11/9 Terror
por J. McMichaeljmcm5(@)lycos.com
Inconclusa traducción: Paola Raffetta (con autorización del autor), del original: "Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!"
Algunas de las fuentes han desaparecido desde que este artículo fue escrito el 21 de octubre de 2001. Donde pude hallar sustitutos, los indiqué con la palabra "o" y una copia cacheada localmente. Esta revisión fue publicada el 25 de noviembre de 2001.
La traducción fue comenzada el 5 de noviembre de 2008.
Intenté ser un patriota.
Intenté creer. Vi esos altos rascacielos de casi medio kilómetro de altura, cayendo catastróficamente una y otra vez. Escuché a los cronistas y expertos explicar lo que había sucedido. Y me ensañé con mi lastimosa falta de fe golpeándome la cabeza con el control remoto mirando fijamente el parpadeo de las imágenes en mi televisor.
Pero qué pobre campesino mental seré, que no puedo escapar a las enseñanzas de mis ancestros. Temo estar atrapado en mi tiempo, excluido de futuros aprendizajes científicos por mi inhabilidad para abandonar la mentalidad del Segundo Milenio.
Pero basta de mi. Vamos a la Ciencia y la Tecnología del Siglo XXI. Aquellos de ustedes que no puedan creer deberían aprender de memoria la verdad oficial y asi, quizás sean capaces de esconder su ignorancia.
Este es el esqueleto desnudo del incidente del WTC (World Trade Center, complejo de edificios entre los cuales se hallaban las famosas Torres Gemelas).
|  | |
Torre Norte, golpeada a las 8:45 a.m. desde el norte, aproximadamente a la altura del piso 93, colapsó alrededor de las 10:29 a. | Torre Sur, golpeada a las 9:03 a.m. desde el sur, aproximadamente a la altura del piso 80, colapsó alrededor de las 9:50 a.m.; |
(http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html o: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/info.html ).
- Lugar del impacto estimado por Scientific American http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc o:
- Información geográfica para el WTC en http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcgeog
- Información completa sobre el WTC con un modelo 3D del complejo en http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
El uso de combustible de avión para fundir el acero es un descubrimiento asombroso, en verdad. Es tan asombroso que hasta ahora nadie había sido capaz de hacerlo funcionar, y eso prueba que los terroristas no eran ningunos estúpidos.
Los metalúrgicos bobean con sopletes de acetileno, oxígeno embotellado, arcos voltaicos de generadores, hornos eléctricos y otros trucos elaborados..., pero ¿qué usaron estos brillantes terroristas? Combustible de avión, a un costo de aproximadamente 80 centavos de dólar el galón (casi 4 litros) en el mercado (valores de 2001)!
Tomemos en consideración lo siguiente: un avión cargado de combustible de avión impactó la torre norte a las 8:45 a.m., y el fuego del combustible ardió por un rato con brillantes llamas y humo negro. Podemos ver fotos de humo blanco y llamas escapando por las ventanas.
Para las 9:03 a.m. (momento marcado por la colisión del segundo avión contra la torre sur) las llamas casi habían desaparecido y sólo el humo negro continuaba saliendo del edificio. Para mi mente sencilla, eso indica que el primer fuego estaba extinguido, pero algo aun quemaba ineficientemente, dejando hollín (carbón) en el humo. Un fuego con humo de hollín puede ser de baja temperatura o falto de oxígeno, o ambos.
(http://www.fosters.com/news2001c/september/11/04758CA1-AC58-4591-9F50-5976D2 BE2E04.jpg o: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/fires1-2.html ).
Pero para las 10:29 a.m. el fuego de la torre norte había realizado la proeza que encuentro tan asombrosa: derritió los soportes de acero del edificio, causando una reacción en cadena dentro de la estructura que demolió el edificio hasta el suelo.
Y con menos combustible para alimentar el fuego, la segunda torre colapsó apenas 47 minutos después de la colisión del avión, otra vez con destrucción completa. Esto es sólo la mitad del tiempo que le tomó destruir la torre norte.
Intento no pensar en eso. Trato de no pensar en un fuego de petróleo ardiendo por 104 minutos, volviéndose cada vez más y más caliente hasta alcanzar los 1538° centígrados (2800°F) y derretir el acero (el acero es 99% hierro, para los puntos de fundición del hierro y el acero ver http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/heat.html ,
http://www.weldtechnology.com/rwintroduction.html o: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/rwintroduction.html )
Trato de no preguntarme cómo hizo el fuego para alcanzar temperaturas que sólo el oxígeno embotellado y el aire comprimido pueden producir.
