|
The sky calls to us ...
Super Moderator
Location: CT
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
You may have looked at the evidence (anything is possible, I suppose), but your posts in the 9/11 thread(s) show the same knee jerk response without asking any real questions. This tells me that you either have dismissed the evidence without any real consideration, or you have not read it at all. I'll tell you what, respond to this post, and then you will be justified, in my eyes, saying that you looked at the evidence. If not, then I see no reason to take your word. |
Here's a critical excerpt from your post. The extensive calculations (removed for space) appear to be accurate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.
Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.
|
The following are excerpts from two of my sources in a paper addressing the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Thomas Eagar, who is MIT's Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems
Quote:
|
“The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner. That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side. On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.”
|
Quote:
“The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner. That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side. On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.”
citation:
Tyson, Peter.”The Collapse: an Engineer's Perspective.”Why the Towers Fell. 2002. NOVA Online. May 2002 <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html>
|
I've attached a copy of the paper, which revieved an "A" from the professor who, after spending the semester encouraging discussion and consideration of every possible series of events regarding 9/11 (and doubted the official version,) agreed with me based on the evidence I presented that the official version is the most plausible, and that much of the information on which people base their doubts is either misleading or outright false.
I welcome criticism, contrary evidence, spectulation, hypothesizing, or anything you can say in a civil manner about my writing that could help me to improve it. While the assignment is long gone, and those who I needed to convince having been convinced, I want to expand my work to the point that I have proven the opposing arguments wrong, or I back myself into a corner and cannot substantiate my own claims and have to start from the beginning with a different hypothesis. |