+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 17

Thread: Is it safe?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    51

    Is it safe?

    Before I continue with this thread I would firstly like to say that maybe unlike some of my other posts I will not attempt to foist my humour or my anger upon any reader. I will not be sarcastic or ironic but will always be entirely sincere and honest as far as I am aware.
    So here we stand more than four years after the tragic events which occurred in New York. My sincerest condolences go out to the victims' friends and families and in particular to those of the rescue services.
    There has been a huge amount of talk and speculation about who did what and when. But I only want to address one very simple point. I do not want to enter discussion on any other item, because it will only confuse the issue. The point that I am making has huge implications but again I am making no specific comment regarding these. What you may ask is what specific qualifications do I have for making this statement and so I will answer in advance that I am a Bachelor of Science in both Mechanical and Production Engineering from Liverpool John Moores University. But I will not enter into a deep engineering theory or explanation. I do urge you to look at the collapse(s) and ask questions of anyone with any mechanical or civil engineering knowledge and urge them to do likewise.
    Quite simply I must state that the manner of the collapse of the three buildings, and in particular their steel structures on that tragic day can not be attributed solely to the aircraft collision(s).
    Steel does not behave in that manner.
    Gordon.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: Is it safe?

    Hi Gordon,

    I will open my mind and try to comment on your proposed statement.

    Since you are a graduate of, Mechanical and Production Engineering, I will take you word for the behavior of steel structures. I personally do not know any engineers, so I cannot make this inquiry.

    If an airplane collision was not sufficient enough to bring all three World Trade Center towers down, there is a possibility explosives were used. If there is any truth to something other than an airplane collision, I think the main problem becomes, who, and when did someone plant, explosives. These people should be found and prosecuted in short order.

    In answer to you query thread title, the possible criminals who may have planted explosives, are still at large, unknown, and able to strike again. So NO, we are not safe. :(

    I hope I have stayed on topic. :)

    DeeDee1965

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: Is it safe?

    Let us simply agree that gordons opinion is not shared by the overwhelming majority of other 'experts' in the field.

    We won't even question the logic of the accusation...that planes just happened to show up at the exact same time that 'other factors' came into play...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Is it safe?

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone
    ..that planes just happened to show up at the exact same time that 'other factors' came into play...

    Ya, like bombs that had previously been set up within the tower structure itself that went off at all different times.

    And what was housed underneath the twin towers? Just the vault with all the gold for the U.S. Treasury.

    Lady Mod

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    51

    Re: Is it safe?

    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee1965
    Hi Gordon,

    I will open my mind and try to comment on your proposed statement.

    I will take you word for the behavior of steel structures. I personally do not know any engineers, so I cannot make this inquiry. DeeDee1965





    No need to ask engineers, just ask yourself very basic questions. Why doesn't the bottom of your barbecue fall out? Even after repeated use for long periods it remains sound.
    Imagine five steel rods inserted into the ground, one for each corner and one for the centre of an upright square cylinder to represent a buildings wall corners and core. Then imagine steel wires, representing the horizontal bracing, wrapped round the outside perimeter and diagonally towards the core, these forming one hundred and twenty individual horizontal planes. This would be a very flimsy and simplified version of the towers. But no matter how the dimensions of the constituent parts ( that is the diameter of the rods and wire and its relative positioning) are varied the fact will remain that the path of greatest resistance runs vertically through the tower.
    Imagine now applying massive heat like an oxy-acetelene torch to one particular point somewhere near the top to represent the impact point. Common logic says it would not fall directly through the path of greatest resistance so that the pieces ended up in a pile on the original foundation.
    I defy anyone, engineer or otherwise, to apply localised heat or anything which would even vaguely represent the thermodynamics and impact forces of a collision alone, and cause the tower that I have described or any other such tower which would be even vaquely representational of the WTC buildings and cause them to collapse in a manner that even vaguely resembles the way those buildings collapsed.
    King Canute demonstrated that even kings cannot turn back the tide.
    President Bush cannot alter the thermodynamic and mechanical properties of steel.
    Gordon.