Y trato de no pensar en todo el acero que había en el edificio (200.000 toneladas!). Para las estadísticas del WTC ver http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html o: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtc1.html ).
Trato de olvidar que calentar acero es como derramar almíbar en un plato: no podrás lograr que se apile. El calor fluye hacia las partes más frías del acero, enfriando las partes que intentás calentar. Si lo vertés lo suficientemente rápido y fuerte podés lograr que el almíbar se apile un poquito. Y con un fuerte calor aplicado muy rápidamente podés calentar una parte de un objeto de acero, pero el calor rápidamente se disipará y las partes calentadas se enfriarán en cuanto te detengas.
Afortunadamente, encontré esta nota en la página de la BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm o: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ): "El fuego alcanza los 800 grados C -- lo suficientemente caliente para fundir los soportes de acero de los pisos".
Esta es una de las cosas sobre las que los había prevenido: en el siglo XX el acero se derretía a 1535°C (2795°F) (ver http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html ), pero en el siglo XXI, se derrite a los 800°C (1472°F).
Esto puede ser explicado como un error de reportero -- 800 a 900 C es la temperatura para forjar el hierro batido. El hierro forjado es tan blando que nunca se utilizaría como acero estructural en un rascacielos emblemático (descripciones de hierro fundido, hierro forjado, acero y temperaturas relevantes discutido en http://www.metrum.org/measures/castiron.htm o: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/castiron.htm .)
Pero luego, más abajo, la página de la BBC repite el número 800C en negrita, y el artículo enfatiza que la información proviene de Chris Wise, "Ingeniero Estructural". Se ha permitido a sí mismo este individuo profesional ser mal citado en una publicación global?
Eduardo Kausel, profesor del M.I.T. de ingeniería civil y ambiental, habla de la siguiente manera a un panel de ingenieros civiles y estructurales del área de Boston: "yo creo que el intenso calor ablandó o derritió los elementos estructurales -- vigas del suelo y columnas -- y quedaron como chicle, y eso fue suficiente para desencadenar el colapso." Kausel parece satisfecho de que fuego de kerosene pueda fundir el acero, aunque no aventura una temperatura específica para ese fuego (http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc o: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam ).
Lo siento venir otra vez -- ese horrible cinismo que me provoca a dudar de los más conocidos presentadores. Por favor, considere este ensayo como un pedido de ayuda, y NO lo deje interferir con su propia justa fe. El colapso de la fe Americana en sus líderes no debe convertirse en otra baja en el horizonte de América.
En mi mente enferma, pienso en los pisos de cada torre como una pila de discos LP (33-1/3 RPM) excepto por el hecho de que los pisos eran cuadrados, en vez de circulares. Estaban apilados alrededor de un eje central que consistía en múltiples columnas de acero intercaladas con docenas de pozos de ascensores (ver http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm , http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm , y http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html).
 |  |
| Imágenes cacheadas de la página de la BBC ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm o: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ) y el reporte HERA por G. Charles Clifton ( http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf o: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/clifton.pdf ). Items indicados en la imagen de Clifton (derecha): 13. Columnas exteriores; 17. Columnas Interiores; 20. Espacio utilizado para oficinas. | |
La imagen de BBC News (izquierda) es engañosa:
| |
Planta típica de piso de las torres del WTC tower (de
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm )
La forma exterior de las torres era casi cuadrada, pero el corazón interior era rectangular. Las fotos de las fases tempranas de la construcción muestran como fueron orientados los bloques rectangulares en el edificio terminado ( http://www.GreatBuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.4.gbi ). Note que el corazón de la torre norte estaba alineado de este a oeste, y el corazón de la torre sur estaba alineado norte-sur.
 |
| Este dibujo muestra las Torres Gemelas (en negro) y los caminos de los ataques aéreos (rojo). Dentro del perfil de cada torre, la forma del corazón está representada por el rectángulo verde. Los edificios del WTC 1 a 6 están numerados, el WTC 7, al norte del 6, no se muestra. |
Con el corazón central sosteniendo el peso del edificio, las lozas estaban unidas y estabilizadas por otro set de columnas de acero en el cerco exterior, mínimamente espaciadas y envolviendo completamente la estructura. Esta estructura resultante era tan estable que el tope de las torres se movía sólo 3 pies en un fuerte viento. Los arquitectos lo llamaron "diseño de tubo dentro de tubo".
