Chief Delphi - View Single Post - Steve Jones and his physics analysis of 9/11...

thegathering · #17 29-07-2006, 12:41

A friend of mine posted this in another forum:

Quote:

A Boeing 767 is quite a bit bigger than a 707

WTC7

Quote:

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

Matches up with the professors only quandry over the word implusion. A fire burned in the center of the building for seven uncontrolled.

Jet fuel burns well under the temperature to melt steel, but still hot enough to cause the structural integrity to start to fail. So when you have thousands and thousands of pounds of pressure bearing down on unstable support columns.

Quote:

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

I didn't listen to all of it, cause its just rehashing the same theories that have been around for a long time.

I find this humorous. He cities a bunch of experts in the field that says this could never happen. They said the steel couldn't give out, but Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction does.

PM debunked a lot of it - http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y - but they have this oh so annoying habit of citing their experts in an easy to find fashion - http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=9&c=y

Of all the people they could have sent, they sent a physics professor. What's up with that?