Slashdot Mirror
Leaked FEMA/ASCE Draft Report On WTC Collapse
securitas writes "The New York Times obtained a copy of the World Trade Center draft report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers about the engineering failures that caused the towers to collapse. Among the findings: 'Fireproofing, sprinkler systems and the water supply for hoses were all disabled and the fires generated heat equivalent to the energy output of a nuclear power plant' reports the NYT (Yahoo link). Amazingly, if it wasn't for the fire (or another secondary catastrophic force), the towers would have remained standing."
Pork is one fine meat. Jews are crazy.
_________________
EBAY SAFETY TIPZ!
blah blah blah <a href=http://www.eaeeiey/fhtc/ooau/mngwst/oi/vbshz
if it weren't for the 767s, massive fires, tens of thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel, and the abliteration of the several floors worth of the buildings' structural cores, the towers would have remained standing. But, shhh, this is leaked info. Don't tell anyone.
Well, this was the World Trade Center. They had to cut all costs, including maintenance, to please investors. I'm sure the executives and managers enjoyed their yearly bonus for cost savings.
Insurance and tax payers will pick up the rest.
Fire and objects at high speeds break things. Film at eleven.
Proper fireproofing material was not allowed to be used in the construction of the WTC because of the antics of ultra-liberal, tree hugging kooks. Asbestos is the fireproofing material of choice, and is completely safe when used properly. When bonded and sealed with modern adhesives, asbestos is far safer than the the fiberglass insulation used in your attic. But thanks to ultra-liberal luddites without any scientific training, the use of asbestos fire proofing was halted halfway through construction. Blame the tree huggers and their shyster lawyers.
I recently watched a well known (in the UK) documentary series called "Horizon" on the WTC disaster. It basically stated in no uncertain terms that the disaster was caused by the use of drywall for all the fireproof walling. The theory was that the explosions caused by the planes basically blew away the drywalling and so the heat from the flames which would have otherwise been slowed down by the drywall, would have been dramatically slowed down.
I wasn't sure whether to entirely believe the program or not, but it seemed fairly plausible. However I came away asking only one question: "So what would have been better?"
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
I think most of us in the construction industry (architecture) were concerned about this as events were unfolding, even before the first tower collapsed. But the saddest part was finding out later that concessions had been made during design/construction in the sizing and configuration of sprinkler systems including the abscense of a rooftop water supply.
Who knows if it really would have helped, but having to second guess now is hardly comforting. As in most things, those that focus on stupid quantitative evaluations of design (cost per square foot for example) are doomed to come up short when all the chips are really down.
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
what could have happened in case of a "normal" fire.
Not that such constructions have to be build to withstand such catastrophic events as an airplane crash, but if an uncontrolled fire could cause a building to collapse in such a short time one should rethink some building codes.
Would the Empire State Building have collapsed in case of a crash, with all its multiple redundancies built into its infrastructure?
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
SkyScrapers.com
On this site there was an Interview done with an engineer who had some knowledge on the World Trade Center. He stated that the airplanes could have not brought them down seeing that buildings of a lesser, equal, or greater size get the same sort of impact daily with the force of winds.
It is said that the airplanes caused an impact of equal or lesser force than what it would experience from day-to-day wind.
In my humble opinion, it's not very surprising the towers collapsed. Just imagine: the impact of a plane will cause several floors to lose integrity.. If those collapse it will cause a cascade and forces on underlying floors will only increase.
I heard the towers were build to withstand a plane crashing in, but I think they were more concerned with (part of) the towers not flipping over in such a case.
You do not exist. Go away.
I don't recall if it is supposed ot be NOVA or Frontline, and will have to wait a few days for the promo to show up on the websites. The are still in the march schedul
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Pity that:
- The WTC was a public building only "sold" a few months prior to the attack. It was built and owned by the Port Authority of NY & NJ.
- There are likely no other buildings in the world (possibly excepting the Great Pyramid) that could have held up as well/as long to the assault as the WTC did.
So 2 for 2 you were wrong; now please crawl back to your dark corner.I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
One of the contributing factors is the lack of Asbestos fireproofing above the 70th floors. New EPA laws were enacted during the construction of WTC that prohibited the spray-on fireproofing that was applied to the I-beams. With the fireproofing, the I-beams could withstand an esimated 2000 degree fire, and without they would lose temper and bend at approx. 1200 degrees.
The jet fuel burned at an excess of 2000 degrees,
so it's likely the towers still would have collapsed, but some extra time would have allowed further evacuation efforts.
Burning kerosine swims on water. No sprinkler system would have put out that fire. Halon would have been needed, but this surely would have been too expensive for the whole building to be equipped with. Nevertheless it surely would have delayed the colapse for a certain time if the sprinklers had worked and cooled the fire.
The report seems not to say anything about the fact that the WTC was a steel construction and thus rather unprotected against fire as opposed to ferroconcrete which is safer but would have needed the buildings to be smaller. This is the cause why there are not similar high buildings in Europe where regulations demand ferroconcrete.
Didnt the article say that there was spray on fireproofing on the steel columns?
The Moo went "Cow!"
Holy warriors of islam aRe willing to die for their cause while USA cowards hide behind their techology!
Allah will prevaile!! The WTC waS just the beginning!
In the future, we'll just have to build all really tall buildings underwater. Maybe Kevin Costner could offer up some good advice.
the lawsuits fly!
while you make pretty speeches...i'm being cut to shreds. you throw me to the lions...a delicate balance.
He stated that the airplanes could have not brought them down seeing that buildings of a lesser, equal, or greater size get the same sort of impact daily with the force of winds.
Well, this may be true, but when you consider that the airplanes *did* down the two buildings, one must realise that there is something flawed about that statement. I would accept that most skyscrapers are pummeled with the strength of an airplane crash daily, except that the force is spread across the entire structure, or at least one entire face, of the building. Consider what it might feel like if you were walking down the street and suddenly the entire energy of the ~50mph wind gusts that you normally can easily withstand were channeled at a 1cm^2 section of your chest, or even your skull. Wouldn't that at least completely knock the wind out of you? I haven't the time to properly do the math myself right now, but it may work out that such an energy release over such a small space would be enough force to pierce skin and possibly break bones.
And that is what made the difference, aside from the fire and explosions that are discussed elsewhere in the thread.
Problem is though, all that force was concentrated into a very tight area, only a few floors, thus putting the building under great stress. Plus the floors were ripped apart by the impact, a thing that would not happen with wind.
They ran an hour long program where they interviewed two key people ... the mechanical engineer who built the towers and a forensic mechanical engineer who was looking at the wreckage.
Each had unique viewpoints. The designing mechanical engineer is haunted to the core over this. Most of his sentances trailed off as he was reliving what happened.
The forensic scientist identified the fact that the fireproofing material was blown off from the original impact. This hastened the collapse. He also commented that the support structures for the floors were the first things to fail.
My question is did anyone really think they were going to fall? Remembering back to the day no one in the media raised the question. None of my friends or family I was talking to that day even thought of it as a remote possibility.
This raises a very interesting question about our expectations vs. reality. After the shuttle disaster I think this stands as one of the most shocking slaps in the face to us concerning technology.
Of course the buildings weren't going to survive, but our faith in technology made us think that day that the buildings collapsing wasn't a possibility.
Think for a few moments before posting.
- These buildings received Certificates of Occupancy, had been tested in the prior attack, their systems and procedures were as good as any other in the world.
- There is NO evidence of cost-cutting, sub-standard materials or equipment, etc. This was a public building owned until recently by the Port Authority of NY & NJ and by all reports kept in exemplary condition.
