9/11 Demolition Theory Challenged
from BBC News Online
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy
theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks. The study by a Cambridge University
engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it
was destined to be rapid and total.
One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a
manner consistent with a "controlled demolition." The new data shows this
is not needed to explain the way the towers fell. Over 2,800 people were
killed in the devastating attacks on New York.
After reviewing television footage of the Trade Center's destruction,
engineers had proposed the idea of "progressive collapse" to explain the
way the twin towers disintegrated on 11 September 2001. This mode of
structural failure describes the way the building fell straight down rather
than toppling, with each successive floor crushing the one beneath (an
effect called "pancaking").
To read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
Or: http://tinyurl.com/2xwax2
9/11 Conspiracy theorists aren't going to like this ...
Moderator: Available
9/11 Conspiracy theorists aren't going to like this ...
Last edited by mhosea on Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mike
I think the big one for the tinfoil hat peeps was one of the other WTC buildings, farther than another building that didn't go down, that collapsed just as dramatically and sans airplane. The footage on that one, and the explanation, did seem kinda weak, whereas the collapse of the twin towers seems pretty obvious in retrospect. And if a blackbelt can collapse a bunch of cinderblocks in a pancake, I've no idea why a gazillion tons of imploding skyscraper wouldn't do even better.
--Ian
mhosea
As usual you are the breath of fresh air on a subject. I met in college 1955 an older student [at 17 his being 28 and weathered European sure looked old {grin}] from Czechoslovakia. We talked about his time growing up during the War. The subject of Allied air strikes came up. I was surprised when he asked me if I had ever seen concrete burn and steel melt. Seems that the incindiary phosphorous munitions would literally set concrete buildings on fire and melt the steel under girding. Guess Rosie O'Donoughts is a better expert on metalurgy than those at MIT.
Speaking of Noam Chomsky: in 1956 there was a buzz that a new outstanding Professor was going to give his first lecture at MIT. Prof. Hartley Rogers, my Logic professor, invited our small group to attend. He was the most insipid, boring, monotone speaker I had ever heard [on the other hand Norbert Wiener was inspriational]. That was bad enough but when he posited that language structure was context independent I got up and walked out, much to the chagrin of my cohorts. Later, when asked, I told them that my feet were starting to go to sleep as Chomsky droned on, but the clincher was when his theory dismissed the contextual component - if so it seems that I would not have been able to speak any further to my grandmother in Albanian [grin+++].
As the years passed I had to give credit to him and his student Phil Liberman for the advances they made in lilnguistics BUT he is still a boring twit when it comes to his disgusting leftist dreck [in honor of his Contextual culture]
Speaking of Noam Chomsky: in 1956 there was a buzz that a new outstanding Professor was going to give his first lecture at MIT. Prof. Hartley Rogers, my Logic professor, invited our small group to attend. He was the most insipid, boring, monotone speaker I had ever heard [on the other hand Norbert Wiener was inspriational]. That was bad enough but when he posited that language structure was context independent I got up and walked out, much to the chagrin of my cohorts. Later, when asked, I told them that my feet were starting to go to sleep as Chomsky droned on, but the clincher was when his theory dismissed the contextual component - if so it seems that I would not have been able to speak any further to my grandmother in Albanian [grin+++].
As the years passed I had to give credit to him and his student Phil Liberman for the advances they made in lilnguistics BUT he is still a boring twit when it comes to his disgusting leftist dreck [in honor of his Contextual culture]
-
JOHN THURSTON
- Posts: 2445
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
- Contact:
De Facto Cruise Missles
Well,
Even a warship such a the large destroyer Sheffield in 1982 was hurt, but irretrievably damaged when the Exocet rocket fuel added to the relatively small (250lb) warhead of the Exocet (Flying Fish) Anti ship cruise missile hit. (Argentina had only 5 and got at least three hits.) At the time the British "Sea Dart" SAM was not "missioncapapble" against small 'sea skiimers' although a Sea Dart System did stop the Iowa (system not on the Iowa but on an escorting British ship with 'upgraded Sea Dart") from being hit by a Chunese "Silkworm" a moderately updated version of the "Styx" that started the cruise missile race when on sank the Isaeli destroyer "Eilat".
