9/11 Science Club! What Are Specific Heat and Heat-Energy Content?

Perhaps it was the two planes that crashed into the tower, severing a number of columns and the heat of the fires that compromised the strength of the steel. I guess you would rather believe something for which there was no proof.

 

I tell you this, absolutely there is no foundation
for statements such as "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation ... "
There are a multitude of alternatives and total destruction is the least likely of all.

 

Yeah, no. Personal incredulity is not proof. Try again. ImplosionWorld says you 9/11 nutters lack the proof and the logic. I agree.

 

so, exactly what foundation supports
"Total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation ... "
????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

So, you believe the lower floors should have been able to stop the downward mass of the above collapsing top floors. In what world?

 

Name the alternatives then

 

You have had this explained to you time and time again, but you don't like the answer.

The descending upper section is a far greater load than what each floor was designed to handle.

Do you understand this? Yes or no? If you do, then how can you expect the first floor impacted to have resisted that force?

 

And this is where you fall off the rails.

That statement was made about calculations and studies regarding a 707, which is 42,000 lbs. LIGHTER (when empty) than a 767. What you also fail to realize is that they never studied the affects of the resultant fires and how they would affect the structure after being damaged by the impact. There study was about the impact only. Here is a quote from Leslie Roberston stating as much. https://www.nae.edu/Publications/Br...ecurity/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter.aspx

 

LOL the head structural engineer would be taking into account all factors in making his evaluation, including the contender for the all-time silliest part of NIST's outlandish explanation for the impossible, "the fireproofing got knocked off the steel." Fire retardent goes on like paint. Go bang a steel beam with a hammer and see how much paint you can knock off.

 

More hasbarat bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You are still niggling over factors which cannot explain the acceleration of a solid mass to the ground at virtual free fall acceleration. The difference in weight you are talking about is about 10%. But yea, keep using those caps because those goy are like children.



The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1 Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.

property Boeing 707-320 Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

 

Fire retardent does get sprayed on,but it's NOT 'like paint'

 

I suppose you've seen the type of fire retardant used in the towers? Go into an older building with that type of fire protection and bang it with a hammer. See what happens. You have NO clue as to what you are talking about.

 

Solid mass?!



You have to be kidding me. Tell you what. Take 208' x 208' x 1360' and get the volume of the towers. Now calculate approximate how much of that volume was made up of structural components. The towers were 95% air. Do the math yourself and learn something. You and every other truther using the "solid object" garbage in your explanations of physics is quite comical. When determining how an "object" will react to loads will vary greatly between "solid objects" and "complex objects".

The sooner you figure this out, the easier things will become.

Only 10%?

Do some math Munkle. Let's do a theoretical calculation and see if you can show us the force generated by each plane hitting a solid concrete wall, both having a speed of 450 mph, and the impact being .2 seconds (going from 450 mph to 0 mph). I love the attempt to minimize the importance of the difference in the weight of the planes to try and show it would make little difference in the analysis. That we can just use the study of the smaller plane and assume the results would be similar for the larger plane because it's only 10%.

Let's see the difference of the impact forces (in pounds) involved between the two planes using the numbers above.

You up to the challenge Munkle?

 

Here's one for you Munkle.

Here's the difference between the two in kinetic energy (Joules). Calculated with both planes traveling at 450 mph.

707 = 1,260,450,598.5 J
767 = 1,640,866,414.5 J

That's a 380,415,816 J difference. Ah, but what the heck! It's only a 10% (by the way, where did you get a 10%?) difference in weight right Munkle?!

 

and how does this account for the uniformity of damage?
in the video of the alleged "FLT175" hitting the south tower,
one wing contacts the wall before the other, and given the
non-uniformity of forces to the aircraft, WHY then do we
see in both towers cartoon like cut-outs wings & all,
gashes in the sides of the building, clearly making an excuse
for the entire plane having entered the building,
its oh so convenient to have ALL of the airliners used in the attack
completely obliterated.

Can U say FALSE FLAG ATTACK ?

 

Can you say false claim?
All of the airliners were not obliterated. Lots of 77 and 93 were recovered and identified.

 

No,that's nonsense

 

where is it documented ?
& exactly how much & what sort of bits were recovered that
specifically documents the aircraft ( that is FLT77 or 93 )
having been at the location in question.

 

2 aircraft went missing that day after flying into the WTC towers

the crew and passengers called out,so it was known what flight they were on.

What more proof do you need?

 

no proof the callers were on any plane

 

n0spam. Explain how, if explosives were used to make those "cutouts", you account for the damage to the perimeter columns INCREASING from the wingtips inward? Explain how, if explosives were used, some of the perimeter columns were bent INWARD as if impacted from the outside?

Do you understand how loads and forces are applied to complex structures? The part of the structure/s under stress try to redistributed the load among all the interconnected parts in order to disperse it. If at any time those loads exceed the stress limit of any connections or part in the redistribution process, it fails at that location and then affects the rest of the structure.

You also need to take into account how a load/force is focused. Take a knife cutting an apple for example. The force you put behind a knife it is focused to the edge making it easy to cut the apple. If I apply that same force to the knife and try to use it with the flat side of the knife, the force is distributed ALONG the flat surface of the knife AND along the same area of the apple. The force is no longer focused, but more distributed to a surface area.

Try this experiment. Do you know what surface tension is in regards to water? Take a small glass of water and a couple of paper clips. Drop a paper clip into the water. Drops right through the water right? Now, lay another paper clip gently on its side on top of the water. It floats there right? Why? It's the same object right? Think in terms of velocity, surface area of both objects, and how the different loads are handled.

How do crumple zones work in cars? They design them to increase the time when an impact occurs. The longer the impact happens, the more the force/load is reduced until the entire car comes to rest. This means if I can increase the time it takes for an object to reach 0 from whatever it's velocity was at the beginning of the impact, the less the force is lessened. Look at the barrels they use on highways in front of a bridge column or concrete median.

You bluster on and on about how you understand physics, but the more you get into the details of what you think happened and why, I see you're basing your claims more on probability and statistics than you are on actual physics and engineering.

 

all I have time for is a short rebuttal, hope to chime in more completely this weekend.
Note that in the video of "FLT175" penetrating the south wall of the south tower,
the alleged airliner does not slow down upon penetration.
also to address the incredulity, note that there is a special rig
used by the window washers to lower people down the side of the building,
and because the building had the cosmetic external aluminum facade, it
would be possible for explosives to have been mounted outside the steel
columns & also upon detonation of the explosive, the aluminum would have
been grossly blown away, so it could be made to look like the damage was
from an airliner impact. HOWEVER, I tend to really not like speculation
on the "how it was done" bit, fact is we are still nailing down what was done.

 

WHY would the airliner slow down during penetration,and how could you even tell if it did?

And you NEED to say how it was done,if you want to say what was done...

 

Do you know what "hollow point ammo" is?
Note that the nose of an airliner is hollow.
Think about it, the aircraft is allegedly traveling at
speed equivalent to a rifle bullet, and it encounters
some bit of resistance in the form of the WTC wall.
what would a hollow point projectile do?

Just a bit of food for thought .......

 

A hollowpoint would deform,but NOT 'slow down' any appreciable amount,in any case a airliner going at speed would not act like a hollowpoint....badf analogy