Los expertos de la TV nos dicen que las juntas entre los pisos y las columnas centrales (o las vigas del piso, o las columnas centrales, o las columnas exteriores, dependiendo del experto) se derritieron , y que esto causó que el piso colapsara sobre el inferior. Esto sobrecargó el piso de abajo, y los dos cayeron sobre el inferior, y asi sucesivamente, como dominós. (ver http://news-info.wustl.edu/News/nrindex00/harmon.html o: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/harmon ).
En los comienzos de la década de 1970, cuando las torres fueron construídas, el WTC era el edificio más alto que se había construído en la historia. Si consideramos a los ingenieros arquitecturales, proveedores, constructores e inspectores de la ciudad involucrados en la tarea, podemos imaginar que todos ellos deben haber sido muy cuidadosos de sobreconstruir cada aspecto [N.T. incorporando amplios márgenes de tolerancia]. Si un solo perno estaba calculado para resistir, podés apostar que se usaron tres o cuatro. Si hubo alguna duda sobre la calidad de una viga o braguero de acero, podés estar seguro de que fue rechazado. Después de todo, cualquier falla hubiera atraído la atención de medio mundo civilizado, y ninguna corporación quiere una reputación por semejante tipo de estupidez -- especialmente si hay muertos.
No conozco las especificaciones exactas para el WTC, pero se que en muchos rubros (y en algunos en los que he trabajado), un miembro estructural debe ser físicamente capaz de resistir 3 veces más la carga máxima requerida (fuerza de ruptura = 3 x fuerza de trabajo).
| Según el Engineering and Technical Handbook de McNeese y Hoag, Prentice Hall, 3ra reimpresión, septiembre de 1959: página 47 (Tabla) Factores de Seguridad de Varios Materiales, el factor de seguridad oblicatorio para el acero estructural es de 600%. Eso significa que una estructura de acero puede ser aprobada para una carga de sólo un sexto del verdadero límite teórico. |
Dado que ninguno de esos pisos albergaba una gran subasta de pianos o una convención de elefantes ese día, es poco probable que alguno de ellos estuviera cargado al máximo. Así, cualquiera de los pisos debería haber sido capaz de soportar más de su propio peso, y los dos pisos sobre él. Sospecho que el WTC fue diseñado con márgenes más seguros que el puente férreo promedio, y la carga real en cada piso era de menos de 1/6 la fuerza de ruptura. Las bandejas [de las losas] fueron construidas con redes de vigas de acero. Vigas radiales corrían desde el perímetro del piso hasta las columnas centrales y círculos concéntricos de bragueros conectaban con los radiales, formando un diseño similar al de la tela de araña (ver http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif
o: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews/DOCS/1540044w.gif ). Donde los bragueros radiales se conectaban con las columnas centrales, imagino que las juntas lucirían como los grandes rebordes atornillados donde las vigas se encuantran en un puente -- pernos de varias pulgadas de ancho ajustando las vigas a las columnas.
Para poder debilitar esas juntas, el fuego debería calentar los pernos o los rebordes al punto en que los pernos se cayeron o cortaron a través del acero. Pero aquí hay otra cosa que me trae problemas -- todas las juntas entre la bandeja y las columnas centrales deberían haberse calentado al mismo ritmo para poder colapsar al mismo tiempo -- y al mismo tiempo que las juntas con las columnas exteriores en todos los lados --, sino un lado de la placa hubiera caído, dañando el piso inferior y produciendo distorsiones obvias en la piel del edificio, o tirado el tope de la torre fuera de balance, hacia un lado.
