Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: FW: [Fwd: Really Questioning 9-11 [Book]][Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: FW: [Fwd: Really Questioning 9-11 [Book]]
- From: "Harold Sprague" <spraguehope(--nospam--at)hotmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:56:39 +0000
Facts are more often impressions than real facts. I still recall the conspiricy advocates on the Murah Building not understanding how the Murah Building could have collapsed with reported pressures of 5,000 psi when a lot of the concrete tested at 6,000 psi. We structural engineers laugh, but this is the fuel of conspiricy "experts".
The spray on fire proofing material was very light weight and had only enough adhesion to hold itself in place on the steel. The towers were undergoing rehabilitation including replacement of the fire proofing. The replacement fireproofing was similar to the original. The over pressures generated by the deflagration of the airplane fuel and the impact on the airplane components removed significant amounts of fireproofing material. Thus you had virtually unprotected steel truss bottom chords (tension elements) and unprotected column steel that had been damaged structurally exposed to high temperatures. The fuel initiated a lot of fires to the furnishings. The fuel load was pretty much burned off within 10 minutes of impact. But the fuel ignited furnishings which kept burning. The heated air generated was sufficient to weaken the structure to the point of colapse.
I have investigated many structural collapses. Consider a telecommunications tower supported by guy cables in 3 eaually spaced groups in plan. Cut the cables on one side of the guyed tower. At first glance, you would expect it to fall toward the other cables like a tree. But in reality it tilts over and then buckles and spirals in to the ground.
When you run a nonlinear dynamic analysis, you can observe what happens at timed increments. When it comes to doing these types of analyses, we are only limited by what we do not know like nonlinear dynamic material behavior, strain rate effects, thermal degradation, etc.
Regards, Harold Sprague
From: "Timothy Allison" <t_allison(--nospam--at)illinoisalumni.org> Reply-To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org> To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org> Subject: Re: FW: [Fwd: Really Questioning 9-11 [Book]] Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 06:40:43 -0800 ". Even more interesting is *the South Tower. Even though it experienced a less forceful hit than the North Tower and had smaller fires, it fell in only half the time of its counterpart *(56 minutes). It takes five-times that long to cook a turkey! Plus, the South Tower's cap, which initially tipped 23 degrees past vertical, suddenly reversed direction, then dropped vertically, defying Newton's First Law of Motion." I knew our codes were inadequate, but this just proves it. Instead of 1- and 2-hour ratings for fire resistance, I would like them to be addressed as "fifth-turkey" and "two-fifths turkey". It should be clear we need to upgrade buildings to meet at least a one-turkey rating. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Arvel L. Williams, P.E. [mailto:awilliams(--nospam--at)gwsquared.com] >Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 9:43 AM >To: seaint@ >Subject: RE: [Fwd: Really Questioning 9-11 [Book]] > > >Hi, > > >Did you play the video. > >Guy looks like Billy Bob Thornton after a wild night. > >Arvel > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc] >Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 2:56 AM >To: seaint@ >Subject: [Fwd: Really Questioning 9-11 [Book]] > > >Nauseating, in a funny sort of way: > >I would LOVE to hear comments from the gallery about the highlighted >"facts". > >-------- Original Message -------- > >Really Questioning 9-11 [Book] > >.. Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:40:47 -0500 From: ranger116(--nospam--at)webtv.net >Subject: 9-11 on Trial Cracks Mainstream Media! "If the search for truth >and justice doesn't matter to us in regard to 9-11, what does?" > >.. Note: This article appeared in The Centre Daily Times on Thursday, >March 10, 2005 http://18.104.22.168/911ontrial.doc/cdtxxx.jpg > >.. Opening Comments by Lisa Giuliani On Thursday, March 10, 2005, 9- 11 >truth finally made a breakthrough into the mainstream media when a State >College, Pennsylvania newspaper - The Centre Daily Times - owned by >Knight-Ridder (the third largest newspaper chain in the United States) >published a 650-word Op-Ed article by Victor Thorn. > >.. This publication, with a daily circulation of approximately 30,000 >readers, allowed Thorn to discuss his latest book, 9-11 on Trial, which >lays out a solid, thoroughly-researched case that the government's >"official" story regarding how the WTC towers collapsed could not >possibly be true. > >.. This article appears below - please disseminate far-and-wide! > >.. Author Searches for Truth on Trade Center Collapse by Victor Thorn > >.. What if you discovered that the government's "official" explanation >for the World Trade Center collapse on the morning of 9- 11 was not >exactly true? In addition, *what if their "official" version of events >could be disproven solely on the basis of physics, mathematical >equations, scientific formulas, physical evidence, and expert testimony* >- without the use of a single "conspiracy theory"? Would your >perspective on 9-11 be dramatically altered? > >.. This is precisely what is illustrated in 9-11 on Trial, a book that >shreds the government's official story - and credibility - beyond >repair. Did you know, for instance, that *never before in the history of >the world has a steel building collapsed due to fire?* Yet on 9-11, >three of them did just that in seven hours - with WTC 7 not even being >hit by an airliner. *Furthermore, it takes a temperature of 2,795 >degrees to melt construction grade steel, yet the highest temperature >jet fuel can reach is 1,517 degrees.* Plus, all the jet fuel burned off >within two minutes of the towers being struck, while *two independent >studies proved that the fires within each tower never rose above 500-600 >degrees.* In fact, FEMA revealed in their final report that, "The heat >produced by burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been >sufficient to initiate the structural collapse." > >.. Also, the WTC towers were designed to withstand the impact from a >Boeing 707 (similar to a Boeing 767), and each floor was designed to >hold 2,600,000 pounds beyond its own weight. Likewise, the steel used in >these structures was rated to hold five times its normal load. MIT >professor Thomas Eager admitted as much when declaring, "The impact of >the airplanes would have been insignificant" in toppling the towers. > >.. Also, *how do we explain the pools of molten steel which were found >bubbling 70 feet beneath the towers five weeks after 9-11? * >Incidentally, a temperature of 5,182 degrees is needed to transform >steel into a liquefied state. Do you think fires that FEMA admitted >"would have burned at, or below, temperatures typical in office fires" >could have produced such extremes? Even NYFD audiotapes of firefighters >who reached the South tower's impact point reveal that they "judged the >blazes to be manageable" and were easily extinguishable in less than an >hour. > >.. Even more interesting is *the South Tower. Even though it experienced >a less forceful hit than the North Tower and had smaller fires, it fell >in only half the time of its counterpart *(56 minutes). It takes >five-times that long to cook a turkey! Plus, the South Tower's cap, >which initially tipped 23 degrees past vertical, suddenly reversed >direction, then dropped vertically, defying Newton's First Law of >Motion. > >.. Most incriminating, though, is *the resistance-free speed (a mere 10 >seconds) at which the towers collapsed.* To put this matter into >perspective, if you were standing atop the WTC towers, and at the >precise moment when they began to fall you dropped a football over the >side, you and the football would have hit the ground at nearly the exact >same moment. In other words, 200,000 tons of steel, 425,000 cubic yards >of concrete, and all the walls, desks and floors provided no resistance >whatsoever. *Not only does such a collapse defy Galileo's Law of Falling >Bodies, it is physically impossible * unless all resistance was removed >via a controlled demolition. > >.. Of course there's more (seismographic data, *the ridiculous pancake & >truss-bolt theories,* and the complete vaporization of nearly all the >concrete into a fine microscopic dust), but I'll close with this >question: considering that 9-11 was the most traumatic event of the 21st >century, if there was even a one-percent chance that the government's >official story was false, shouldn't we do everything humanly possible to >discover what the truth ultimately is? > >.. Because, if the search for truth and justice doesn't matter to us in >regard to 9-11, what does? ### Victor Thorn is the author of 9-11 on >Trial, the founder of Sisyphus Press, and the co-host (with Lisa >Giuliani) of WING TV. His website can be found at: www.wingtv.net > > >-- >Bill Polhemus, P.E. >Polhemus Engineering Company >http://www.polhemus.cc/
_________________________________________________________________Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp* * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- Re: FW: [Fwd: Really Questioning 9-11 [Book]]
- From: Timothy Allison
- Re: FW: [Fwd: Really Questioning 9-11 [Book]]
- Prev by Subject: Re: FW: [Fwd: Really Questioning 9-11 [Book]]
- Next by Subject: RE: FW: [Fwd: Really Questioning 9-11 [Book]]
- Previous by thread: Re: FW: [Fwd: Really Questioning 9-11 [Book]]
- Next by thread: RE: FW: [Fwd: Really Questioning 9-11 [Book]]