  6. #6
    coontie is offline Vashudeva; Ferryman - doing the work...
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,392

    Re: Is it safe?

    The collapse of the two world trade towers occured just as suggested.
    If you will notice, they did not topple over. They collapsed, imploded
    upon theirself. A fascinating, horrible spectacle to witness.
    So picture this: two very large intercontinetnial passenger jets, loaded
    to the maximum with JP4 aviation fuel; a highly refined version of
    kerosene. It burns very hot, very explosive in nature, once ignited.
    These two seperate craft were cunningly chosen by the highjackers
    as, for instance: Mohammed Atta who was a trained engineer as
    well as one of the "aircraft Steerers" had studied the entire scenarion
    for quite some time. They knew that these large aircraft, filled to the
    maximum with fuel and rammed into these buildings, as they were, would
    burn fierceously hot, melting steel structural beams, as well as other metals
    and even superheating and crumbling concrete. The structure below
    the higher upper structures supports itself as well as helping to support
    that above. Those above support theirself and so on. But each
    individual layer or story of the structure is rated to support only so
    much weight before it is comprimised.
    When the upper structures that were directly hit were incinerated and
    caused to no longer be a part of the entire vertical/horizontial building
    structural integrity, they collapsed and being dead weight on those
    areas below, collapsed down upon them. If you watch you can see
    the staged implosion collapse. In slow motion it would be more obvious.
    Much was masked by dust and smoke.
    There was no additional explosive used on these buildings and what
    was witnessed was a direct act by these Muslim highjackers crashing
    fully fuel laden large aircraft into these buildings. There was no
    government conspiracy. Anyone that thinks there was is more insane
    than the highjackers.
    What really suprised me is that they didn't go in lower, almost at
    street level. If they had toppled those gigantic buildings over there
    would have been destruction, death and mayhem for a very large
    are around the core part of the city. If they had been experienced
    pilots they could have. However, they were "lucky" that they made it as
    good as they did and for their purpose that was good enough.
    I think that the fact that these individuals were from terrorist cells based
    in mostly the mideast justifies our going after them and taking them out
    along with whomever trys to defend them in order to prevent, as much as
    possible, that this doesn't happen again.
    By the way, I think I had a "chance encounter" with Atta in Dallas Texas
    one evening at a Border's bookstore. It was over the use of a public
    telephone near the kitchen of the instore cafe. I needed to use the
    phone and this mideastern appearing man persisted in staying on the
    phone. Not a pay phone, but nevertheless public. I asked the cafe
    manager about using the phone. She told this guy he was going to have
    to get off of it right now. He said something in arabic to the both of us
    that didn't seems to impart tender sentiments.
    that was about 3-4 months before the world trade situation.
    WHo knows?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    586

    Re: Is it safe?

    Hi Gordon,

    What you have written here makes sense to me. I have NEVER thought about a barbeque before. The metal bottom is in constant contact with varying degrees of heat for sustained periods of time. That is true.

    Let me ask question, mind, this is coming from a person unfamiliar with strutual engineering. Could the shock of the vibrations from the impact, be a cause of the two towers that were actually hit by airplanes?

    DeeDee1965

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    51

    Re: Is it safe?