Pero no hubo irregularidades en la caída de esos edificios. Cayeron casi tan perfectamente como un mazo de cartas en manos de un mago barajando en el aire.
|
| |||||
| The Splitsecond Error | ||||||
| Vuelo 11: una aproximación casi perfecta envía todo el combustible del avión profundamente dentro del edificio. | Vuelo 175: mal ángulo de aproximación significa que el combustible del avión | |||||
Esto es particularmente preocupante ya que el primer avion golpeó un lado de la torre norte, causando (pensarías) un debilitamiento en el lado en el cual las columnas exteriores fueron golpeadas, y un fuego más intenso en ese lado que en el otro lado. Y el segundo avión golpeó cerca de la esquina de la torre sur, en un ángulo tal que causó que mucho del combustible arrojara fuera las ventanas del lado adyacente (ver http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/southtowerpath.jpg o: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/southtowerpath.jpg).
Sin embargo, también la torre sur colapsó en perfecta simetría, arrojando polvo en todas direcciones como una bengala del 4 de Julio quemando hasta el suelo (http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/DOCS/dustfountain.jpg ).
Esta simetría de descenso es incluso más notable en la torre sur, ya que en los primeros momentos del colapso los últimos 20 pisos de la torre se inclinaron hacia el sur ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/images/_1538563_thecollapseap150.jpg
o: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews/DOCS/1538563t.jpg ).
Sea cua fuere la irregularidad que causó la inclinación del tope de la torre, las imágenes subsiguientes muestran la torre cayendo mayormente sobre su propia huella. No hay ningún reporte de que este cubo de concreto y acero de los pisos superiores (que medía 60 metros de ancho, 60 de profundidad, y 75 de alto) cayendo desde 300 metros de altura sobre los edificios ubicados debajo.
El experto en implosiones Mark Loizeaux, presidente de Controlled Demolition, Inc. de Phoenix, MD, también fue engañado por la foto. Habiendo observado los colapsos en las noticias televisadas, Loizeaux dijo que la torre, de 415 mts de altura, se inclinó como cuando se corta un árbol ( http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm o: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR ).
Recientemente he visto una reposición en video de la caída de la torre sur. En esa toma, los pisos superiores caen en completa unidad, ladeada tal como se ve en la página de la BBC, deslizándose entre los edificios como una pieza de escenografía.
Esta escena es la más desconcertante de todas. Dado que los pisos superiores no estaban colapsados (la conexión entre las columnas centrales y las losas estaba intacto), este conjunto se debió presentar a los pisos inferiores como un bloque de losas SIN un agujero central. Como pudo, entonces, una losa sin agujero deslizarse por el eje con las otras lozas? A dónde irían a parar las columnas centrales si no podían penetrar los pisos superiores a medida que caían las losas?
Si el fuego derritió las juntas de los pisos de modo tal que el colapso comenzó en el piso 60 hacia abajo, los pisos superiores hubieran quedado colgando en el aire, sostenidos sólo por las columnas centrales
If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over (to use Loizeaux's image) much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1,300 ft. tree.
This model would also hold for the north tower. According to Chris Wise's "domino" doctrine, the collapse began only at the floor with the fire, not at the penthouse. How was it that the upper floors simply disappeared instead of crashing to the earth as a block of thousands of tons of concrete and steel?
In trying to reconstruct and understand this event, we need to know whether the scenes we are watching are edited or simply shown raw as they were recorded.
But let us return our attention to the fire. Liquid fuel does not burn hot for long. Liquid fuel evaporates (or boils) as it burns, and the vapor burns as it boils off. If the ambient temperature passes the boiling point of the fuel and oxygen is plentiful, the process builds to an explosion that consumes the fuel.
Jet fuel (refined kerosene) boils at temperatures above 160 degrees Celsius (350 F) and the vapor flashes into flame at 41 degrees Celsius (106 F). In an environment of 1500 degrees F, jet fuel spread thinly on walls, floor, and ceiling would boil off very quickly. If there were sufficient oxygen, it would burn; otherwise it would disperse out the open windows and flame when it met oxygen in the open air -- as was likely happening in the pictures that showed flames shooting from the windows. Some New Yorkers miles distant claimed they smelled the fuel, which would indicate fuel vapors were escaping without being burned.
Note that jet fuel burning outside the building would heat the outside columns, but would not heat the central load-bearing columns significantly. Following this reasoning, the jet fuel fire does not adequately explain the failure of the central columns.
Whether the fuel burned gradually at a temperature below the boiling point of jet fuel (360 C), or burned rapidly above the boiling point of jet fuel, in neither case would an office building full of spilled jet fuel sustain a fire at 815 degrees C (1500 F) long enough to melt 200,000 tons of steel. And certainly, the carpets, wallpaper, filing cabinets, occasional desks -- nothing else in that office was present in sufficient quantity to produce that temperature.