- These were not slip-shod towers built overnight in some 3rd-world country without reviews, standards, or regular inspections.
- Aside from their unusual tube-design (which appears to have been their greatest asset) and height there is nothing special about WTC towers that would separate them from tall buildings around the world. This includes materials.
Finally, before you post realize that 3,000 humans died horribly in this disaster. Perhaps before you post your Monday-morning-quarterbacking, rumor-spreading & conspiracy theories you might show a bit of respect for those folks and the ones they left behind.A little courtesy and respect is appreciated.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
For that reason entirely, the towers actually did have water tanks up on the 100th floor for putting out fires. Witnesses describe water rushing down the stairways. So in some way, they were prepared for this sort of thing
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
not because their steel structure wasn't good
enough. It came down because the Church of
Globalisation hadn't invested enough in building
a solid moral structure.
Now feel free to moderate this down as troll or
flamebait. It won't change the facts.
Someone please keep moding this guy up
.
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
The only real criticism I have of the WTC incident was that it wasn't as effective as it could have been. The planes should have hit more near the base of the buildings, that way more people would have been trapped and burned to death.
Didn't stop Cameron making up details (and lots of them) for "Titanic"; how long does something have to be in the past before no one cares I wonder. Probably a question Yassir Arafat is asking himself about now...
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
... not to mention that the building was already withstanding the force of the wind when the airplanes also hit them. Can we say DOUBLE the force. The guy who made that statement was a dumbass.
That's like saying that Jews are at fault for the Holocaust because their culture/religion angered Nazi Germany to point of insanity.
So by your rationale, one could say that if the Jews weren't so Jewish, Hitler would not have killed 6 million of them and they share some of the blame.
Damn the EPA.
1) It's been stated that the planes were flying above maximum speeds. The first plane was going at 350 MPH, and the second at 400 MPH. I highly doubt that buildings anywhere get hit daily by 350 MPH winds. (The strongest hurricane is about 150 MPH, I doubt a cyclone or twister is much higher than that)
2) It wasn't just the airplanes IMPACT that brought down the WTC. Read the article. Granted, there was plenty of structural damage done to the buildings from the impact (so much so that I think they would have closed the buildings while a stability assessment could be done.) But, as the article says, 2000F fires can easily melt steel supports in the floor and the central and external cores. That is the major contributor to the collapse.
how long does something have to be in the past before no one cares I wonder
It's 22.5 years. That's how long it took for AIDS to be funny.
And if you haven't seen the South Park episode, DON'T MOD!!!
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Apparently this type of construction is despised by firefighters because when they're inside a building during a fire the floors are likely to collapse at any moment.
Another famous New York Landmark also suffered an airplane collision. Now granted the airplane that hit the side of the Empire State Building was not the same size as the two that hit the World Trade Center, the B25 did quite a bit of structural damage. Enough damage in fact, that if simply the collision caused the Trade Center collapse, then the Empire STate (the plane did hit somewhere between the 78th and 79th floors)building should have also collapsed. In actuality the reason that the Trade Center collapsed and the Empire State building did not, is one of metallurgy. The thousands of gallons of jet fuel that were burning in the Trade Centers got hot enough to anneal the structural steel. When that happened the sheer mass of the floors above the impact zone collapsed triggering the chain reaction. Had the Jets that hit the Trade centers been nearly empty of fuel (ie. getting ready to land, instead of just taking off) the buildings would have survived the impact.
The following excerpt is from "Empire: A Tale of Obsession, Betrayal, and the Battle for an American Icon", copyright © 2001, available from John Wiley & Sons. It describes the impact of the B25 that hit the Empire State Building in 1945.
"Army Lieutenant Colonel William Smith Jr., a 27-year-old veteran of 34 bombing missions over Germany, had been flying a twin-engine B-25 bomber from Bedford, Massachusetts, to New York's LaGuardia Airport, and had secured permission to continue to Newark, New Jersey.
The fog was blinding. When he dropped down out of the clouds, he found himself approaching a forest of skyscrapers. In a panic, he banked away from the Grand Central Building, then from another tower on Fifth Avenue, only to find himself bearing down on the biggest one of all.
In desperation, he pulled up hard, twisting. The 10-ton (9-tonne) bomber plowed into the office of War Relief Services of the National Catholic Welfare Conference on the 78th and 79th floors, 913 feet (278 meters) off the street, tearing a gaping hole in the Empire State Building's north side."
The full article describing the impact in 1945 can be found here: Empire State Building Collision.
Read the article: the building withstood the imact of the aircraft. The subsequent fire and destruction of achitectural memebers due to heat caused gravity to take over. Once enough crap was falling downward, it destroyed the building. Please stop it with the half assed physics speculation.
The WTC was designed to withstand the impact of the largest airliner of its time, a Boeing 707. A 757/767 isn't much more massive than a 707, but obviously the real problem is the tremendous amount of fuel that a cross-country flight carries.
In fact, it probably wouldn't have mattered what fire suppression system the building used...jet fuel is basically kerosene and it is much lighter than water. You can't effectively extinguish a kerosene fire with water. That's why you see aviation firefighers using something called aqueous film-forming foam. It floats on the kerosene.
Maybe to the layman the fact that the buildings survived the impact was amazing, but in fact it was simply a matter of good, purposeful design. Unfortunately, it's asking an awful lot to expect structural steel to survive the kind of intense temperature that is generated by an aviation fuel fire, particularly when the fuel supply is effectively limitless.
-h-
Calling the WTC's collapse an engineering failure is kind of like taking C4 to slashdot's servers and saying that the code failed somehow. You just can't reasonably have expected them to anticipate this. Expecting a building of similar requirements (e.g., height, usable space, windows, etc) to withstand both the impact of a modern airliner and the jet fuel may well be an impossible task, especially when trying to do it within any reasonable budget. Please think about what you are saying and try to be a little less arrogant. Thank You
How's this. You know that a 5 inch magnifing glass can easily burn you in the sun.
Imagine a magnifier that had the same surface area as your exposed skin, focusing that energy on you, it would quickly burn you to the bone.
A more easily quantifiable analogy for your argument.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
"Anonymous Cowards filtered. If their words aren't worth so much as a nom de plume why should I value them any more? "
Asswipe.
The Twin Towers had large emergency water tanks as high as the 110th floor. But they were damaged in the explosion, and water dumped uselessly down the stairwells and elevator shafts. Even if the firefighters had reached the fire floor, they wouldn't have had water. We're probably going to see more redundancy required in high-rise standpipe systems because of this. Extra pipes and one-way check valves are needed, but that's not a big deal.
It's not impossible to put out a fire that big with water, if you start early. Aircraft hangars and aircraft carriers have deluge systems that can do the job. We may see systems like that required in skyscrapers. A big problem is making sure they don't go off because of a smoky wastebasket or something.
I posted an article a few days after the event based upon some research on the net that stated whoever designed this attack did it in such a way that it was virutally assured of working. This takes a great deal of engineering knowledge and planning. Only a fire caused by jetfuel in the quantities from a large airliner could burn hot enough to melt the superstructure of the building and cause it to collapse.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Is the real jewel of new york.
The tragedy of the twin towers aside, they were not very attractive. An engineering marvel, yes. A work of art (like the ESB), no.
(The strongest hurricane is about 150 MPH, I doubt a cyclone or twister is much higher than that)
The fastest winds recorded in tornadoes are in the 300 mph range, not too much slower than the first plane.
This of course is the "we are smarter in Europe" obligatory post.