By way of comparison, the Tomahawk has a 1000lb. warhead and (in the instance of an anti ship hit) a commeasurably larger fuel load, in this case probably jp-4 (?) (basically hi grade kerosene.) and 3 to four times the range of Exocet.
The USAF ALCM is in around the same class.
Now The latter two are limited to between 400-550 mph.
For the bigger game it is the Karrier Killer "Kingfish" with a 1000 kph speed and a one ton warhead.
Backfire, Blackjack and Bear can deliver this nasty piece of work, so, yeah, the retirement of the F-14 scares me.
So, a 737 with a multi thousand pound load of JP-4 (I will check the remaning load at point of impact left after flight tfrom Logan) hitting at 400 plus knots?.
I am actually surprised either tower stood as long they did.
I think it is obvious that the unburned fuel signed the building's death warrants (sorry, I meant to say fatwahs).
I think a viable counter measure might be to just shut down the civilian frequencies of the GPS system in case of a declared air emergency, or, if possible, equip airliners with transmitters to 'spoof' hand held GPS' and an E button to shut down the on board ones..
Then a martyr would have to fly by eye only. (aka VFR)
Even a delay would have helped.
Sadly this speaks badly of the decades long Pentagon Program of closure the old closely spaced system of air base.
The bases were closed for the sake of saving a buck, backed up by the notion that newer aircraft had sufficiently greater range and speed to render the previous large network of airfields as "redundant".
The first aircraft over "Ground Zero" were F-15s from Otis-and Otis would have been closed if not for "Katrina" and they were at least 15 minutes too late anyway..
The notion now of ANG operating out of LaGuardia or the old McDonnell or Fairchild fields seems less "expensive" to me..
Part of the delay was due, of course, to the fact that no one knew what was going down and/or how..
Who needs a conspiracy when confusion and shortsight are handy and functional.
Mhosea-kudos for remembering 9/11.
J
Even a warship such a the large destroyer Sheffield in 1982 was hurt, but irretrievably damaged when the Exocet rocket fuel added to the relatively small (250lb) warhead of the Exocet (Flying Fish) Anti ship cruise missile hit. (Argentina had only 5 and got at least three hits.) At the time the British "Sea Dart" SAM was not "missioncapapble" against small 'sea skiimers' although a Sea Dart System did stop the Iowa (system not on the Iowa but on an escorting British ship with 'upgraded Sea Dart") from being hit by a Chunese "Silkworm" a moderately updated version of the "Styx" that started the cruise missile race when on sank the Isaeli destroyer "Eilat".
By way of comparison, the Tomahawk has a 1000lb. warhead and (in the instance of an anti ship hit) a commeasurably larger fuel load, in this case probably jp-4 (?) (basically hi grade kerosene.) and 3 to four times the range of Exocet.
The USAF ALCM is in around the same class.
Now The latter two are limited to between 400-550 mph.
For the bigger game it is the Karrier Killer "Kingfish" with a 1000 kph speed and a one ton warhead.
Backfire, Blackjack and Bear can deliver this nasty piece of work, so, yeah, the retirement of the F-14 scares me.
So, a 737 with a multi thousand pound load of JP-4 (I will check the remaning load at point of impact left after flight tfrom Logan) hitting at 400 plus knots?.
I am actually surprised either tower stood as long they did.
I think it is obvious that the unburned fuel signed the building's death warrants (sorry, I meant to say fatwahs).
I think a viable counter measure might be to just shut down the civilian frequencies of the GPS system in case of a declared air emergency, or, if possible, equip airliners with transmitters to 'spoof' hand held GPS' and an E button to shut down the on board ones..
Then a martyr would have to fly by eye only. (aka VFR)
Even a delay would have helped.
Sadly this speaks badly of the decades long Pentagon Program of closure the old closely spaced system of air base.
The bases were closed for the sake of saving a buck, backed up by the notion that newer aircraft had sufficiently greater range and speed to render the previous large network of airfields as "redundant".
The first aircraft over "Ground Zero" were F-15s from Otis-and Otis would have been closed if not for "Katrina" and they were at least 15 minutes too late anyway..