The WTC was not a lumber yard or a chemical plant. What was burning?
OK, since it was mentioned, I am also upset with the quantity of concrete dust (see http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why ) or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/index.htm#why ). No concrete that I have ever known pulverizes like that. It is unnerving. My experience with concrete has shown that it will crumble under stress, but rarely does it just give up the ghost and turn to powder. But look at the pictures -- it is truly a fine dust in great billowing clouds spewing a hundred feet from the collapsing tower.
 |  |
| | |
And the people on the ground see little more than an opaque wall of dust -- with inches of dust filling the streets and the lungs afterward ( http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/thirdexplosion.jpg or:
http://public-action.com/911/jmcm /thirdexplosion.jpg ).
What has happened here?
|
|
I need a faith booster shot. I would like to find a picture of all those platters piled up on the ground, just as they fell -- has anyone seen a picture like that? I am told it was cumulative weight of those platters falling on each other that caused the collapse, but I don't see the platters piled up like flapjacks on the ground floor.
| ||
| In this picture, the top of the picture is south and the right side is west. The ruined shell in the lower left is WTC building 6, and lower left of that is WTC 7, which was leveled by forces not explained. Picture cached from http://www.eionews.com before it was removed. |
Instead, the satellite pictures show the WTC ruins like an ash pit ( http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter_closeup.jpg ,
http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/wtcaerial.jpg or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcaerial.jpg ).
I am told by a friend that a man named Dr. Robert Schuller was on television telling about his trip to the ruins. He announced in the interview that there was not a single block of concrete in that rubble. From the original 425,000 cubic yards of concrete that went into the building, all was dust. How did that happen?
I have just one other point I need help with -- the steel columns in the center. When the platters fell, those quarter-mile high central steel columns (at least from the ground to the fire) should have been left standing naked and unsupported in the air, and then they should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below, clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant trees falling in the forest. But I haven't seen any pictures showing those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I heard of damage caused by them.
Now I know those terrorists must have been much better at these things than I am. I would take one look at their kamikaze plans with commercial jets and I would reject it as -- spectacular maybe, but not significantly damaging. The WTC was not even a strategic military target.
But if I were given the assignment of a terrorist hijacker, I would try to hit the towers low in the supports to knock the towers down, maybe trapping the workers with the fire and burning the towers from the ground up, just as the people in the top stories were trapped. Even the Japanese kamikaze pilots aimed for the water line.
But you see, those terrorists were so sure the building would magically collapse that way, the pilot who hit the north tower chose a spot just 20 floors from the top ( http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/worldtrade010911.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABCNews ).
And the kamikaze for south tower was only slightly lower -- despite a relatively open skyline down to 25 or 30 stories ( http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/rubble_ny091101.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcgeog )
The terrorists apparently predicted the whole scenario -- the fuel fire, the slow weakening of the structure, and the horrific collapse of the building -- phenomena that the architects and the NY civil engineering approval committees never dreamed of.
Even as you righteously hate those men, you have to admire them for their genius.
Few officials or engineers have been surprised by this turn of events -- apparently everyone certified it for airplane collisions, but almost no one was surprised when both collisions caused utter catastrophes in both towers. In fact, their stutters and mumbles and circumlocutions would make a politician blush:
"Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination." ( http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/wtc.htm#why )
In a hundred years of tall city buildings, this kind of collapse has never happened before. Never. It was not predicted by any of the experts involved when the WTC towers were built. But now that it has happened, everybody understands it perfectly and nobody is surprised.
Is this civil engineering in the Third Millennium -- a galloping case of perfect hindsight?
Scientific American, prestigious journal of cutting edge science, remarked:
Despite the expert panel's preliminary musings on the failure mechanisms responsible for the twin towers' fall, the definitive cause has yet to be determined. Reportedly, the National Science Foundation has funded eight research projects to probe the WTC catastrophe. The American Society of Civil Engineers is sponsoring several studies of the site. Meanwhile the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Structural Engineers has established an investigative team to analyze the disaster and learn from the failure ( http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc or:
http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam )
Amazing: At least ten independent professional studies for an incident every professional seems already to understand. Notwithstanding the apparent lack of answers and all these studies not yet done, the very next paragraph is headed, "How the Towers Fell," and the reader is treated to a shotgun assortment of speculations, each delivered with the beard-stroking and pipe-puffing certainty that no explanation would ever be seriously challenged.
I have found only one expert candidly admitting his surprise. This was Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD:
Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the 1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor, failed much as one would like (sic) fell a tree. That is what was expected, says Loizeaux. But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower, similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, "telescoped," says Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling over. "I don't have a clue," says Loizeaux, regarding the cause of the telescoping. (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR ).
There was one highly qualified engineer in New Mexico who thought the collapse could only happen with the help of demolition explosives, and he was foolish enough to make the statement publicly.
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.
Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.
"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.
Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon.
He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.
"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.
The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.
(Article originally at http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm , then was moved to http://www.abqjournal.com/news/aqvan09-11-01.htm but now back in the original location, or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal ).
But Romero recanted ten days later and admitted the whole thing was perfectly natural and unsurprising. I wonder what happened in those ten days to make him so smart on the subject so quickly. The retraction is now displayed above the original on the Albuquerque Journal web page.
And then, as though demonstrating how normal this "building collapsing" phenomenon is, WTC buildings Six and Seven "collapsed," too:
Other buildings -- including the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [WTC 7] -- caved in later, weakened by the earlier collapses, and more nearby buildings may still fall, say engineers. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm , or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ).
(These ruins are shown in aerial photo http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter.jpg , or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/numbersixafter.jpg ).
It seems no building in the area, regardless of design, is immune to galloping WTC collapse-itis. It never happened in the 20th Century, but welcome to the physical universe laws of the Third Millennium.
Pardon me, but this recitation has not given me the relief I hoped for. I must get back to work.
I believe in the President, the Flag, and the Statue of Liberty. I believe in the honesty of the FBI and the humility of military men. I believe in the network news anchor-persons, who strive to learn the truth, to know the truth, and to tell the truth to America.
And I believe all Americans are so well educated in the basic physics discussed above, they would rise up in fury if someone tried to pull a cheap Hollywood trick on them.
Hand me that remote, will you? I believe
--- J. McMichael
jmcm5@lycos.com
(Celsius/Fahrenheit conversion tool at http://www.vaxxine.com/mgdsite/celcon.htm )
See also Part 2 of this essay, below.
9/11 Terror
Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!
Part II
jmcmichael@care2.com
Originally published early in 1992, this second part was saved from extinction by Serendipity at http://www.serendipity.li/
Some people have written to me (or commented publicly) that the collapse of the World Trade Center was a perfectly normal event caused by the heat of the fire.
Let me recall a few details to the reader's attention before answering that statement.
Citing structural engineer Chris Wise, the BBC web page stated that steel supports in the WTC reached 1500 degrees Fahrenheit and melted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm). That is of course not correct, and I provided a link to an on-line chemistry chart to show that steel melts closer to 2800 degrees F.
Note that the statement (that the WTC steel melted) is not mine: The statement comes from the BBC page, citing Chris Wise, and from others on television.
The critics have pointed out that steel does not MELT at 1500 F, but it does soften and lose its strength, enough to cause the towers to collapse. We are asked to believe, as one Australian put it, that steel supports turn to licorice when heated in a fire.
Corus Steel is a trans-national corporation that markets structural steel (http://www.corusconstruction.com/). One graph on their web page shows the diminishing strength of steel as it is heated. http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm
Note that structural steel at 550 degrees C (1022 F) has 60% of the strength of steel at normal temperatures. This weakening of steel when heated is supposedly responsible for the catastrophic collapse of the towers. The statement generates three questions to be answered in order to determine whether this phenomenon could cause the collapse of the World Trade Center:
1. How much strength would the steel have to lose for the WTC to collapse?
2. What temperature would the steel have to reach to occasion this loss of strength?
3. What was the temperature of the fire in the WTC; i.e., did it reach the critically weakening temperature?
Question 1:
In the original article, I cited my own experience that a support device must be capable of bearing three times the maximum load that would ever be applied.
It turns out that this rule-of-thumb is applicable only to dynamic loads, not static (structural) loads of commercial buildings. Since then, I have been informed by a commercial structural engineer that the standard ratio for static loads is five, not three. That is, if a bridge is rated to carry 1 ton, it should be capable of bearing 5 tons without collapsing at the time the bridge is built.
