9/11 ATTACKS - Avoiding the hard questions

9/11 ATTACKS - Avoiding the hard questions

ROBERT STEINBACK

Posted on Wed, Feb. 01, 2006

I was 8 years old when President John Kennedy was shot to death in Dallas in 1963. If grace favors me, I'll be 62 when documents related to the assassination are released to the public, and 84 when the Warren Commission's investigative files into the tragedy are finally opened.

That's a long time to wait for a chance to evaluate the purported truth.

It's a blot on the presumed sophistication of the people of the United States that any aspect of an event so dramatic and shocking should be kept from us. Perhaps it's true, to abuse the line from A Few Good Men yet again, that we can't handle the truth. But there cannot be genuine resolution as long as such critical information remains concealed.

Transformed by 9/11

Since Kennedy's assassination, Americans have lurched between demanding to know and plugging their ears: The Pentagon Papers, My Lai, the King assassination, Watergate, Iran-contra, the savings-and-loan debacle, Monicagate. Lately, however, it would seem the public's verdict is in: Don't tell us. Keep us in the dark. We don't want to know.

This is the worst possible time for probe-ophobia to grip us. Our nation was irretrievably transformed by 9/11 -- and yet there remain troubling questions about what really happened before, during and after that day. Rather than demanding a full and fearless vetting to hone in on the truth and silence the conjecture about 9/11, many Americans remain unwilling to peer into the microscope.

An online cottage industry of theorists, theory debunkers and debunker debunkers has flourished since 9/11. Sometimes the flimsy theories are easy to spot -- come on, if the four passenger jets didn't crash where it appears they did, where did they go? More often, though, the cases aren't so obvious.

A group of experts and academicians 'devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, `letting the chips fall where they may,' '' last week accused the government of covering up evidence that the three destroyed New York City buildings were brought down that day by controlled demolition rather than structural failure. The group, called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has a website www.st911.org.

Unanswered questions

The reflexive first reaction is incredulity -- how, one asks, could anyone even contemplate, never mind actually do such a barbaric thing? But before you shut your mind, check the resumés -- these aren't Generation X geeks subsisting on potato chips and PlayStation. Then look at the case they present.

''I am a professional philosopher who has spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning,'' group co-founder and University of Minnesota professor James H. Fetzer told me. ``When I come to 9/11, it's not hard for me to determine what is going on. This is a scientific question. And it is so elementary that I don't think you can find a single physicist who could disagree with the idea that this was a controlled demolition.''

The group asks, for example,

• How did a fire fed by jet fuel, which at most burns at 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, cause the collapse of the Twin Towers, built of steel that melts at 2,800 degrees? (Most experts agree that the impact of airliners, made mostly of lightweight aluminum, should not have been enough alone to cause structural failure.) How could a single planeload of burning jet fuel -- most of which flared off in the initial fireball -- cause the South World Trade Center tower to collapse in just 56 minutes?

• Why did building WTC-7 fall, though no aircraft struck it? Fire alone had never before caused a steel skyscraper to collapse.

• Why did all three buildings collapse largely into their own footprints -- in the style of a controlled demolition?

• Why did no U.S. military jet intercept the wayward aircraft?

• Why has there been no investigation of BBC reports that five of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were alive and accounted for after the event?

Our current probe-ophobia is due in part to the political landscape: When one party holds all the cards, any call to investigate an alleged abuse of power or cover-up -- no matter how valid -- will look like a partisan vendetta. Those in power never want to investigate themselves.

Maybe that's politics; he who holds the hammer drives the nails. But the outrage of 9/11 transcends party affiliation.

We need all the outstanding questions answered -- wherever the chips may fall.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/robert_steinback/13 760721.htm

 

Steel begins to loose its ability to be load bearing at 1300 degrees thus the reason sprinkler systems are so important that did not work in all areas due to the massive damage cuased by the hits from the planes. So add another 400 degrees heat from a slow but extremely hot fire and well no genius to figure that one out.

