Accoring to Wikipedia, which claims to quote NIST, either plane hitting the two WTC towers contained about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, or 30,400kg:
According to the estimation in NIST's NCSTAR 1.5, page 58, AA11 carried 30,000kg of jet fuel, and UA175 carried 28,100 kg at the time of impact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175
Wikipedia further says about jet fuel:
Specific energy: >42.80 MJ/kg
So, AA11 carried with it fuel which, upon combustion, would this much energy as heat:
Efuel = 30,000kg * 42.8MJ/kg = 1.284 * 1012J
UA175 carried with it fuel which, upon combustion, would this much energy as heat:
Efuel = 28,100kg * 42.8MJ/kg = 1.203 * 1012J
At this time, I haven't found data about how much of that fuel burned outside of the towers and was not availabe to do damage inside.
In addition, each plane carried about 12,000kg of other combustibles (cargo, tires, mail, luggage, cabin materials). Humans are not included. "Other combustibles" generally having somewhere between 10 and 30 MJ/kg energy. For example: Paper about 15, many plastics 25-30. An assumption of 15MJ/kg seems not entirely unreasonable. So each plane put about 180GJ of chemical energy into the towers.
These figures appear to be entirely correct, but as I see it, the precise APPLICATION of such energy is entirely unknown. That is to say, even if all of the fuel and combustibles were intact, it's quite difficult to say exactly what portions of the structure (specifically - like each bolt, truss etc)was affected by this energy and so it was relatively random.
ReplyDeleteSome trusses were invariably destroyed, and some remained relatively intact.
Without being able to go in the building while standing and examine it's integrity closely, one can't say with any degree of certainty that this would cause it to fail the way it did.
So, basically, I would expect that the side of impact would have more heat/damage/loss of integrity, and the other side would be varied in this regard, and this difference in the integrity would obviously lead to a lop-sided failure, however it fails.
I find it very difficult to think that the failure and downward motion on one side would lead the other side to then buckle AND fall in TANDEM, without a delay causing one side to "hold on" and thus cause the other to not just tip over, but break off entirely.
Sorry for being so long winded ;-)
I was going to post this on your other blog about the thermite paper, but, alas, "team members only" ;-)
ReplyDeleteVery detailed breakdown, but I can see a number of flaws in it.
One of them that strikes me is that the peer-review process and Bentham, and the Editor, are all somewhat secondary to the data. I mean, if you wrote a paper and tried very hard to get it published as a scientist, it's not out of the realm of possibility that you would run into trouble like this no matter the subject. Now when it's an issue that some don't like to talk about, some will dismiss without looking, it's even harder. I had friends who I told about it being an implosion minutes after the fact, and they thought I was some "A-Rab" sympathizer and wouldn't talk to me. Now some of those same folks still don't want to talk to me about it, but when asked "Why, do you still believe the official version?" they respond something like "No, I don't and that's why I don't want to think about it. Makes me want to kill somebody but feeling that way doesn't help and there's nothing I can do about it."
So I personally think that the actual meat of the papers are more important than the circumstances around them or how he found people to scrutinize it.
No 2. You cite that thermite specifically would not have the energy in the quantities supposed, to do much to the structure. Again, I'm no expert on either, myself. However, the argument of it being painted on HINGES on it NOT being thermite, but rather NANO-particles of it. And to me, this obviously changes it's propeties CONSIDERABLY. So, again, it's like the difference between the behavior of baking flour when lit on fire, and the fact that when you disperse it in the air and ignite it, you get an explosion. Being a nano-particle can allow it to release much more energy that it ordinarily would, even if only because of the same reason(if I'm not mistaken) the flour does as described...the surface area is greatly increased, allowing it to release it's energy much more efficiently. Also, this may just be one piece of the setup. I think, we have to keep in mind that when one finds such things, it's not the full picture of what was used or how. I mean, NASA uses explosive bolts in some things, and so there could be some unknown technology used to complement this, at play.
Also along those lines is the fact that you when cutting down a tree, you don't just slice straight through. That doesn't even work,(well/safely) actually. You must create a notch, creating a "hinge" and then gravity does the rest. It's possible, in my view, that these supports and trusses didn't necessarily all have to be cut all the way through to accomplish the goal. Perhaps just strategically damaged on either side or just one. And YES, I'm well aware of thermic lance technology and that they were used to produce those cuts foolish truthers point to etc.
Continued on next comment ;-)
Then you have the superthermite being "heat resistant" as if this means(feel free to point out how this is relevant in other terms) anything other than the material used was chosen for it's ability to not react except under extreme heat(so as to prevent accidental ignition), which could occur accidentally after the temperature reaches this point(I don't recall seeing any evidence that it did, or did so in an orderly fashion) or which could be triggered by some type of incendiary detonator; perhaps containing something that burns quite hot like magnesium.
ReplyDeleteP.S. You'll love this one: http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/peer-review-of-harrit-et-al-on-911-cant.html
Fairly good arguments, but still falls short of adequately proving/disproving anything in my view. Of course, I admit some of it there goes way over my head.
But this doesn't and was posted in a response on the above link:
THE PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE CHALLENGE
The challenge is in 5 parts, from the easiest to the most difficult.
All five require building a structure that will undergo top-down progressive total collapse -- i.e.: when disturbed near the top, it will collapse from the top down to the bottom, leaving no part standing. The disturbance can include mechanical force, such as projectile impacts, and fires, augmented with hydrocarbon fuels. Explosives and electromagnetic energy beams are not permitted.
Your structure can be made out of anything: straws, toothpicks, cards, dominoes, mud, vegetables, pancakes, etc.
(Eldon"E-Man" Edit- I would prefer to see an actual construction crew/engineering firm etc. use real materials to accomplish this, but that's as unrealistic as using pancakes ;-) -but the point is fairly solid in my view)
The designers of the Twin Towers were able to meet all 5 challenges using steel and concrete.
CHALLENGE #1:
Build a structure with a vertical aspect ratio of at least 2 (twice as tall as it is wide) and induce it to undergo top-down total progressive collapse.
CHALLENGE #2:
Build a structure with a square footprint and a vertical aspect ratio of at least 6.5 (6.5 times as high as it is wide), and induce it to undergo top-down total progressive collapse.
CHALLENGE #3:
Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which, in the process of collapsing, will throw pieces outward in all directions such that at least 80% of the mass of the materials ends up lying outside of the footprint, but their center of mass lies inside the footprint.
CHALLENGE #4:
Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which is capable of remaining intact in 100 MPH cross wind.
CHALLENGE #5:
Build a structure that meets the requirements of both CHALLENGES #3 and #4.
"E-Man"- This real world challenge also trumps "formulas" in my opinion. Real world conditions can't be manipulated and variables omitted like a "formula" can.
Oh and I don't mind adding you to the permissions of my other blog, but it would require me to input your email address, so I understand if you'd rather not give that out to me. Should you do so, I would suggest commenting on my blog, and I'll delete THAT comment, so nobody will bother you with emails. (I won't either) If we do that, you could post directly to my blog as long as you make it clear you are PapaOystein ;-) That way we can have both sides of the entire debate in one spot and no limit on the length of our messages. Einen schönen Tag!