16 days after Sept 11th, I received this in an email from my father, (who happens to be a Mechanical Engineer):
- Professor Thomas Mackin, who currently teaches Failure Mechanisms in Engineering Materials class, made this short presentation (attached) after the World Trade Tower tragedy. This presentation was made in response to the
Chancellor's request for teachers to discuss with their classes the recent events. Mackin was clearly as shaken up about the events as were the rest of us. He only had a short response to his final question: "As engineers, what can we do to prevent this from happening. - Nothing."
There was simply too much energy put into the buildings. bin Laden knew that, the engineers know that... it's a damn shame we're back to the accusations, finger-pointing, and blame-placing that so much plagues our culture.Attached was a .PDF file, "ME 346 - Engineering Analysis of Tragedy at WTC."
The engineers did their job. They did it well. World Trade Center 1 & 2 were good buildings -- I stood on top of one just over 10 years ago. I can hardly believe I never will again.
Osama bin Laden and his cronies are the ones -- the ONLY ones -- responsible for this outrage. Please, let's try to remember that.
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
i worked at 5 WTC until september 11th, and have been mentally grasping with the idea: rebuild? or not?
seriously, what do slashdotters think? I can think of a few pros and cons:
con:
-survivors families want a memorial park.
-who would work in a new building?
-would structural constraints make it impossible economically/ physically?
pro:
-it is downtown manhattan after all, one of the engines of the world economy.
-this fema analysis seems to suggest just making some improvements in the firecode is all that is needed to ensure future safety.
-it was a failure of intelligence that caused september 11th primarily (the phillipines warned us about arab terrorists training to crash planes into buildings 7 years before september 11th, for one). i mean seriously, is another september 11th even possible in today's climate? what group of airplane passengers would stay in their seats for a repeat occurence? september 11th seems like a one-time deal to me.
seriously, to rebuild or not seems a pretty tough decision. what does everyone think?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If it wasn't for the drug war this wouldn't have happened. Another massacre of people this time the probhibition of drugs (especially heroin for this example) caused influx into the education of freedom fighters. Their people are out of misery, their landscape is now transformed, and I should pay. If we listened to the japanese and just gave up we would have been just like England is today in relative retrospect. Please excuse me I thought they had cannabis in starbucks. What a great life.
My friend, you appear to have a huge chip on your shoulder that is clouding your judgement. People died because madmen hijacked two jetliners and deliberately slammed them into skyscrapers full of thousands of innocent human beings. Corporate greed and stockholders had nothing to do with it, and it is callous, irresponsible, and shallow of you to even suggest such a thing to further your obvious hatred of corporate America.
1. Corporate America was the reason for these dubiously large towers' existence in the first place as well as the only entity who at the time could have funded their construction; as one would expect, the vast majority of the dead workers were direct participants in Corporate America.
2. The reasoning behind the terrorists activity is a hatred of the spread of economic colonialism and Corporate America at the expense of what Corporate America labels "more primitive" traditional or religious lifestyles.
3. Cutthroat competitiveness in the airline industry (i.e. Corporate America) is the reason for the lax security which allowed hijackers to board the planes which hit the buildings. The consumer demanded faster security, takeoffs, and landings at airports and the consumer got them. Market demand, my friend.
4. Corporate America has lobbied the government and the INS heavily over the past decade to loosen immigration restrictions and slow-downs, especially from the east, from which many tech workers have come. Apparently, some of them were terrorists.
Anti-capitalist is not an insult. At least I don't take it as one.
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder as well.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
he didnt say anything about that shit. the point seems to be that the 767 hitting punctured the outside of the building. not that they collapsed.
fuckwit.
Capitalism is not what keeps 3rd world countries poor. In fact, capitalism is their sole potential for escape. What is keeping them down are labor unions and Greens, who insist on labor and environmental controls in countries that can afford neither at such an early stage of industrialization.
[ home ]
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Anonymous Cowards filtered. If their words aren't worth so much as a nom de plume why should I value them any more?
In this case I agree, often Anonymous Coward post can be interesting, but this was without any value.
Tom Clancy beat you to that one.
I think it was "Executive Orders"
- Crazy lunatic terrorist crashes 747 into joint session of Congress which the president is addressing
- Hero Jack Ryan (appointed VP for some reason, I forget...) is the most senior to survive, becomes President
- Jack Ryan 'strongly encourages' voters to elect non-politicians to refill the House of Representatives and the Senate (Woo Hoo!!!)
Sound familiar?"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
Richard "Stinky Hippie" Stallman, is that you?
You smell funny. Please go back to your organic tofu compost heap.
Brilliant! Witty! Self-descriptive!
Anyhows, this drags up the reality vs. fiction thing - in theory anything's possible, but it hacks me off that people out there really do believe money replaces a life and are willing to sue airlines/governments/anyone who might vaguely be responsible for letting this happen. If someone told me on the 10th Spetember that the WTC would be hit by two planes the next day, I would've told them that they were loosing it. Indeed, when I read Executive Orders, I thought "Hmmm... interesting idea, but is it really plausible?" I cannot imagine the chills that went down Tom Clancy's spine when it happened...
Which is completely irrelevant in conjunction with the towers, seeing as they don't get beaten daily by uber-tornadoes.
what would be done with them. We'd have two huge towers with gaping holes in the sides. You'd pretty much have to tear them down anyhow. Of course many lives would've been saved if we could have gone that route, but the buildings themselves were doomed either way.
It is said that the airplanes caused an impact of equal or lesser force than what it would experience from day-to-day wind.
Keep in mind that when calculations are done to measure the force of wind on a building, it is measured as the wind force distributed against the ENTIRE surface of the building.
The airplanes caused an equivalent force to a much smaller area on the side of the building. Thus, this smaller area experienced an impulse far greater than it would normally feel from wind. Compare apples to apples, people. Please.
Common sense: If in fact you really think that wind force did equal plane force on the WTC's over the same area, then tell me this: how come those windows aren't caving in and a huge hole ripped due to wind? They did cave in under force of the plane.
Those bastard arabs need to pay for that. We need to kill every last Palestinian fuck out there. We have the damn *RIGHT* to do whatever the fuck we want and those fuckers better not try to attack us. We have the RIGHT to kill anyone from other countries because they are TERRORISTS. We are the GLOBAL POLICE and we are always right so don't fuck with the USA!!! I want the palestinians to die, and die painfully.
GOD BLESS AMERICA
Even assuming that a cost-effective delivery system for Halon-type fire suppression systems could have been installed into the towers, you'd have ended up with two unstable towers with giant holes in them and heavy airplane wreckage, as well as many floors' worth of people who'd have died of suffocation from the Halon.
Now consider that as soon as you install a large-scale fire suppression, it becomes a potential terrorist target, itself. Imagine what could happen if you worked in an office and then suddenly, without warning, the system activated without there being a fire or other indicator of danger? Would you know what was happening in time to get out before succumbing to it? Would there be enough emergency portable air masks for you and all your colleagues and guests and maintainance personnel and people in the elevators, and would they be properly trained in how to use them?
And assuming you could answer "yes" to all of the above, or find some way of working around the issues, why wouldn't the terrorists just destroy some other buildings, or blow up the subways, etc?
The answer isn't to build a lot of systems to make sure people are safe - you can never build enough to protect against every possibility. The answer is to prevent where possible the actions to which we can't adequately react. This means going after terrorist training facilities and organizations, but it also means we should look at what we are doing that causes marginally-rational people to contemplate overly-extreme responses such as this.
Get off my launchpad!
And your comment reads the exact same.
Do you also think being anti-male is positive trait?
...the report more or less concludes that the buildings collapsed because of the way they were designed, but withstood the damage for as long as they did before collapsing because of the way they were designed. Talk about, "Damned if you do, damned it you don't."
The worst-case disaster scenario for those towers was a 707 accidentally blundering into one, not a bunch of crazy religious-zealot, martyr-wannabe motherfuckers purposely plowing a much larger, fully-fueled aircraft into it at full speed.
If anyone who lost someone in the collapse even thinks of trying to sue anyone involved in the design or construction of the twin towers, they ought to be drawn and quartered. Sure, they could build a building that could stand up to worse than the WTC got, but proofing it against everything would cost a mint and leave a few phone booths' worth of usable space per floor. Don't forget that there wouldn't be any windows. The rent would be so expensive that nobody would be able to afford to put an office in it.
IMHO, when you step back and look at the big picture, you simply cannot fault the design of the buildings for the fact that they catastrophically failed in the face of an unprecedented, unimagined, deliberate action that was well beyond the scope of their design.
~Philly
Anything that silly that tweaks, tiny, unpleasant people like yourself into hilarious and dumb Harlan Ellison-style screeds is something I can wholeheardly endorse!
Ban asbestos! Ban asbestos! Ban asbestos!
Don't be such a knob.
You've been trolled, bitchface. Yeah, way to suck on the end of my dong!
Hold still while I crap on your face!!!
Asbestos is really toxic. Yes. So we stopped using asbestos when we came up with a substitute. Fiberglass. Except fiberglass is already classified as a carcinogen in California, but no substitute yet, so no ban. Facts are facts. Raise the CAFE MPG requirements, cars will get lighter, more people will die. Tree huggers say improved safety technology in cars offset lighter cars, but fact is improved safety technology in a heavier car is safer.
Fact is had more asbestos been used in WTC, towers would have taken longer to collapse, more people would have gotten out. Asbestos was used extensively for fireproofing, but not for duration of construction due to EPA/tree huggers. Also, when the scares on asbestos first started in the 70's/80's, and corporations said get it all out (now they manage it in place and only remove when area is going to be disturbed), a contractor was hired to remove large amounts of spray on asbestos in the WTC. Most asbestos abatement contractors also are in the fireproofing business, same industry, one puts it on, one takes it off. When a company performs asbestos abatement in NYS, by law, the fireproofing/insulation must be replaced. If the abatement contractor also reinsulates, they bid the reinsulation, or they sub it. Or in some cases a reinsulation company is brought in separately. But it must be done at the conclusion of the abatement. So the contract did not specify that the NEW spray on insulation must be asbestos free. Since the abatement contractor was in the spray on insulation business, and they had just banned the MANUFACTURE of asbestos in the US, guess what type of spray on insulation the contractor had in his establishment? And guess what he sprayed back on after he removed the old asbestos? You got it. Asbestos. They couldn't do anything to him, as the contract did not specify asbestos free for the replacement. But they learned there lesson. Since then, and up until last year, there has been continued asbestos removal.
Asbestos was in not just spray on insulation, but also plaster, floor tile, gypsum wallboard, joint compound, mastic (glue), caulking, drop ceiling panels, paint, and hundreds of other building materials. Anytime any renovation went on in the WTC, either testing was done, or previous test results were used to identify asbestos containing material (ACM), and asbestos abatement workers were used, under a long term contract, to remove the asbestos. Tons and tons of asbestos were removed over a period that continued up till last year.
But if more spray on asbestos had been used, and more had not been removed, the steel would not have lost its strength as fast, giving everyone more time to get out. Asbestos has a melting point far in excess of 1000 degrees. Substitutes for asbestos have lower melting points. Therefore, the fire rating for buildings with asbestos is higher than for buildings without asbestos. Period.
The terrorists killed my friend Mike, fireman, my friend's wife, my aunt's maid of honor, some moving men from my old union local Teamsters 814, and they almost got my cousin, but he made it out. Asbestos may kill my uncle, who has asbestosis, and may shorten my life later on, but it possibly would have saved my friends, had they more time to get out.
.
We cannot design a structure that will survive everything that the future brings. Just as 30 years ago there was no list of future airplanes that could be flown into the Towers and cause them to fail, todays builders can't design a structure to withstand a hypersonic passenger liner from the UK or a giant alien robot falling out of its giant alien spaceship when it trips over its giant alien robot doggy.
And of course " Hindsight Is Always 20/20 "
> > Q: Who are the fastest readers in the world?> > A: New Yorkers. Some of them go through 110 stories in 5 seconds
> >
> > Q: Why do tourists flock to New York?> > A: It's a blast
> >
> > New York, New York, so good they hit it twice
> >
> > If one side of the Pentagon has collapsed, will it now be renamed "The > > Square"?
> >
> > It should be renamed "The Penta-gone"
> >
> > Famous last words: "Amal, was this tower here yesterday?"
> >
> > Today FBI concluded that New York had been hit by a U.F.M> > (unidentify flying muslim)
> >
> > NEWSFLASH.... The WTC has been destroyed.... thousands of New York> > executives feared dead.... Hookers all across the city are in mourning.....
> >
> > "25,000 sq. ft. Office space for rent. Recently renovated. New Air> > Conditioning unit. Needs TLC. Contact me at One World Trade Centre.
> > 85th Floor, Room 18."
> >
> > "It's a bird!"
> > "It's a plane!"
> > "It's.... Oh fuck, it IS a plane!"
> >
> > Q: Why didn't Superman stop the planes from hitting the Trade Towers?> > A: Because he's a quadriplegic!
> >
> > Q: What do you call a dust storm?> > A: Trade winds.
> >
> > Q: What's the area code of the World Trade Center?> > A: 220 (two to zero).
> >
> > Q: What should have tipped off the ticket sellers?> > A: When the terrorists asked if there was anything cheaper than one-way.
> >
> > Q: What was the quickest escape time from the World Trade Center?> > A: Ten seconds flat.
> >
> > Q: How long does it take to reach the ground from 107 stories up?> > A: The rest of your life
> >
> > Q: Why are police and firemen New York's finest?> > A: Because now you can run them through a sieve.
> >
> > Optimism, as you fall past the 20th floor you shout "I'm not hurt yet"
> >
> > How many New Yorkers does it take to change a light bulb?> > God knows, they keep jumping out the window when it gets too hot
> >
> > What's the number one drink served on United Airlines?> > Flaming Manhatten
> >
> > What music do they play in the elevator in the WTC?> > Jump and It's Raining Men
> >
> > What colour were the pilots eyes?
> > Blue. One blew this way the other blew that way
> >
> > What team does Osama bin Laden support?
> > The New York Jets
> >
> > Where do Americans go on vacation?> > All over Manhatten
> >
> > How many Americans died in the WTC yesterday?
> > Who gives a fuck
> >
> > Then there's the retarded terrorist who tried to crash the A-Train into the> > World Trade Center..........
> >
> > Yassar Arraffat and many other PLO members together> > with people from other muslim nations are *Volunteering*> > to give blood for the victims of the tragedy...
> > I guess they'll have some *Volunteers* to Fly the blood in too!
> >
> > Last words from Airline pilot "Right a bit, hey the trade centre, my> > brother works there...lets look just a bit closer...."
> >
> > The FBI have arrested the head of advertising at the Empire State Building> > for> > involvement in the WTC disaster. A spokesman said T-shirts with 'Empire
> > State:
> > We're Back!!!' in his office...
I understand this whole subject is rather delicate and in no way I want to convey the impression I am not all with the victims.
That said I sometimes sense a faint smelling of "put that catastrophe on the patriot's bandwagon too, even if it's completely unrelated". (Is there a short term for this, besides 'manipulation' or 'propaganda' ?)
