly retired, while retaining the same conclusions about how it collapsed. How something which “starts to buckle and deform” and was “softening and weakening” until it “sagged” can induce a perfectly symmetrical collapse—three times out of three—including in one building which isn’t alleged to been subject to the jet fuel which was supposedly the cause of this miraculously symmetrical softening is a truly fascinating question. In Oct 2002, the claim that the steel had melted was revived by the Tribune of India. This is because it had now been discovered that the temperature in the buildings had actually reached 2000C, although from reading the article one would never know that anything different had ever been suggested. [["The explosion on account of the aviation fuel resulted in fires which created extremely high temperatures, as high as 2000°C, which resulted in melting of the steel and sagging and breaking down of the reinforced concrete floors. The molten steel resembled lava and started flowing down."]] Not to be outdone, the Sydney Morning Herald on March 30 2002 equated the energy output to not just any large power station but as 3 to 5 times the output of a nuclear plant, but the main heat source was alleged to be the buildings contents, not jet fuel. [[The remaining fuel burned within minutes, setting ablaze furniture, computers, paper files and the planes' cargo over multiple floors and igniting the inferno that brought the towers down...The incredible energy generated by this blaze was estimated at its peak to be between three and five gigawatts. A typical nuclear power plant generates about one gigawatt.]] I suppose that every cloud has a silver lining. At least we’ve now learned that we don’t need to dig up coal or oil or gas to burn in power stations or bother with properly designed furnaces, or hassle with dangerous uranium in order to get the output that we are accustomed to from a large commercial energy generating station. All we have to do is take a pile of carpet, office furnishings, paper and old computers, throw on some kero to get it started and put a match to it. This will not only make power generation cheaper, but also solve a lot of landfill problems. In the meantime, let’s hope that a large rubbish tip never catches fire because anything made of steel for miles around will melt. It cited temperatures of 1100C. It seems that in relation to the WTC forensics, the accepted method of working out the temperature is to throw darts at a board. Presumably this is because it doesn’t really matter what the temperature was. We just know that whatever it was was enough to melt the steel. Or alternatively, just weaken it. That doesn’t seem to matter either, even though both of these questions are presented as crucial to explaining why the towers came down, in all of these conflicting claims. Defenders of the official story now deny that anyone ever said that burning jet fuel melted the steel. For example, the magazine Popular Mechanics in a March 2005 article called “9/11: Debunking the myths “ writes [[CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel."... FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat.]] An article in “New American” by William F. Jasper 911 Conspiracy fact and fiction May 2 2005, comments [["The claims that the explosions and fires would not have generated enough heat to cause the building to collapse are nonsense," Partin told THE NEW AMERICAN. "Steel doesn't have to 'melt' as some of these people claim.]] NIST RESPONSE TO STATEMENTS IN LETTER FROM KEVIN RYAN. [[melting of the steel was not necessary to decrease its strength at the temperatures encountered at or near the fire-affected impact sites. NIST’s leading hypothesis for the collapse sequence is that intense heating from fires (with temperatures of 600-700 degrees Celsius or greater) following the aircraft impacts and subsequent buckling led to a shortening – not melting – of the core columns in both towers on floors at or near the fire-affected impact sites. ]] Tim Wilkinson, lecturer in Civil engineering at Sydney University, informed us in Jan 2006 that [[There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed ]] An article from Skeptic dated Sept 11 2006 states [[The 9/11 Truth Movement often states or implies that steel would have needed to melt in order for the structure to collapse at the speed of a free-fall.]] On April 27 2006 Ernest Partrigde wrote an article called The 9/11 Conspiracy:A Skeptics view in which he complained [[“The temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel.” True but irrelevant. This is a persistent criticism by the CT. [Conspiracy theorists] However, the OV [official Version] does not claim that the steel melted at the impact points (melting temperature, 2700°F), only that it was weakened.]] |
|
GERARD HOLMGREN’S SEPT 11 WRITING AND RESEARCH |