The notion now of ANG operating out of LaGuardia or the old McDonnell or Fairchild fields seems less "expensive" to me..
Part of the delay was due, of course, to the fact that no one knew what was going down and/or how..
Who needs a conspiracy when confusion and shortsight are handy and functional.
Mhosea-kudos for remembering 9/11.
J
Last edited by JOHN THURSTON on Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"
What also might be of some interest is that reportadly the choice was made when the Towers were constrcted NOT to use a direct asbestos product--due to cancer concerns--and instead a lower performance produce was used instead.
Not sure if had less asbestos or simply was in a different format but the stuff was KNOWN not to protect as well.
So when the fuel fires started---the steel was less protected than it might have been--which may well have led to them heating up faster getting softer faster and thus maintaining load-bearing strength for much shorter period.
Then again, I don't know much of anything that was constrcuted at that time that could handle the stresses of a fully loaded aircraft of that size hitting it along with jet fuel/forced air flames.
Like John says above--I surprised that they stood as long as they did.
Not sure if had less asbestos or simply was in a different format but the stuff was KNOWN not to protect as well.
So when the fuel fires started---the steel was less protected than it might have been--which may well have led to them heating up faster getting softer faster and thus maintaining load-bearing strength for much shorter period.
Then again, I don't know much of anything that was constrcuted at that time that could handle the stresses of a fully loaded aircraft of that size hitting it along with jet fuel/forced air flames.
Like John says above--I surprised that they stood as long as they did.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
-
JOHN THURSTON
- Posts: 2445
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
- Contact:
More Pieces
More Pieces of the Puzzle.
If the average take off weight of latest 737 in service 0n 9/11 is in the vicinity of 130000 lbs(I have taken an average but note that i am not presently aware of which model(s) were converted to Human Guided Crusie Missiles).
Fuel Capacity and other factors:
Based on an average between models of 737's, factoring in the matyrs sought out the coast to coast heavily w/ fuel laden flights and roughly arrived the following.
The 737 is probably 50-100 mph faster than I originally estimated.
AWATO (average weight at take off (not maximum awato) 140,000 lbs
Average fuel at takeoff; 30000 lbs.
About 1/10 of the fuel of a coast to coast laded flight would have been burnt off as the matyrs felt their way down the Hudson Valley after cutting the throats of the flight crew. This left approximately 27,000 lbs of fuel on board at impact.
The fuel would have sprayed immensely and very easily taken advatage of the non asbestos treated structural beams.
(Compare the relatively, and I mean relatively, lower level of destruction and loss of life at the heavily built, low lying, partially undergorund structure of the Pentagon. (The Gen. Groves who built the Pentagon was, if my memory serves, put in overall charge of the Manhattan Project.
Norad is still in operation, but I have not yet gleened the actual number of ANG, USAF, Navy or Marine Aircraft that might have helped or even those presently under the command of Cheyenne Mountain.
My guess is, based on the 2 F-15a's arriving over ground zero very much to late (I can get the exact time ) that ther were not too many available when needed.)
Energy at Impact: 56,000,000 foot pounds of kinetic energy delivered on impact (not including any estimates of the added energy of instant fuel and hydraulic fluid combustion and explosion. As a comparison a 7.62mm X 51 rifle bullet will deliver about 2200 foot pounds of force on impact.)
based on a 140,000 lb weight at impact and a speed of 400 mph.
To be more precise than that I would need the model of the 737 and the actual gross weight at impact and exact added energy of instant fuel and hydraulic fluid burst at impact.
I consistently do not mention online targets of opportunity near the aircrafts' route which, if hit, would have produced an explosion in the 2-20 kt range, depending..I am happy the matyrs chose hi visibilty targets, in a way, rather than choosing or assembling other Targets of opportunity in the event things went bad for them re: plan one...
These type of targets are no secret and I am not trying to be egotistical in refusing to state them online, but I apologize if it seems that way.
J
If the average take off weight of latest 737 in service 0n 9/11 is in the vicinity of 130000 lbs(I have taken an average but note that i am not presently aware of which model(s) were converted to Human Guided Crusie Missiles).
Fuel Capacity and other factors:
Based on an average between models of 737's, factoring in the matyrs sought out the coast to coast heavily w/ fuel laden flights and roughly arrived the following.
The 737 is probably 50-100 mph faster than I originally estimated.
AWATO (average weight at take off (not maximum awato) 140,000 lbs
Average fuel at takeoff; 30000 lbs.
About 1/10 of the fuel of a coast to coast laded flight would have been burnt off as the matyrs felt their way down the Hudson Valley after cutting the throats of the flight crew. This left approximately 27,000 lbs of fuel on board at impact.
The fuel would have sprayed immensely and very easily taken advatage of the non asbestos treated structural beams.
(Compare the relatively, and I mean relatively, lower level of destruction and loss of life at the heavily built, low lying, partially undergorund structure of the Pentagon. (The Gen. Groves who built the Pentagon was, if my memory serves, put in overall charge of the Manhattan Project.
Norad is still in operation, but I have not yet gleened the actual number of ANG, USAF, Navy or Marine Aircraft that might have helped or even those presently under the command of Cheyenne Mountain.
My guess is, based on the 2 F-15a's arriving over ground zero very much to late (I can get the exact time ) that ther were not too many available when needed.)
Energy at Impact: 56,000,000 foot pounds of kinetic energy delivered on impact (not including any estimates of the added energy of instant fuel and hydraulic fluid combustion and explosion. As a comparison a 7.62mm X 51 rifle bullet will deliver about 2200 foot pounds of force on impact.)
based on a 140,000 lb weight at impact and a speed of 400 mph.
To be more precise than that I would need the model of the 737 and the actual gross weight at impact and exact added energy of instant fuel and hydraulic fluid burst at impact.
I consistently do not mention online targets of opportunity near the aircrafts' route which, if hit, would have produced an explosion in the 2-20 kt range, depending..I am happy the matyrs chose hi visibilty targets, in a way, rather than choosing or assembling other Targets of opportunity in the event things went bad for them re: plan one...
These type of targets are no secret and I am not trying to be egotistical in refusing to state them online, but I apologize if it seems that way.
J
Last edited by JOHN THURSTON on Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:27 pm, edited 5 times in total.
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
The most recent research of the collapse of the trade centers has shown that the buildings did not pancake, ie the floors did not collapse one at a time. The research shows that none of the floors actually failed. They did not collapse on each other.
The floor trusses were constructed so well that they withstood the heat and ultimately cracked the outer steel frame like an egg shell being crushed inward - the trusses were sagging in the heat and pulling the outer shell inward untin... CRAAAAAAAAACK! Once the outer frame had been cracked inward in a ring in the area around the impact and fires the buildings suffered more of an implosion.
Hard to explain but it is the likely cause of the way the buildings came down.
Rich
The floor trusses were constructed so well that they withstood the heat and ultimately cracked the outer steel frame like an egg shell being crushed inward - the trusses were sagging in the heat and pulling the outer shell inward untin... CRAAAAAAAAACK! Once the outer frame had been cracked inward in a ring in the area around the impact and fires the buildings suffered more of an implosion.
Hard to explain but it is the likely cause of the way the buildings came down.
Rich
Member of the world's premier gun club, the USMC!
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
-
JOHN THURSTON
- Posts: 2445
- Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
- Contact:
Asbestos
What, saved the day, and risked a lawsuit if 9/11 did not happen?!.
Sometimes I am ashamed to admit to having been an attorney.
Do you think Cost would have had an impact on the decision not to use asbestos. Is it or was it normal to do so in such structures Rich?
Was the economical source of asbestos destroyed with the "Market" effectively destroyed for same due to Environmental concerns
(no sarcasm intended, I just don't know)
I believe your scenario totally.
J
Sometimes I am ashamed to admit to having been an attorney.
Do you think Cost would have had an impact on the decision not to use asbestos. Is it or was it normal to do so in such structures Rich?
Was the economical source of asbestos destroyed with the "Market" effectively destroyed for same due to Environmental concerns
(no sarcasm intended, I just don't know)
I believe your scenario totally.
J
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