Anyhow, I recently stumbled over a rather interesting puzzle. Again, this is not meant to laugh over victims, but -
The more I ponder over all this the more I believe it was not the smart terrorists that made the buildings collapse - it was our ignorance [who possibly would have a reason to...], cost consciousness (saving at the wrong places [firehose turned off]) and sheer arrogance that finally knocked the towers down. Sad, very sad for all that suffer now. And very, as not to say extremely, useful for those making political|financial profit of it.
Only the taliban soldiers are singin' "Guantanamera, guajira Guantanamera..."
Use The Source, Luke!
Umm.. I hope that engineer doesn't design any buildings...or ANYTHING that people's lives depend on.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever than anyone is profiting from this disaster...
Oh I could think of a few arms manufacturers and a few oil companies who stand to cash in big time.
As far as Osama being behind this, I say to you: Show me the proof! Proof is not some fuzzy videotape conveniently "found" a couple of months after the fact.
You're using her as bait, Master!
" So all you people saying that the jet fuel caused the collapse because it was impossible to put out and burned at a very high temperature are wrong, according to this report. "
Speaking of reading.
(starting with title.)
"Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says "
"Fireproofing, sprinkler systems and the water supply for hoses were all disabled in the twin towers..." "... blaze so intense that it drove temperatures as high as 2,000 degrees and generated heat equivalent to the energy output of a nuclear power plant..."
Note the amount of energy and how that changes the emphasis on what the final answer could be.
"But the buildings were able to redistribute loads away from damaged columns so well that they could probably have remained standing indefinitely if not for the fires, an earthquake or a windstorm, the report said. **Team members are still debating the delicate question of whether the tremendous fires could have brought the towers down on their own.**[emphasis mine]"
So they're neither right nor wrong. the question is still open to debate. But just going with the report.
"The fire, combined with these failures, brought down the towers..."
"Like a giant well of lighter fluid, though, the remaining fuel burned within minutes, setting ablaze furniture, computers, paper files and the planes' cargo over multiple floors and igniting the catastrophic inferno that brought the towers down."
Remaining WHAT in conjunction with WHAT did WHAT?
Of course, you could design a server to withstand a pound of C4, just like you could design a skyscraper to withstand a 757 fully loaded with fuel.
It's just terribly expensive.
And next time it will be a lawfully purchased surplus 747 on an approved flight path that crashes into a nuclear power plant somewhere.
Come to think of it, with a large cargo plane, it would be easy to make it into a shaped charge (think RPG-7 warhead). It would be more expensive to buy the plane, but the proof of concept necessary for the investors has now been done.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
Given that the towers /were/ going to collapse,
thanks to two teams of mass-murderers who flew
767s into them at 300 mph and set off a 10,000
gallons jet-fuel firestorm,
We should at least be glad they pancaked down
into their own basements, instead of collapsing
sideways. Had they done so, it might have wiped
out much of Manhattan and perhaps killed 30,000
people instead of 3,000.
Perhaps any new 100+ story buildings built in a
densely populated area /should/ be designed the
same way as the WTC, to collapse inward if the
unthinkable happens and the building cannot be
saved.
(Obviously, if humanly possible buildings should
be designed to stay up long enough to evacuate
everyone; and the WTC did hold up until 90% of
the people got out).
Just an opposing view, to those who say the WTC
should have been designed differently. I doubt
any other designed would have produced as few
casualties after such a horrific attack.
>:K
>;k
Liquid Helium is a "superfluid", and as such has some odd properties. One of these, I remember hearing about, is that a channel of L.H. acts as a thermal (rather than electrical) superconductor. This is, of course, of only so much use as the helium itself must remain less than it's own boiling temp.
But if you imagine some successful materials science work being done on good heat conductors one could build into a construction a thermal transfer system. Put peltier elements through it and a giant heatsink on the roof... That way a small portion of your building could be built to withstand 1000's of degrees C of heat to the benefit of the rest of your building.
Not necesarily a good idea, but an interesting one.
Adam
Say....god forbid....a small country secures themselves enough weapons grade plutonium to build a nuclear device and detonates it in a city. Should all city buildings be nuclear-proofed? Should all buildings for that matter?
What I think some people fail to understand is that some events...despite any amount of planning, can not be prevented.
-Chris
--an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
Debt of Honor.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Please stay where you are. Armed personnel are on their way to apprehend you right now for inciting acts of terrorism under the PATRIOT act. Thank you very much.
-- John Ashcroft
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
If it weren't for the fact that my car got hit in the back and the back tire was twisted I'd still be able to drive it. Or.. if it weren't for the fact that a cracker got into my computer systema nd fdisked the drive I'd still have a server running.... or.. If it weren't for the fact that the boat sprung a leak it would still be floating (give me a break!!!!)
The towers were designed to withstand a 747 hitting them, and a 747 would have been larger then then the 767 and 757 that actualy hit. So, it was obviously a failure.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Ah. Thank you.
Appears my aging memory combined events in "Debt of Honor" and "Executive Orders". Crash happens at the end of the first book, political maneuvering happens in the second.
"...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
I would imagine that the building managers are going to be recieving the death penalty for assisting in this act of terrorism.
It was me who knocked up your sister.
She wasn't a bad lay, although she seemed to love it doggie style.
She really couldn't get enough.
Anyway, after I read that piece of "intellectual property" you've dumped like a turd, I thought I should share.
You are correct, the character was a Japanese fellow who felt he'd been dishonored. That doesn't make him any less of a terrorist, and I'd argue he certainly qualified for the "lunatic" adjective. Even considering the choice of a 747 as a weapon, he stole a fueled, but otherwise empty, one. No hijacking, no passengers, no coordinated acts, etc. Prescient as Mr. Clancy was, he didn't go THAT far.
- "...it hacks me off that people out there really do believe money replaces a life and are willing to sue airlines/governments/anyone who might vaguely be responsible for letting this happen."
DAMN skippy. 'Nuff said.As far as Tom Clancy's reaction to Sept. 11th...
- "First we crippled the CIA. Then we blamed it."
I would like to know his thoughts about writing something, then (very nearly) witnessing it. It's probably out there somewhere -- I just haven't looked hard enough to find it."...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
I thought at the time that it would be probably prudent to have parachutes in tall buildings.
That surly, authority challenged twenty-something that likes to jump off of buildings, bridges, etc, would have counted his blessings as he hurled himself out a window complete with parachute. Makes you think, eh?
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
You need foam, not water, to effectively put out burning jet fuel.
There's a difference between putting the fire out, and keeping it from damaging the structure. I'm not aware of any solution that would bring a sprinker-like foam system to office buildings.
However, a flow of water droplets is major deterrant against both flash-over and heat damage. In the wake of the Piper Alpha disaster (an off-shore oil rig that burned out of control), British Gas did some life-sized experiments with sprinkler and found that starting the sprinkler as early as possible slows down the fire, as well as cooling it (which prevents flash-over).
Classic sprinklers just dump a lot of water. Modern sprinklers saturate the air with tiny water droplets. The modern ones are very effective.
In the wake of september eleven, I hope that sprinkler will get the attention it deserves. And that includes trying to figure out how to get enough water from smaller tanks on each floor, rather than from huge tanks with vulnerable pipes.
I'm not a fire safety engineer, so take my opinions with a grain of salt, but all footage I've seen of fire control with modern sprinkler at least convinced me.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
+1 Pious
(see here and
here. )
It seems insurance companies will need to charge higher premiums for buildings that house CIA, US Secret Service, IRS and Securities & Exchange Commission files, now that they have a propensity for spontaneous collapse.
(see here and
here. )
Please follow the "puzzle" link in the parent post. I know a lot of people will object, on the grounds that it's blasphemous to doubt the words of the government, but it raises important questions.
So your response is "takes one to know one"?
I mean, that's it??? Your best shot? Do you need help with witty combacks?
For many of us, South Park notwithstanding, still feel every day the loss of friends & lovers & family to that disease. Furthermore many of us watch yet more friends, family & lovers continue to fight for their lives, every day.
That many somehow believe that the epidemic is over or that they are somehow safe from it is only more disheartening and even more tragic.
So unless you've lost ones close to you to HIV, or to the events of September 11, 2001, please don't take it upon yourself try and tell the rest of us what we should find "funny" or not.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Fortunately for us, power plants in the US have containment vessels that can withstand far worse than a 747.
If you converted a cargo plane into a giant shaped charge, you could almost certainly breach the containment vessel, but it'd be rather difficult to design and build that without someone noticing. I hope...
What part of "the jet fuel did not directly cause the collapse of the towers" do you not understand? Is it the "directly" part? Let me clear this up for you: The fire caused the fall of the towers. The fire was started by jet fuel. But the jet fuel ran out just minutes after the crash. After that, the fire that was still burning heated up the structure and caused the collapse. The chain of events was like this: Fuel fire -> ordinary fire -> collapse. Note that the fuel did not directly cause the collapse. The ordinary fire did, which was my point. The fire that caused the collapse of the towers was an ordinary (although large) fire, which did not require abnormal fire-fighting chemicals and was not abnormally hot from the heat of jet-fuel combustion, as everyone seems to think.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
"Amazingly, if it wasn't for the fire..."
Hello? If it wasn't for the buggering water, the Titanic wouldn't have sunk after being holed by that iceberg!
Point is, no one is going to ram a building with a jet and avoid the resultant massive discharge of heat as the energy in the unburned fuel and vapors burns.
The fire is a primary consideration here, not a secondary one. Fire is a given in a situation like this. There's no point in saying stuff like "if it wasn't for the fire".
In the History Channel's WTC documentary, they showed large backup generators whose purpose was to briefly power the entire complex in an outage. There were also large tanks of diesel fuel to supply the generators. I'd say it's likely that setup was in 7 WTC or one of the other ancillary buildings.
And now a quick Google search reveals this: Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center.
~Philly
I wonder why no slashdot posters have mentioned Al Gore yet? He was one of the members of the group that protested the use of a superior fire insulator on the steel beams. The first tower used asbestos as the insulation for about the first 60(?) stories until a nutball group setup camp outside the construction site and harassed the workers. The insulation material was changed to something much less effective, and we have seen the results of that. More than two thousand additional people were killed and two large building collapsed, because of the irrational actions of this group, that included Al Gore.z
You said (emphasis mine):
The fact that the fire was large, along with the damage caused by the full-speed impact, meant that it was especially hot and especially hard to put out.
The distinction you're making in this and other posts between the "fuel-based" fire and the "ordinary fire" is a pointless one. It's like saying "guns don't kill people directly, bullets do", to which most people would reply "Well, yeah, but try killing people by throwing bullets at them! Bullets aren't very deadly without guns!".
Similarly, most people would say that the fuel was one of the major reasons that the fire was large (that and the force of impact and design of the building I guess), and its size made it very hot and hard to put out. Was the fuel "directly" to blame for the collapse of the towers? It depends how finely you slice it - one could argue that the "ordinary" fire wasn't the direct cause of the tower's collapse either, it was the falling of the initial floor that caused it all. Or maybe the floor after that... When does one floor collapsing become the tower falling? When does the damage done by the fuel-fire become damage done by the ordinary fire?
That many somehow believe that the epidemic is over or that they are somehow safe from it is only more disheartening and even more tragic.
Tell me how I'm not safe from it. I don't have HIV, neither does my girlfriend, (yes we're sure), and since we're both responsible, there aren't really many ways for us to be infected. (I should include that we've been dating exclusively since we were 15) Yes, I know that nobody is completely safe from anything, but it's hardly tragic that I am responsible for my own actions and my health reflects it.
So unless you've lost ones close to you to HIV, or to the events of September 11, 2001, please don't take it upon yourself try and tell the rest of us what we should find "funny" or not.
OK. Honestly, I don't find deadly viruses or the diseases they cause incredibly hilarious. I did, however, find the South Park episode that I was referencing hilarious.
People deal with things different ways.
Maybe it's my sick sense of humor, but nothing is really sacred to me. Make fun of whatever you want, whether it's affected someone close to me or not... Guess I'm just insensitive.
That's why I like South Park to begin with; they don't hold back at the request of people who might be easily offended by the subject matter.
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Yes, you can safely add them to any aqueous sprinkler systems.
Yes, they're cheap.
However, they're also corrosive (to greater and lesser degrees) and aren't used for that very reason. Not withstanding the fact it would greatly increase water damage caused, you don't want to be soaking people with water treated by foaming agents.
???? Damage done to the pentagon was nothing but icing on a cake. A close friend of mine went on a Pentagon tour some time ago. I can't exactly recall this, but he said the Pentagon is about 100(??) floors underground.
Ouch. What shit happens underground beats me...enter conspiracy theorists...
Well... Osama bin Laden is responsible, but so are the people (or entities) which provoked him and his cronies to do it.
I don't know why they did it -- nor does it really matter -- but they had to have a good reason (to them) to put in the high amount of time and effort.
Yes, and someone put *them* up to what they did, and someone put *them* up to that, and so on.
But that's doesn't change the fact that Al Qaeda actually did it.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
I think that FEMA analysis is useful from a strategic standpoint, but not from placing blame. Last September, I listened to people ask why the building collapsed. Duh, cause the crazy Islamist kamikazi pilots flew two planes into them.
We've learned a lot about fire control and evacuation. The horrible stories of people that couldn't get out is horrible.
Granted, the "blame" isn't poor engineering, buy psychotic Islamists that decided to blow up lower Manhattan.
Hopefully when this situation is depoliticized, the FEMA report will help us in engineering future office buildings.
Alex
Ya know, first its anti-aircraft guns, then you'll suggest that our Air Force defend the nation's borders with regular patrols. Keep it up and you'll start advocating that we develop the ability to shoot down an incoming missile so Iraq isn't one nuclear warhead away from blackmailling us.
Crazy talk... We don't need a military, if we just gave the terrorists hugs and killed all the Jews in Israel, this would go away. Oh wait, never mind, THAT'S the insane plan.
I say this as a Jew that is 100% certain that the UN partition plan for Palestine was conceived of for a Jewish state with 0% chance of survival, figuring that the European Jews would go to Israel, get killed by the Arabs, and the Europeans wouldn't have to deal with my people again.
Oops, didn't work that out that way. Now deal with the fact that we still exist and stop supporting terrorists...
President Bush, any chance of having the Stealth Bombers hit Paris on the way to the region? A couple good hits there would teach them a few lessons...
Alex
And with my idea if anyone can implment it, then hell that's great and all the power to you. I lost one of my best friends at the WTC, they just recovered his body a few days ago. Anyway, the fire was the problem the building design itself from an architechtual standpoint was brilliant.
Therefore, to solve the problems with the fire we need a fuel that will either burn very very slow when NOT under pressure, or not burn at all unless it's under pressre, ala + 350-450psi.
Slam a jet into the building and you'll have a fire that burns very slowly or no fire at all. And as I said, if someone can make this happen then I'll be happy for you. You'll save some lives.
Om, nomnomnom...
The existence of the jet fuel, in the few seconds for which it existed in the fire, assured that the fire would be unstoppable and most definately not of the ordinary nature that one could expect a firefighting system to be able to stop.
It's not "Fuel fire -> ordinary fire -> collapse, as you claim. It's "Fuel fire-> really huge gigantic fire in an instant with every flammable material available in flame all at once, which would not normally happen in a normal fire -> collapse.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I would tend to disagree, particularly to the phrase 'ordinary' fire. The jet fuel, even though burned off rapidly, was the catalyst to a catostraphic and intense fire vs. an 'ordinary' fire. An experiement (and I'm not suggesting you do this) is take two equal piles of trash/wood. Start one with a match, douse the other with kerosene, and light. The second one with the ignited kerosene will have a much more intense and energy producing blaze because the fire was started with a higher heat and over a much larger surface area. It will burn out sooner, but during the time it's buring, it will produce much more intense heat vs. a 'normal fire' allowed to spread at its own rate.
Umm. .
The point of the fact is that the fireproofing material, regardless of what type it was, was shocked off the surfaces they were supposed to protect by the impact explosion. So it wouldn't have mattered if it was made of asbestos or donkey shit.
Oh, except, if the world was run by brain trusts of your caliber, then when the towers came down and sent up that huge cloud of dust which covered the entire city, (and which subsequently caused lung problems among hundreds of thousands of people), it would have instead been a cloud of asbestos filled dust.
Yeah, the world really needs your two cents on the next city planning committee.
At some point the selfishly destructive people of the world might become aware that those 'dirty no good tree huggers' actually aim to protect the intrests of all living things, up to and including ignorant & short-sighted dipshits like you.
-Fantastic Lad
without seeing any footage on CNN (only radio reports) of burning buildings our discussion at work was *will it fall to the side or collapse straight down*. all of us on our job pretty much agreed they would come down. intense heat and structural steel is not compatible at all. steel looses its shape at a very low temprature actually. much lower than the fires created. asbestos would do nothing to help. once a few members were beyond loosing thier strength they can no longer support the weight from above. no rocket scientist needed here.
Wouldn't it be 'funny' if those two towers came down as an indirect result of the very philosophy the terrorists were protesting?
Not that I'm condoning the actions of lunatic fringe Islam, but there is an interesting sort of irony present nonetheless.
-Fantastic Lad
Perhaps ordinary wasn't the word I was looking for. "Fire consisting of everyday materials (not jet fuel) burning" would have been more accurate. My point was not that the fire was not affected by the fuel at all, my point was that it was not jet fuel burning. Therefore, the burning jet fuel did not heat up the metal causing the towers to collapse. Fires started by the jet fuel caused the towers to collapse later.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Read the report, please. Sez jet fuel only a factor in setting rest of building contents and plane cargo ablaze, and alone would not have caused structural failure. Addtionally sez approximately 1/3 of the fuel payload caught fire. Fire control systems not intended to extinguish fires, only to keep building cool enough to remain standing until fire consumes available fuel. Like I said, you might want to try reading the actual report.
Okay. Here's a little science project for you. Unfold a paperclip. Put 50 pounds of tensile force onto the wire. This simulates the structure of the WTC. Measure the length of the paperclip. Now, go to the hardware store, get a gallon of kerosene, and light it under the paperclip. After everything is cooled, measure the paperclip. Compare. The jet fuel is significant.
There's not much stuff in an office which will burn as hot as kerosene - paper is about the only thing. The problem, however, with a liquid fuel is that it gets *everywhere*. A burning filing cabinet stays mostly where it was. 300 gallons of burning kerosene tends to spread out and share the warmth. As more liquid puddles out, more of it is exposed to air, and more of it can therefore burn at once.
The amount of paper in an office building, let's face it, is rather insignificant compared to a waterfall of burning kerosene. I'm wondering if part of the purpose of this report is to help quell panic about the inexorability of such a disaster. Note that Trump just sold the Empire State Building for $57 million - it cost $17 million to build in 1930s, that's not such a good return on a real estate investment or a national landmark...
My experience in the matter comes from melting iron to make my own castings, for fun. I burn kerosene (jet fuel) in a furnace blower, and it's quite hot enough that I can melt iron and steel very easily. I've also got a welder which will make a 3/8" thick piece of plate steel glow red hot in a few seconds, using only 120V at 15A. P = I x E. Compare that to the *gigawatts* cited in the article.
Marty McFly could've gotten home off that kind of energy.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
As an analogy, imagine a person harrering a nail into some wood. Given a fairly big swing, one could imagine significant penetration of the wood. Imagine the same hammer, same swing, but no nail. Perhaps there would be an indentation on the wood, but nothing more.
No matter what happened, there would always be something that could have been designed better. It doesn't benefit anybody to point the finger at any particular groups other than the hijackers. The main thing is that we learn the prevent this thing from happening while preserving our basic values.
The WTC fell because of one reason, 2 767's hitting. Thats right, big planes filled with jet fuel hitting the towers at top speed. If the heat energy created is equivilent to that of a nuclear power plant, HOW THE FUCK are you meant to stop skyscrapers from falling? The answer: Stop it from being hit by 767's. The WTC's fell because 767's flew into them. The planes hit the WTC cos they were hijacked. They were hijacked because ppl hate the U.S Why they hate the U.S most people don't seem to know. If you want to know, the answer is simple: Kick George bush out cos hes a FUCKWIT!
There's no way in hell that I'm going to call a fire that goes from nothing to instant inferno "ordinary".
You don't, however, need jet fuel (or even any exotic accelerants) to create an "instant inferno". There have been cases of building fires travelling faster than people could run which involved only "ordinary" materials.
You're trying to spin this like a normal fire could have brought the buildings down. No Way. A normal fire would have been suppressable because it wouldn't suddenly appear everywhere all at once.
Not the case, sprinkler systems scale very well. Problem is they don't survive explosions very well. You really need the sprinkers on prior to a fuel/air explosion. Which results in a lot of energy which would have been doing damage simply creating steam.
I didn't realize that constructing an office building had anything to do with foreign policy. Fuckwit. I'm sure the architect will consult the State Department the next time he's contracted for a building.
At least your other examples had a close correlation to the subject matter...
the open cockpit doors, this wouldn't have happened. But it did. So now the cockpit doors are locked and airport security digs thru our wallets to make sure we're not carrying anything sharper than their own common sense.
If they're watching us from outer space, they must be laughing their alien asses off.
There was ample warning, and the procedures for intereception were absolutely standard, but were not used, as demonstrated by this thorough analysis using only mainstream news sources.
There are precedents for this. During the 1960s, senior figures within the US Government considered staging terrorist incidents to justify a war with Cuba (including downing a US passenger jet).
And there's the classic example: Emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burned. He blamed the Christians, but many suspected that he started the fire.
"At some point the selfishly destructive people of the world might become aware that those 'dirty no good tree huggers' actually aim to protect the intrests of all living things, up to and including ignorant & short-sighted dipshits like you."
Realistically, the "tree huggers" are a bunch of self-loathing whiners who really don't like themselves or humanity.
They want to get rid of cars not because they think that its the better way to go, but because it will inconvenience people.
They could care less about the earth or its environment; they would simply like to see the human race reduce by a factor of 90%.
Its such a childlike view of the world, its amazing that someone can get to the age of majority with this kind of attitude.
The point of the fact is that the fireproofing material, regardless of what type it was, was shocked off the surfaces they were supposed to protect by the impact explosion. So it wouldn't have mattered if it was made of asbestos or donkey shit.
Anything which would have stayed attached would have done a better job. Possibly this would have included "donkey shit".
As Robert Anton Wilson said, "Belief is the death of thought."
If you are feeling patriotic, help this guy out.
Maybe, just maybe, all of you supposed scientists will stop believing in the USA's expansionist lies, and start thinking again.
Communism is dead, the Berlin wall is down, and the USSR no longer exists. What's the point of a defence budget 37 times the size of it's nearest competitor, if there are no formidible enemies left?
Time to come up with a new bad guy so we can get that Russian oil, err, that is, so we can rid the world of evil. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Buildings of that size can get wind loads from several differt directions at once. A good strom should be able to provide 200 kt gusts to the top of the WTC.
>We (America) do our best to kill only those who >would harm us. We do that by spending millions >of dollars on precision-guided weapons. We do it >by being careful who we shoot.
You watch too much TV. Brainwashed American.
9/11 happened out of frustration with your government, your foreign policy, your contry's assumption it can do whatever it wants because it's America. 'God bless America' Land of the free my ass. Protecting democracy overseas is simply imparting an unwelcome political agenda. Erecting military bases on holy land is inexcusable.
Doing little until bitten very hard in the ass doesn't make the reaction any more honourable, any more 'right', whatever that is.
Maybe you should take a long, hard look at why this all happened in the first place. Why is there so much hatred toward America ? Hatred that wells up into terrorist acts.
You Americans seem to think your country is completely innocent of any atrocity, that you're some saviour, always welcome, always wanted. Hey.. you're not. Enourmous armies and incredible economic clout shield you from the worst that opinion and cultural feeling can throw at you. DOn't let this be a sign that you're popular though, it's more likely to indicate you're bullying your way around as per usual. 'America the international policeman' Pfft. Cops are bad enough at upholding a fading semblance of justice without being blinded by a few good deeds.
You've trashed Afghanistan , and while you've done very well in destroying the despicable Taliban, you haven't caught Bin Laden. Something tells me you've talked a lot of shit about killing 'Terrorists' though. Those you've caught you treat worse than slaves and animals. That isn't honour. There are basic human rights that should never be void, lest the same happen to you.
Karma bit you on the ass last september and you just won't stop whinging. Now your citizens are losing more rights from what I hear. Land of the free...
>Isn't there any difference at all between the
> two sides? Can't you think of anything??
America has big armies and a media machine with no equal ?
so...
>should America be punished with "violence" ??
>I don't that would solve anything.
'"Violence" ??' No question there mate, it was pretty violent. A whole 3000 of you died and 6 months later you're still pissing and moaning about it.
Yes, those 3000 people may have been innocent of the crimes they died in retaliation for. Yet 'American interests' don't bring the world peace and happiness. Quite the contrary. Look it up somewhere apart from Disney.gov, or completefarce.us.truth sometime and you might see it for yourself.
I think it solved your complacency. Except you're just meeting it with more violence. It might work, I'm no general or national leader, although I've a feeling you're just walking toward a big whole you'll have a lot of trouble backing out of.
There are many things that could have been done. To say that we just have to accept failure is ridiculous.
Like I always say: NEVER speak in infinitives....
1. If the steel beams had been coated with cement, the buildings would have been standing.
2. If the water supplies had been spread about the building they couldn't have been cut off, and the firefighters and sprinkler systems could have cut down the fire.
3. If the US military had been protecting the US (which happens to be their actual jobs) this wouldn't have happened (or at least only would have happened once instead of 3 or 4 times).
4. How about if the FAA had been doing their jobs and had air marshals and stronger cockpit doors?
There are many ways this could have been prevented... Several solutions fall on the part of the engineer. There is nothing more damaging than claiming "it's impossible, so just don't try".
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I didn't say that it was perfectly healthy to inhale for extended periods of time. I said that the concentration required to extinguish a fire leaves more than enough oxygen to breathe. It won't suffocate you. No, you won't die if a Halon system goes off when there's no fire. Yes, as I said, the decomposition products when there is a fire are quite nasty, but the decomposition products of the fire itself are probably even worse.
In response to "Why they hate the U.S most people don't seem to know"; "they" are the Muslim's and they hate the US because we support (usually if poorly) Isreal and "they" consider the US a "Christian" nation even if that is in reality no longer true. A true Muslim is supposed to hate Christians and Jews. It is a religion of hate. The greatest thing "they" can do is die killing a Christian or Jew. Conversly, the greatest thing a Christian or Jew can do it to lay down their life FOR another. Please don't put in stupid comments like "those are extremist Muslims and we're not like that. Tha fact is that if you are a Muslim and do not believe that, you are a BAD Muslim because that is what your religion says: Hate the Jews. Satan is your god.
www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm
Fires started by the jet fuel caused the towers to collapse later.
Actually, the penis envy encased within Osama caused the brainwashed morons to hijack the planes which rammed into the towers, spilled the flaming jetfuel everywhere, then the towers collapsed. So really, its the fault of Osama's small penis... and not the jet fuel at all...
But I'll oblige you once more, not that I think that It'll alter your narrow-minded view of the world.
l a- 110501mood.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/
http://www.progress.org/afghan03.htm
Pardon me all to hell if my sources are too "lefty" for your liking. What do you expect when innocent people are dying and the mainstream media doesn't give a shit.
You're using her as bait, Master!
Gravity only works one in one direction (which direction is left as an exercise for the reader). It is not surprising, and entirely predictable, that the building will fall down, and not sideways.
You first instinct might be to see it fall sideways, like a ladder does. But a ladder is a single object with good rigidity. Make that ladder 110 stories tall, however, and you're in a whole new ball game. And, in fact, make it dozens of ladders riveted to each other, and it's floppy as hell.
Don't think of it as a ladder, but as a sandcastle. Have a baseball hit the middle of the castle. A bit of the castle sprays out from the momentum, but most of the castle just falls straight down. If the top is heavy enough, the whole thing ends up in a pile.
It's almost certain that there is a lot of evidence that supports most, probably all religons as being, in fact, a great big load of horse shit. If you believe in religon, especially if you think its the sole reason why people kill each other, then you are the moron. Basically, the U.S were attacked because they pissed off the "muslim" group in some way or another. Ways they were pissed off relate to sanctions on Iraq, going to war for no reason, supporting israel etc. They fight with suicide bombing because it is their ONLY weapon.
I have always heard the "don't trust the truss" comment refering to the wooden trusses used in newer construction. The ones with the little plate of 'nails' that dig approx 1 cm into the surface of the wood. Those I would expect to fail quickly in a fire...
ok, i can see that you've got a +5 five there, so it's obvious that at least four other people agree with you but maybe you're taking a little too narrow view here.
ok, let's take a look at why terrorists dislike america; do they just hate us because we're not them? are they maybe jealous of us having playstation and want to swap their nintendo 64 for it. OR MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE IMPORTANT.
hmm... blowing up a symbol of corporate rule? shame about all of those children working in the world trade center... OH WAIT.
if you push someone down in a puddle of shit for long enough, soon enough they'll pull on your instead of pushing against it.
and if you think that afganistan children and civilians don't get killed, well, maybe you should open your fucking eyes.
free (as in mp3s) electronic music
I thought asbestosis wasn't cancer. I know asbestos is harmful, I didn't think it was a carcinogen?
"The National Cancer Institute states that: Malignant Mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer, is a disease in which cancer (malignant) cells are found in the sac lining the chest (the pleura) or abdomen (the peritoneum). Most people with malignant mesothelioma have worked on jobs where they breathed asbestos."
http://www.mesoth.com/diagnosis.htm
from http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ ChronologyofTerror.html#Yugoslavia
`For 78 days and nights in the Spring of 1999, United States Air Force and Navy pilots rained death indiscriminately upon women and children, old men and women shopping in marketplaces, passengers in trains, people in cars and buses, people in schools, patients in hospitals - anyone and everyone - everywhere in Yugoslavia.'
Key word: `indiscriminately'