As to other questions you raise, bravo! Why did we know a Japanese fleet was headed to Pearl Harbor but did nothing, why did we know the 911 attack was pretty well gonna happen but did nothing, why do they release known sex offenders into the public that they feel will reoffend? Look at measures they pass after such things happen. The patriot act, the name and timming made anyone who was against it look what? UNPATRIOTIC, UNAMERICAN and at the time if you were against AMERICA you were thought a TERRORIST. These neat little catch names for packages to be voted on are not just tossed out of a hat but rather researched and well plotted out to get voted in the directions they want.

The 3 time felon life sentence rule they have now. It was put on a bill with 2 other items and of coarse was left you to believe it was intended for murder, rape and such but that was not the case. If you stole, or convicted of any felony 3 times then you too could spend life in prison. Lets say you in high school but were 17 and was in a car as a passenger that the driver hit a car and left the scene, you dont narc on your friend but they find him and you anyway. (felony 1). You shop lift a carton of smokes from the local corner store in California and get caught (felony 2) (cigs in CA are now a felony if you steal em if they desire to go that route and worse if they want they can charge you one account per pack so a carton would be 10 counts if they want to) and last but least you have this pretty little plant that you have culitvated and once in a while you trim a bud for you and your buds to have a little fun on the weekend and well your exgirlfriend who hates you knows about it and turns you in and (POOF) LIFE SENTENCE MY FRIEND!

 

THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

Imagine that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.​

"The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

What we propose to do, is to pretend that the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanations are lies.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 10,000 gallons weighs 10,000 x 3.1 = 31,000 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) only occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center the collision would have mixed the fuel with the limited amount of air available within the building, quite well, but the combustion would still have been mainly a combination of reactions (2) and (3) as the quantity of oxygen was quite restricted.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:
Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:
CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2= 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ? 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ? 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 10,000 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel
will release 31,000 x 44,000,000 = 1,364,000,000,000 Joules of energy.

This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:
39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.
SubstanceSpecific Heat [J/kg*C]Concrete3,300Steel450Nitrogen1,038Water Vapor1,690Carbon Dioxide 845

Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:
39,857 x1,690 x (T - 25)Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,97,429 x845 x (T - 25)Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,349,680 x1,038 x (T - 25)Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,500,000 x450 x (T - 25)Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,1,400,000 x3,300 x (T - 25)Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 3,300) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,300 + 82,327,500 + 362,968,000 + 225,000,000 + 4,620,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 5,357,650,000 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 1,364,000,000,000 Joules, we have that

5,357,650,000 x (T - 25) = 1,364,000,000,000
5,357,650,000 x T - 133,941,000,000 = 1,364,000,000,000

Therefore T = (1,364,000,000,000 + 133,941,000,000)/5,357,650,000 = 280° C (536° F).

So, if we assume a typical office fire at the WTC, then the jet fuel could have only added 280 - 25 = 255° C (at the very most) to the temperature of the fire.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction.

We have found that it is impossible the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor beyond 280° C (536° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?


​

 

Damn! then it means that...
Holy shit

 

Hey, dd3stp233, You want to add your own opinion in there instead of just plagiarising someone elses work? First, I think the author forgot the fact that steel conducts heat extremely well, second, he forgot the fact that everything else on those floors that burn, and third you don't have the fact that the heat will rise to teh top of the floor, weakening the metal near the ceiling. And you konw what really pisses me off? That solve et coagula posts these articles he gets from websites than doesn't talk about it at all. If you don't have an opinion, shut the fuck up, I can read those articles on my own.

 

.are you talking about this law? http://www.silicon-valley.com/star4.html.

 

I don't think copying math is considered plariarism. Office furnishings has to meet certain fire safety ratings, if factored in it would actually lower the overall temperature. Yes, heat rises but any heat that rises would lower the heat below so the average conductive amount of heat would be the same. The temperature differential between the floor and ceiling would not that be that great since the windows were gone and the heat would flow out the windows and up, it is not trapped in the building and cool outside air would be sucked in. If you actually read the whole equation, the conductivity of steel is factored in. Maybe you shouldn't waste your time, your going to believe what you want to believe, no matter what the truth may be.

 

I think copying anything that isn't your own with no mention to the author is plagiarism. It may meet a fire safety rating but it will burn, its wood, therefore it will burn. And I can tell you from experience, if you have a piece of metal, and you give it direct heat to one place, adn less heat in another, the one portion will heat faster.

