Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 that had gotten lost during landing maneuvres. Even if we assume that the aircraft was near maximum operating weight (technically impossible but, as you noted, quite close to that of a 757) a 707 flying at approach speeds will do much less damage toa structure than a 757 or even an identical plane with the throttle jammed wide open. This becomes important if we assume, as the FEMA report seems to indicate, that the damage to the insulation around the steel supports was a factor in the collapse. The speed of the aircraft would greatly affect the extent of the damage.
|
The speed is less my concern as the fuel issue. I remember watching the second strike on tv, and the great fireball. When airline fuel creates a massive burnoff like that, you are seeing all of the fuel ignite at once. Imagine that you put a match inside of a car gasoline tank. It explodes, creating a sudden, massive amount of fire. That fire is working its way suddenly through the whole fuel tank (the fire won't stop half way through the tank). Thre explosions is also the fact that the tanksa re enclosed, and air tight (or close to it). This suggests that the initial explosion occoured before or while the tanks were being ripped apart by the building. To me, a layman, this seems to be that a great deal of the fuel would have burned off immediatally.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
This site seems to suggest otherwise. According to this as well as other sources I've read, steel will lose a lot of it's strength at relatively low temperatures - 650C is sufficient to rob a steel support of half of it's support strength and it begins to weaken much lower than that, close to 400C. I haven't checked his sources, but that site does explain both the heat ranges and temperature ranges far more succinctly than I'm capable of.
|
But like I said above, the hotter fire caused by the airplane fuel would have been short. The fire would have been mostly fueled by the other stuff in the towers after a short time.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
I do hope you understand my skepticism, then. It's telling that I haven't even finished high school, yet I'm able to refute a great many of the claims made with no additional research or effort made.
|
Don't forget that a HS education in Canada is the equivelant of a BA down in the states.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
This math at a glance appears to be accurate; however, it seems to be in direct contradiction to what I've read. Earlier sources of mine seemed to indicate a collapse duration of approximately 10 seconds, which obviously changes the numbers completely. I'm unable to find those sources right now, but if I dig them up I'll post them. Either way, it's not surprising even if the towers did fall at near free-fall speed. The resistance offered by the lower floors would be nearly insignifigant in the face of the energy being released in the fall of severl hundreds of thousands of tons of building. The lower floors gave instantaneously, lending an appearance reminiscant of a controlled demolition.
|
I'm going off seismic records I've had for a while. I'll find the link durring lunch. EDIT:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html But even at 10 seconds, that is still about a freefall, which is impossible for a building like that.
Try reloading the page, I'll try to find another pic.