Going back to the fire at the WTC, we can see that reducing the steel structure to 60% its rated strength should NOT have weakened it to catastrophic collapse, because at 60% it would still support three times the rated load. The steel structure would have to be reduced to 20% of its rated strength to collapse.
Thus, even if the fire had heated the steel to 550 degrees C (1022 F), that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.
Question 2:
The Corus page on fire vs. steel supports (http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm) shows that the steel would have to be heated to about 720 degrees C (1320 F) to weaken the steel to 20% of its cool strength.
The text on that page discusses another change in the steel above 550 degrees C (1022 F): It looses elasticity and becomes plastic. Elasticity means that when the steel is bent, it returns to its original shape; it springs back. Plasticity means that the steel is permanently deformed and does not spring back to the original shape.
Springing back or not, our only concern with this page is to determine the point on the graph where the steel would be weakened to 20% its original strength, and that point is 720 degrees C (1320 F).
For steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F) is an important threshold, however, and we should not be glib with it. If a steel tower were heated to 550 C, loss of elasticity could mean that the tower would not spring back to the original shape after a gust of wind, and a series of buffets might cause the tower to fail -- if the strain exceeded the reduced strength of the hot steel.
Question 3:
Now let us make a guess on the actual heat of the fire.
Fortunately, a number of studies have been done under very similar conditions. In Europe, multi-storied "car parks" are often built of steel, and the possibility of vehicle fire is a distinct possibility. A parked vehicle, loaded with gasoline, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, upholstery, hydraulic fluid, etc. can cause a fire that seems very hot. A number of other vehicles could be parked close to the burning one, and they too could catch fire, with a general conflagration. Any number of cars could contain almost any household items from shopping, etc.
These materials are similar to the materials we would expect in the burning offices of the WTC: jet fuel (which is a refined kerosene, very similar to the diesel used in some European cars), oil, upholstery, etc.
A summary of the results of these studies is published on the Corus page. Go to http://www.corusconstruction.com/ and click on "Fire". Individual articles are listed across the top of the window. The fourth article, "Fire in Car Parks," discusses the temperatures of "any fires that are likely to occur" in a car park (http://www.corusconstruction.com/carparks/cp006.htm).
Presumably, one car could catch fire and inflame other cars parked closely nearby. As explained below, "The maximum temperatures reached [in actual test fires] in open sided car parks in four countries" was 360 degrees C (680 F), and structural steel has "sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur."
Here is the relevant paragraph, complete: "Steel-framed car parks have been rigorously fire tested in a number of countries (Table 3). These tests demonstrate that most unprotected steel in open sided steel-framed car parks has sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur. Table 3 lists the maximum temperatures reached in open sided car park tests in four countries. These can be compared with the characteristic failure temperatures for beams carrying insulating floor slabs and columns of 620 [degrees] C and 550 [degrees] C respectively."
Note that the description does not limit the duration of the fire. From this it does not appear to matter whether the fire burned all week or just for two hours. No mention is made, as some people have suggested (from erroneous interpretation of other graphs involving time), that prolonged heat brings about progressive weakening of steel.
Here is the data from Corus' Table 3 (beams are horizontal members, columns are vertical):
| Full scale fire tests | Maximum measured steel temperature | |
| Country | Beam | Column |
| UK | 275 C (527 F) | 360 C (680 F) |
| Japan | 245 C (473 F) | 242 C (467 F) |
| USA | 226 C (438 F) | - |
| Australia | 340 C (644 F) | 320 C (608 F) |
A fire in a steel car park is a very imprecise event, and the heating of the steel supports varied widely in the tests. The temperature of (horizontal) beams varied from 226 C in the USA to 340 C in Australia; and the temperature of (vertical) columns varied from 242 C in Japan to 360 C in the UK. None of the steel was protected with the thermal insulation that is commonly used in office buildings, including the WTC.
To my mind, this is definitive answer: the maximum temperature in the unprotected steel supports in those test fires was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F).
Some may argue that there was much more fuel involved in the WTC events that in a car park. There was also much more steel involved, the support columns were more massive, and they were protected with insulation.
I think the case is made: The fire did not weaken the WTC structure sufficiently to cause the collapse of the towers.
— J. McMichael
Detailed information of the construction World Trade Center (with many photographs) can be found at http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario