> Another unanswered question: why were the massive steel beams quickly
> gathered up and
> ship off for scrap? Is it because the beams might've shown that they were
> torn apart by
If you have been down to ground Zero you will notice there is no room to
store the debris from a fraction of one tower let alone keep all the steel
for "investigation". Does the steel get stored at whose cost while they are
trying to locate people? I personally would not even look at the steel
other than a hindrance to rescue work and get it out of there as fast as I
could to ease the rescue congestion work.
> massive explosive charges? BTW, it's believed that the charges were set
off
> just as the floor
> above was just about to hit the floor below. Then this sequence was
repeated
> all the way down
> to the last floor. Doing this would create the nice domino effect and make
> it appear that each
> floor was being crushed by the weight of the floors above. It would make a
> free fall effect and
> not cause the building to go beyond its footprint. Remember how quickly
the
> towers
> collapsed? In 15 seconds the entire tower was down after the initial
> charges were set off.
So the aircraft was not a massive explosive device?? Had no effect on the
structure at all?? did not change any of the steel characteristics?? It was
all done with carefully placed explosives. I seem to remember the top floors
staying intact for several seconds and the lower floors where impact
occurred
collapsing first? This if charges were laid would mean that the plane would
need to be upon the exact floor of the explosives not one floor above or
below other wise the whole charge progression would be out of time
sequence???
> They fell down at free fall velocity, or close to it.
> I believe there were puffs of smoke that appeared just as the collapse
> began.
Powder coatings and plaster would more than account for the puffs of
smoke/dust as each section went.
> And yep, Building 7, never hit, did go down in the free fall way, right
into
> its
> footprint. If you have ever seen demolition of tall buildings, this is how
> the pros
> do it. Those charges were pre-set by people who were not amateurs. The
> sequential timing
> of the charges was perfect. All three buildings fell exactly in the same
> way.
Have you looked at sites where other buildings have fallen through bad
design? There are hundreds, some swaying before they collapsed and some
falling in on themselves to fill their own foot print. ( They, collapsing
buildings, actually fill quite a bit more than their footprint as did the
towers).
On the other hand, some place some where there is the emanation of a bad
smell about the whole affair. Too many things have been covered up, not all
was done that could, and why was the 5 sided being strengthened? Why hit in
the vulnerable places, insider trading perhaps???
Who would come forth as an architect and say "Well I calculated wrongly and
thus the towers could not put up with the impact of - - - - - - - - and due
to this minor error on my part so many lives are lost"???? I think as is the
norm with human preservation from Sloan to the ground cover up what you can,
deny the rest or blame some one else.
Keep in mind the bungles architects have made and then ask if the oxygen
tanks were factored in and all the rest? Was a B-52 in-air fueller used to
determine the impact, no. So why now use the scenario of a smaller plane as
the basis for impact?? Why was not the biggest plane used, why was not a
nuclear blast used at a distance for theoretical purposes?
The more I study logic, and theory the more broader it gets and the more it
becomes intangible, a lot of loose ends out there.
> Peace, D. Mindock
>
>
> > And the towers were designed for impact by large aircraft.
> > I read an interview with the architect - he said the buildings were
> > designed to withstand a hot from the planes of the time the towers were
> > built; these planes were smaller and carried
> > less fuel. In typical list fashion, I don't rememebr the source, but I
> > think it was The New Yorker.
> >
> > Mike McGinness wrote:
> >
> >> "D. Mindock" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Mike,You are overlooking that Building 7, not hit by any plane,
> >>> collapsed in the same controlled manner as the towers.
> >>
> >> OK, I will have to read up on building 7.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Also the momentum energy of the planes would've been spread over a
> >>> couple hundred feet. The stoppage wasnot instantaneous.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I would somewhat disagree on this point as the nose of the plane would
> >> have hit first and focused the most intense "Impulse" force in the
> >> first second of impact. I agree that not all the energy was released
> >> in the first second, perhaps spread out over 4 to 5 seconds and spread
> >> out further as the wings hit, but still I would expect at least 50% of
> >> the energy to have converted to heat in a focused area between the
> >> nose of the plane and the part of the building that the nose hit in
> >> the first 1 to 2 seconds. That would be quite significant.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> And the towers were designed for impact by large aircraft.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> OK, I will take your word for it. But have those designs ever been
> >> real world tested?
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Any onboard oxygen, if released, would have been used up in a second.
> >>> Large steel columns have considerable thermal capacity and conduct
> >>> heat effectively, spreading it out. No building with a steel frame
> >>> has ever collapsed, before or since 9/11, from fires, some of which
> >>> were more intense and lasted much longer than the ones in the towers,
> >>> which were relatively short lived and not hot enough to melt steel.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> OK, but intense heat in that one second would not have had time to
> >> flow and dissipate through the steel. Also, steel does not have a
> >> large heat capacity like water, it does however have a high thermal
> >> conductivity rate, but a rapid instantaneous localized burst of
> >> intense heat from the aircraft impact plus the explosion would rapidly
> >> heat the local, exposed column(s) causing rapid expansion of that part
> >> of the column(s) resulting in changes in the steel's properties
> >> (strength) and causing structural damage due to the sheer forces
> >> involved. Imagine four corner columns heated unequally (one severely,
> >> two only slightly, and the fourth on the far corner not all) with one
> >> expanding rapidly in a few seconds while the others did not. Picture
> >> the instantaneous sheer forces involved. A regular building fire would
> >> be slower, less intense and would be thermally spread out as you
suggest.
> >>
> >> In my opinion (which may be wrong) melting steel is not required to
> >> cause the collapse. Sheer force damage to one corner column should
> >> have been enough to create the needed instabilities to lead to the
> >> collapse. Also, to my knowledge this is the first time a large
> >> commercial airliner of this size has flown into a building like this
> >> at full speed? Therefore we have no real experience with this type of
> >> building damage and fire? Right?
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There are a plethora of unanswered questions, if we wish assume the
> >>> official government line.See:
> >>> http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=archive_by_topic Lots of more
> >>> info to mull over.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Thanks for the feedback, I will look them over. I also still wonder
> >> how, if there were explosives in the building, how they avoided being
> >> triggered by the impact, explosion and fire from the plane's impact?
> >> And if they did use explosives, and if the explosives did survive the
> >> fire, impact and explosion why did they wait so long to set them off?
> >>
> >> Mike McGinness
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Peace, D. Mindock
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> *From:*Mike McGinness <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>> *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> >>> <mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.org>
> >>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 08, 2006 1:56 AM
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's group accuses U.S.
> >>> officials oflyingabout 9/11
> >>> This is an open question with some new thoughts regarding this
> >>> topic.
> >>>
> >>> I was flying today and just before take off the stewardess was
> >>> going through the emergency details and when she got to the
> >>> breathing oxygen part I though of this recent discussion. It
> >>> dawned on me that there is some oxygen onboard these planes for
> >>> emergency breathing use in case the plane is depressurized.
> >>>
> >>> So now, the question is how much oxygen do they keep on board,
> >>> and how much, if any effect would it have had on the temperature
> >>> of the fire once released? Does anyone know?
> >>>
> >>> Also, I got to wondering if anyone ever calculated the momentum
> >>> (mass of the plane times the velocity) of the plane and the
> >>> instantaneous force of impact as the momentum of the plane went
> >>> to zero and how much heat that released on impact as the momentum
> >>> was converted to pure heat energy (it must have been huge!!!!),
> >>> not to mention the mechanical structural damage effects of that
> >>> energy transfer from the impact made on the building.
> >>>
> >>> Although I am not a civil engineer, I know that these buildings
> >>> are generally designed to handle a wind load of say 125 mph of
> >>> wind, or air before something starts to give (like the windows at
> >>> least). However, they are not designed, or even modeled for
> >>> impacts by XXX tons of an airliner moving at several hundred
> >>> miles per hour with all the force of impact being concentrated on
> >>> one small area, or corner of one to two floors of the building.
> >>>
> >>> I agree with Doug's comments below about a bounce effect (and any
> >>> oscillation it caused) plus the changes in the properties of the
> >>> metals and alloys when exposed to the heat. They must have been
> >>> major factors in the collapse.
> >>>
> >>> Lastly, if there were charges then why didn't the fire set them
> >>> off right away and collapse the buildings immediately?
> >>>
> >>> Mike McGinness
> >>>
> >>> lres1 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Just a note, not from an expert. Steel cutting torches operate
> >>>> at a temperature that burns the steel and turns the waste into
> >>>> slag. A lot of small brass and alloy foundries that use small
> >>>> furnaces use Diesel or Kerosene as the source of heat. The
> >>>> amount of heat to destroy the steel and alloy in the towers was
> >>>> only limited by the amount of oxygen available. At the height of
> >>>> the towers the natural movement of wind would have been like a
> >>>> blow torch on all the metals given enough fuel to start with.
> >>>> Several tons of Kerosene + wind + alloys + other combustibles
> >>>> would make the placing of explosives only a marginally required
> >>>> secondary insurance that the towers would fall. There was enough
> >>>> in the planes and the buildings construction
> >>>> materials/furnishings and the fuel tanks to achieve more than
> >>>> what a giant cutting torch would achieve. Think of a Plumbers
> >>>> kerosene blow lamp, now multiply it by the amount of wind and
> >>>> fuel available plus the burning materials mentioned above. Take
> >>>> a look at a vehicle that has burnt. you will notice that the
> >>>> suspension has collapsed due to the annealing of the springs or
> >>>> torsion bars etc. It does not take a real great amount of heat
> >>>> to change the characteristics of metals and alloys. Take away
> >>>> the heating from combustibles from the plane and building. Just
> >>>> the fuel and the heat from the fuel. How much stress in
> >>>> expansion over a few floors in a building of such height can it
> >>>> take? That is a building of such height expands slowly during
> >>>> the day and heat, shrinks during the cool. Given the height of
> >>>> the building this over a 24 hr period would be a significant
> >>>> change in height. If a small amount of boiling water is put into
> >>>> a glass the expansion is not uniform the glass will break.
> >>>> Uniform expansion in structures is an important part in
> >>>> considering conductivity of heat and orientation. To have had
> >>>> four or five floors expand beyond their limit and incongruously
> >>>> from the rest of the structure would again render the structure
> >>>> unsafe. This without burning anything just expanding out four or
> >>>> five floors rapidly and then contracting them all but as fast.
> >>>> The "bounce" effect in the topmost floors must have been quite
> >>>> horrific as they would have risen several inches and then
> >>>> dropped the same in a very short time frame. This "bounce" alone
> >>>> would nearly be enough to collapse a structure of such size in
> >>>> upon itself with no burning of combustibles from the
> >>>> construction or furnishings or even the alloys in the plane.
> >>>> Compare it to using the topmost floors as an enormous hammer
> >>>> that hammered the lower floors due the effect of the "bounce".
> >>>> Sorry this got longer than I thought. Doug----- Original Message
> >>>> -----
> >>>
> >>><Snip
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Biofuel mailing list
> >>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>
>>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> >>
> >>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> >>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >>
> >>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
> >>messages):
> >>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Biofuel mailing list
> > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> >
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> >
> > Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> >
> > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
> > messages):
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by Lao Telecom MailScanner with NOD32, and is
> believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Lao Telecom MailScanner with NOD32, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