    Intense heat, of a temperature which we will not specify for a moment will ensue from the impact. No doubt. That intense heat will set up thermal gradients in the steel structure due to the heat conduction through the steel. In other words, and following the basic laws of thermodynamics, some bits would be hotter than others. If we assume for a moment that the heat was sufficient to melt the steel or even to reduce its mechanical properties sufficient for the frame to fail in any way, the same laws of thermodynamics will dictate that this will happen in different places at different times. The failure, should it continue, would therefore radiate outwards down the temperature gradients.
    Think back to my model and melt, or even to make life easy simply cut, one leg completely through to represent impact, and then continue to radiate out from that point cutting however or whatever you want, one wire or rod at a time, or more if you like. Try it with any model you like. It will not fail to ground level or close to ground level while falling vertically through, what will still remain at least in part, the path of most resistance.
    You also state that the fire would be ferociously hot and again there is no doubt but again this intensifies my argument because it would exaggerate the thermal gradients already mentioned.
    Furthermore, hydrocarbons burning in atmospheric or near atmospheric conditions do not reach temperatures even approaching the melting point of steel. Fill your barbecue up with as much or as little hydrocarbon fuel of whatever variety you like and, standing well clear, set it alight. It may be ferocious but it will not melt.
    To assert that all three buidings collapsed in the manner that they did solely due to aircraft collision(s) and susequent or consequent damage denies the basic laws of thermodynamics, denies Newtons laws of motion, and denies the very basic tenets of metallurgy.
    Gordon.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: Is it safe?

    However, your assertion denies the findings and opinions of hundreds of experts in this field. Are they all mistaken? Lying? Every one of them?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Is it safe?

    OK......just to clarify for the confused or uneducated.........in others words.the reality of 9-11 catastrophe is as follows..........the buildings were cheaply made.....AND the attackers got LUCKY!!a deadly combination!!END OF STORY!!want a more complicated explanation!?let me elaborate......the buildings were cheaply made,and the attackers got lucky because they never knew that the cheaply made buildings would complletely collapse!!they hit the jackpot!!Ok ....want an even more indepth explanation!?..........PAY ME!! :eek: :D :rolleyes:

  11. #11
    umdkook Guest

    Re: Is it safe?

    how can you compare a simple barbecue to a over 100 story building weighing who konws how many thousands of tons, that has been hit by large aircraft full of jet fuel, that has been buring for some time, that crumbles upon itself from 80 floors above the earth??

    i can see some of your information presented about the way it imploded and teh heat or watever, but it is ludicrous to suggest a barbecue is a good analogy to the twin towers.

    Wow its amazing the barbecue is ok when it is always surrounded by fire!!!

    or its just simple metals that are known to not get weak at whatever temp the barbecue heats up to.

  12. #12
    coontie is offline Vashudeva; Ferryman - doing the work...
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,392

    Re: Is it safe?

    the "barbeque" scenario hardly fits the bill as a legitimate example of
    what happened at the WTC - no comparision!
    In the first place, the WTC twin towers structures were nowhere near as
    simple as th barbeque thing. They were of course much more complex.
    If you subjected "your barbeque" to the same intense heat and pressures
    that occured in the WTC it would be a smashed puddle of metal on the
    ground.
    To begin with: the grill is ventialted on the exterior surfaces, so it is
    constantly cooling. Also, the fuels do not heat the metal enough to
    melt it. The structure is also not nearly as substantial as large
    building structures.
    Gordon, I would think if you are really and engineer that you would
    perhaps have thought up a better example.
    If you would talk to some of the firemen (that survived) as well as
    the rescue and cleanup people they would have told you amazing
    storys about the condition of the damaged materials in the rubble
    of these two towers.
    Needless to say, there was steel heated superhot, melted and flowing
    along with the aluminum from the aircraft. copper from the electrical
    wiring of the building, this all running down to the lower floors
    of the structure. The bodies of those, especially on the aircraft
    were cremated...
    Besides, I don't know why you have resurrected this, after the fact,
    except to possibly stir up some S**t in regards to explosives being
    used and some sort of additional conspiracy.
    An Engineer.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    51

    Re: Is it safe?