 

The dictionary defintion of plagiarism is stealing anothers idea and passing off as one's own. I didn't say I worked out the math. I was just passing along info. and the there was no indication of the original author where found.

Jet fuel is designed to burn only when oxygenated. I've seen this demostrated. A bowl filled with jet fuel and a lighter held to it. The jet fuel will actually put the flame out. On the other hand, if you put the jet fuel in a spray bottle with a flame in front of it and spray it out, it will burn.

The above equation gives the highest possible temperature not the real temperature. Most of the jet fuel burned on impact and out side the building in the fireball, especially the second plane.

The conductive nature of steel and the other materials in the building were factored in. The amount of real wood in an office is usually low. File cabinets and furniture are generally made of metal. The types of materials present in most offices would not make much of an impact on the temperature of the fire. The fact that no other buildings in the world, past or since 9/11, have had structural failure due to a fire sould suggest that either something else happedned to them, to make them collapse, or the buildings were grossly and negligently built.

 

OK, you taking that idea and putting it on here with no mention as to where you got it implies that it is your work.

Its not that its designed to burn when oxygenated, its the fact that it burns at a high temperature, same goes with diesel fuel, you can put out a match in diesel fuel, its because it has a lower volatility than gasoline, and oxgenation is what happens when it burns, not mixing it with air.

And you hit the nail on the head in your last sentence, "the buildings were grossly and negligently built", the buildings weren't made to NYC standards because they were built by the port authority, therefore they didn't have the proper amount of fireproofing on the steel, and many other things that led to the collapse.

 

They have had major, worse fires in high-rise buildings in several third world countries. You are saying the Port Authority has lower standards of building codes than in third world countries. I find that hard to believe. Fire proofing isn't even factored into the equation, it still wasn't hot enough even if no fire proofing existed. Maybe if you were saying the buildings were made from aluminium and balsa wood.


Being an old schooler of (BBS), forums are likewise, posting flyiers of info. inrespective of origin.

 

yeah well "big" surprise like 9/11 wasnt a set up. but quess who control the media..
allso what about the white house and other planes..

the terrorist attack of "osama" if it were that wich i doubt since osama was trained by cia..

allso isnt it quite obvious bush is pretty much a puppet ruler poor guy probably thinks he's something great half the time..

 

allso i am not blind to believe that all that is done is bad.
i dont realy care for arabs they can bomb them all i care but i dont think

taking over their country, and putting these facist laws in states and they allso reach in europe.. national hystery.

i've seen michael moore's bowling for columbia and 9/11 movie and yes it think moore has one-sided propaganda i dont think it's all that bad as controlling mass media like bush goverment ( poor fool gets to be the symbol)

but the whole affairs fishy..
america believes in television

well see what'll happen

i allso think though this is off topic that u.s.a realy doesnt know how to wage war they make war a trade.. trying to protect rights and such is not for war.

and yes suprisingly the military budget and mass loans bush gov got beacuse of the war..

and just after clinton had gotten ridden most of em

 

What fire happened that is worse than 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. It would be hot enough to heat a localized area of steel is what I'm saying, it didn't heat all of the steel absolutely evenly. And its still common decency to give respect to the author.

 

Just ignore wart. He's one of those people with no mind of his own. He knows you're wrong before you open your mouth, so all he thinks about is figuring out how you're wrong, rather than checking to make sure you actually are first.

9/11 was an inside job. It was brought down by bombs. End of fucking story.

And furball, learn to spell and grow a brain. The latter will need to be accomplished first I believe.

 

Where is your proof of bombs, I've got my evidence, where is yours? "End of fucking story." What do you have a degree in explosives. Are you telling me that you can personally explain without any degree of doubt in my mind that bombs were used, because if not, don't say end of story because its not.

 

Conspiracy theories are more dangerous than the truth.

 

But which is which?? ?

 

There is a really good documentaty produced called " Loose Change".

Its really worth watching. You can get it on Google Video, or on torrent.

It really does a good job at exposing the truth

 

oh who cares if my writing is bit messy it's not like i am working right just hope someone got the message