    What follows is a statement which is testable and to some extent either provable or disprovable. The figures are rough but the point made is regarding the energy which would be made available by the collision.
    Let us assume that the aircraft fuel tanks were full to their capacity of 24000 gallons with a calorific value of 200 000 kJ per gallon. The tanks would not have been full and the calorific value is exaggerated, but this is done to make the point.
    The specific heat capacity of steel is 0.46 kJ/kg K. This means that it takes 0.46 kJ of energy to raise the temperature of one kg of steel by one degree (either Centrigrade or Kelvin).
    So any energy given to the steel has the potential to raise a certain amount of it by a certain temperature. How much in this case? It can be expressed as about 10 500 million kilogram Kelvins. That is you could raise 10500 million kilograms by one degree or 5250 million kilograms by two degrees, or any combination whose sum of the products was 10500 million kilogram Kelvins.
    The building contained approximately 200 000 tonnes or 200 million kilograms of steel. The equation would be satisfied by raising all of this by about 5 degrees.
    It would be alternatively satisfied if all the energy was absorbed in raising as much steel as possible to its melting point of 1500 degrees Centigrade while leaving the remainder at the original temperature. That total amount would be about 7 million kilograms or 7000 tonnes. This would equate to about 3 or 4 per cent of the total structure.
    Neither of these scenarios, to raise the whole structure by 4 degrees or melt 4 per cent of it are plausible in practice, but are given for illustration.
    However the transfer would not be anywhere near the 100 per cent efficiency that I have allowed. The assumptions that all of the potential heat energy in the fuel was transferred instantaneously and directly and without losses to the steel contradict the laws of thermodynamics. It makes no allowance for the inefficiency of combustion, for efficiency of insulation, for losses through conduction, radiation, convection, or any other losses. In reality the efficiency of the transfer would have been a fraction of one percent.
    So even if the fuel in the plane were capable of melting the steel, (it isn't) it could only have melted a tiny fraction of one percentage of it with its own available energy, while having no other effect on any of the other steel or other materials.

    Gordon.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    51

    Re: Is it safe?

    Let us be clear about temperature and heat. They are different things, heat being an energy and temperature being a measurement of, to put it simply, the internal energy of a material. In order to melt a material you must raise its temperature to the melting point. Different materials have different melting points and steel is about 1500 deg C. At this point it will change its composition to become a liquid.
    So it is simply a matter of applying enough heat energy for the thing you want to melt to reach its melting point.
    Working against you, the steel, due to its thermal conductivity will conduct the heat away from the point where the highest temperature exists and distribute it to other parts of the steel structure and the atmosphere. So you must input the heat energy at such a rate as to also counteract that effect. Furthermore, the higher the temperature which you manage to achieve the greater will be the rate at which the structure pulls heat away. That is why, when you want to cut steel, you can do it mechanically with a saw or other tool, or thermally with an oxy-acetylene torch. Acetylene also has a high calorific value like aircraft fuel, but it is the addition of oxygen which allows the torch to achieve localised high temperatures close to the melting point and it is the mechanical action of the pressure jets of oxygen which actually do the cutting.
    Hydrogen and carbon in hydrocarbons combine with oxygen to give water and in an ideal burn carbon dioxide, and most importantly heat energy. The amount of heat energy given off depends on the calorific value of the fuel and the efficiency of combustion. The rate at which it is given off depends on the rate that you burn it at, and that is limited by the amount of oxygen available. As a rough guide if you see black smoke, then you see inefficient burning and relatively low temperatures.
    Bellows, fans, turbochargers, compressors, all work by delivering compressed air (ie more oxygen) to the combustion chamber thus raising the rate of extraction of the heat from the fuel and thereby allow higher temperatures to be achieved. But in an atmospheric burn, the temperature of the steel will not approach its melting point.
    Raising steel to 250 degrees C will reduce its strength by about one percent. At 1000 degrees C it will still retain between 60 and 70 per cent of its strength.
    And with all those unknowns and distortions they still fell through the path of most resistance to fall on their own foundations.

    Gordon.

  15. #15
    coontie is offline Vashudeva; Ferryman - doing the work...
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,392

    Re: Is it safe?

    Oh, I see your ploy now... Desire for your 15 seconds of fame, perhaps?
    C.U.L.! :confused:

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    51

    Re: Is it safe?

    Dear Coontie,
    Please excuse my use of your name directly in this post, but as you have taken the time and made the effort to reply I believe that you deserve a considered response.
    I will first try to explain the situation that I am in. I witnessed the events of 911 as you now call it on tv through a customers window while we installed a stone paved driveway. From that fact alone you can see that I am no expert on the subject. I assumed that most of the structure was concrete, albeit reinforced, so that will tell you how much I know about building construction even to UK Standards, far less American Standards.
    I cannot even claim to be an engineer anymore because I no longer work in an Engineering field. Was I any good at it? I like to think so. Why did I leave? Because I was fed up being lied to.
    It was only a few days ago that I learned about the steel framing of such buildings, and only then did I recall details that just didn't seem quite right. Lets be clear. I am not the type of person who could watch those horrifying events while dispassionately analysing who did what when to who.
    I'm walking on eggshells here, trying not to offend anyone, because rightly or wrongly there are a lot of people in the world who don't like your government, or ours for that matter, but this is too big to ignore or treat as a party political issue. I don't like being lied to and if you really want to know why I am pushing this or ressurecting this as someone said, then it was precisely because of the firefighters who were also mentioned.
    They went in to help people, and look at what they got.
    And if I can convince even one of you of the truth using cold hard facts then that will be a start.
    Now I could reinforce my position on the thermodynamics of the area around the collision talking about high or low explosive or temperatures or implosions/explosions. But I won't, if you will consider this further proof.
    Let us assume for a moment that you are correct when you say that, the fire would burn fierceously hot, melting steel structural beams, as well as other metals and even superheating and crumbling concrete.
    Let us also agree that as you say, the structure below the higher upper structures supports itself as well as helping to support
    that above. (I would say totally supports the structue above rather than helps to, but that is an issue of words rather than intent)
    You are also correct when you assert that each individual layer or story of the structure is rated to support only so
    much weight before it is compromised.
    I agree. Further I would say this. Each part of the tower was built to withstand its normal every day stresses and strains multiplied by a figure which we call Factor of Safety, I don't know your terminology. Typically this would be a much higher figure than the 2 that I am going to assume.
    You further stated that, "When the upper structures that were directly hit were incinerated and
    caused to no longer be a part of the entire vertical/horizontial building
    structural integrity, they collapsed and being dead weight on those
    areas below, collapsed down upon them. If you watch you can see
    the staged implosion collapse. In slow motion it would be more obvious.
    Much was masked by dust and smoke."
    Let us assume that you are correct for a moment and analyse this.
    Imagine that the effect of the collision and fire was to totally remove three floors in their entirety, that is all the perimeter beams, core, floors everything you can think of. Imagine also that it did this instantaneously. That is the same as looking at any steel framed buiding now and imagining three floors
    simply disappearing leaving the remainder hanging in mid air. That section would immediately accelerate downwards under gravity until it impacted the remaining lower section. That impact would set up stresses typically 10 times higher than the normal stresses and strains that the building experiences and higher even than the factor of safety has allowed. Failure would ensue. But because the upper section has exerted an impact force on the lower section we know that a deceleration has occured. Newtons first law. We can even quantify it by saying that the upper section will suffer a twenty percent loss of velocity from immediately before till immediately after the impact using the figure 2 and 10. Vary them if you like.
    Imagine now that the topmost part of the bottom section having exceeded its load carrying abilities, simply disappears while the upper section remains intact, leaving another space between them. The upper section would again accelerate downwards under gravity till the second impact occurs. Imagine the same process continuing downwards through the tower. At each collision the uppermost section would suffer a deceleration and then another acceleration in order to satisfy conservation of momentum, Newtons laws and gravity.
    Now consider a graph of speed of the top section against time and show a straight diagonal line starting at 0,0 representing gravitational acceleration. The line representing the velocity of the top section would be a saw tooth kind of line starting at 0,0 and being below and diverging from the gravitational acceleration line. In other words it would show that the length of time taken for total collapse would be greater than the time taken for it to fall simply due to gravity. In other words the steel slows down the fall before falling and then disappearing.

    Now you can adjust the figures if you like. The factor of safety must be greater than one, the impact stresses could be as much as 100 or more if you removed enough floors/storeys to begin with.
    WTC 7 fell in 16.6 seconds. Freefall in a vaccuum would take 16 seconds. The only way way that I know of while still satisfying the laws of physics is a scenario much like mine but instead of the floors/storeys being removed before they have exceeded the designed maximum load, they are removed before the various collisions take place.
    I would be grateful if someone would show me an alternate,
    Gordon.

Similar Threads

  1. Paysafecard - so safe you can't pay
    By vzn in forum Government Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-25-2014, 10:57 PM
  2. Safe Depositary MLM scam
    By Once Upon a Time in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-17-2011, 11:30 AM
  3. Just to be safe
    By Ghavaz in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-06-2009, 04:06 AM
  4. You are Not Safe!
    By Gtrniuy in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-09-2007, 01:03 PM
  5. is privacash safe to use?
    By khushi1 in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-31-2006, 07:54 AM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, acceleration, accusation, act, action, address, advance, age, ain, allowed, als, amazing, american, another, answer, are, ation, attempt, avia, aware, away, bachelor, back, barbecue, basic, bet, better, bodies, bombs, books, border, break, bring, building, bur, burn, burns, cannot, case, center, centre, cer, chance, che, city, civil, claim, cleanup, close, coin, coins, collapse, coming, common, compare, completely, complex, compromised, con, condi, constant, continue, coo, copper, core, correct, counter, criminals, crumbling, customers, dallas, damage, day, days, dead, dear, death, deep, defend, demons, des, described, deserve, designed, desire, destruction, did, didn, different, ding, disappears, doesn, don, dow, drop, duc, due, ear, early, earth, effect, elaborate, eme, end, ended, ene, engineer, engineering, engineers, enter, entire, ets, evening, events, exists, expert, experts, explanation, factor, fail, failure, fall, fame, familiar, families, fans, fed, field, figures, fire, fits, five, fla, flat, floor, forces, foundation, foundations, framed, fuel, full, gold, good, gordo, greater, greatest, ground, guide, guy, had, happen, happened, hard, help, helping, helps, hey, high, higher, highly, his, hit, horizon, horrible, hose, hot, huge, hus, ial, ice, ideal, ignore, ime, impact, individual, individuals, inet, information, inter, internal, ion, isn, issue, item, its, jackpot, jet, john, just, justifies, kind, kitchen, knew, laden, large, leaving, legitimate, less, lets, level, lied, limited, line, logic, long, longer, loss, lot, lying, main, make, makes, making, many, massive, matter, mea, mel, metals, million, mind, model, moment, more, nature, need, needed, ner, never, normal, notice, now, only, open, order, original, our, overwhelming, owns, oxygen, par, part, party, passenger, pay, person, personally, picture, pile, place, plane, planes, plant, play, ploy, point, pos, position, possible, post, posts, potential, prevent, process, production, products, properties, prosecuted, pulls, qualifications, question, questions, quick, quote, rains, raise, raising, rated, rea, reality, reduce, regarding, remains, removed, represent, rescue, response, rest, run, runs, safe, safety, satisfied, scenario, section, seem, sense, ser, services, set, shared, shock, short, show, simple, simply, sincere, slow, smoke, speed, staged, star, start, starting, state, stated, steel, stone, story, strength, strike, subs, such, sue, suggest, suggested, supports, surfaces, take, taken, takes, taking, tal, talk, talking, ted, tender, terrorist, than, theory, they, thing, thinks, thought, thread, tie, time, times, title, told, tom, ton, top, total, totally, tower, towers, trade, transfer, tre, treasury, treat, twin, u.s., u.s. treasury, unfamiliar, upper, ven, version, vince, walking, wall, watch, water, weak, weight, when, will, win, wire, witness, won, words, working, world, years, york, you, your

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •