How would this be different from taking a DNA sequence and markup, prininting it out and claming copyright as a visual work of art? or just copyrighting that same text as a novel?
There is a short story entitled "The Preserving Machine". (Can't recall who wrote it). In this story musical scores can be changed in to animals and back again... The idea is that works of art can be preserved by turning them into animals. Problem is that they don't breed true.
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.
If the steel had been coated with spay on asbestos it would still have been blown off the steel by the explosion. You might as well have used shaving foam...
Asbestos has a melting point far in excess of 1000 degrees. Substitutes for asbestos have lower melting points.
The thermal properties don't matter a bit when the insulation is no lonver even on the steel. There are materials which are considerably more insulating than asbestos. e.g. the materials used on the space shuttle. Of those about the only ones with major structual strength are the graphite nose and wing leading edge coverings.
While there may be explanations for the collapse of the twin towers, I have seen no explanation for the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on the afternoon of September 11. It was across the street from the rest of the center, and physically separate. The building next-door to it did not collapse.
Not only that WTC 7 wound up an unrecognisable heap of rubble. WTC 3 which was right next to the south tower still actually looked building like...
However, I find interesting the fact that the lack of asbestos coating for the structural steel above the, what was it, 60th floor is being ignored. That was the insulation that was supposed to reduce the heat impact on the structural elements in just such a fire for ~8-10 hours.
Because what is more relevent is that the insulation was blown off by an explosion. It can only protect for 8-10 hours if it is actually still on the steel. Had the fire proofing insulation on the steel contained asbestos it wouldn't have stuck to the steel any better. Had the dry wall panels been asbestos rather than gypsum plaster they wouldn't have stayed in place any better.
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.
Even a much smaller amount of fuel would still have created an explosion and started fires.
Fact is had more asbestos been used in WTC, towers would have taken longer to collapse, more people would have gotten out.
Are you familiar with asbestos spray on fire proofing? The stuff would have probably been blown off even more easily than the fire proofing which was installed.
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.
Are any of these asbestos containing materials physically stronger than alternatives? That is the important point. After the explosion there was a lot of exposed steelwork. A lot of fire/heat resistant materials are highly fragile. Remember how much fuss NASA made about the shuttle's tiles...
But the asbestos would have likely slowed the failure of the structure, and perhaps more lives could have been saved.
Had asbestos been used in the spray on coating of the steel and in the dry wall paneling around the core I really can't see it making any differance at all.
I was asked to provide a source elsewhere in this thread substatiating my first post. Try this link. [foxnews.com] It explains that fireproofing was not applied abouve the 64th floor.
This is nonsense, all the steel work would have had fireproofing material applied to it. Maybe it's confusing with a program to increase the thickness of the fireproofing. Which had started at the top and was working down. I'm not convinced that doubling the thickness of the fragile coating would have made much difference anyway.
If possible, use an alloy of steel with a higher melting point. Adding Tungsten might help immensely by raising the melting point from 2,000 degrees to 3,000 degrees or so. Probably way too expensive though.
The melting point isn't relevent, since the steel never actually melted. It's the point at which material loses strength. But if you raise this it becomes far more expensive to forge things such as I-beams.
A serious question; for the sake of argument, let's assume you can put out jet fuel with a sprinkler, which, of course, isn't the case.
Whilst this might not be the case where you had actual puddles of burning fuel what you more likely have is something like a carpet soaked in burning fuel..
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.
What I am trying to say is that the people who are thinking "the sprinklers couldn't have been expected to put out the fire because jet fuel was keeping it burning" and "the building collapsed because the fire was especially hot from the burning jet fuel" are wrong, because the jet fuel was gone long before the building collapsed.
IIRC quite a bit of it escaped from the buildings unburned.
The sprinklers had a chance to put out the fire after the fuel was gone, but they didn't.
They didn't because the sprinklers in the most damaged areas had no water supply due to impact and explosion. It's even possible that working sprinkers above the impacts could have hastened collapse, by ensuring that the upper floors stayed structually sound.
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.
It dosn't need to be especially hot. More significent would be the lack of fire protection and fire supression.
The jet fuel did NOT directly cause the collapse of the towers. It was gone "within minutes," all burned away. 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. They say it was an ordinary blaze, ignited by the fuel but left to burn on its own.
The jet fuel was simply what fire investigators call an "accelerent". It is well know that ordinary fires can damage steel (which loses it's strength long before it melts.) that is why there was fire protection put on the steel as part of construction. Problem was that the fire proofing materials were fragile. Mineral foam and plasterboard (better known in the US as "sheetrock").
For once thing, jet fuel burns so hot that you need foam, not water, to extinguish the flames. The heat would have vaporized the water even before it would have reached the flames.
Even this would be wortwhile. Water has a high latent heat of vapourisation, whilst a water spray might not extinguish such a fire it will contain it.
Firstly, because if the plane were shot down as it approached, the debris would still hit _something_. New York is known for, amazingly enough, having more buildings than just those two.
Something else Manhatten is known for is being an island... Anyway there are 3 major airports in the area. Controlled airspace stretchs out a lot further than the city.
What a stupid mentality, to think of such a thing. (which, incidentally, didn't work -- the White House is reputed to have SAMs available, yet a light plane was deliberately crashed into the grounds in the 90's)
These wern't light planes, flying VFR. These were large planes, flying IFR, which had deviated from their approved flight plans. Note that any of deviation from planned route, loss of all radio contact with ATC, failure of transponder are considered emergency situations. (IIRC the FAA regs state that if a controller is uncertain if there is an emergency then consider it one.)
The looked at factors like the blast having blown the fire protective coating off the steel and the way the building was designed with the majority of the load being carried by the steel skeleton on the perimeter of the buildings, as opposed to columns within. The achilles heel was reported to be the steel trusses running under the floors connecting the outer steel to the core.
Actually the unusual thing about the WTC design is that both the outer wall and the central core are structual elements. The failure of either would cause the building to collapse. With the North tower the aircraft hit head on, made a big hole in the wall and dumped most of it's mass and fuel into the central core. Eventually the impact and fire damage caused the core to fail... With the South tower the aircraft didn't hit straight on, didn't damage the core so seriously, but did make almost horizontal cuts in the outer wall. (The wall being cut horizontally is far more damaging in terms of its ability to hold up the building than having a big hole.) Pictures show the South tower initially bending, not at the initial impact point, but towards the most damaged outer wall.
However, if an organization wants to switch to OpenOffice, they only need compatibility with the latest version of MS Office they had been using. From that point forward, the only problem is communicating with others who use MS Office.
The major issue here is likely to be handing office files sent to them. But they could still have troble with some of these if they stuck with MS Office.
It consisted of a thick "business card" phone -- a circuit printed on plastic and wrapped in paper, slightly larger than your average business card. The phone had about 60 minutes of talk time, couldn't receive calls, and had a single large button on one side. The idea was that you could buy a sheet of these phones for about $5-10 per, print your business card on them, and "burn" your own number into the phone. Pressing the button on the phone dialed that number.
I don't see the point of this over a generic pre-pay mobile. This thing still needs to interface with the network and the time used had better not be recorded on the phone. Otherwise it can trivially be hacked into a free network access pass.
Disposable phones are perfect for a terrorist, drug dealer, or other criminal. Simply go to Wal-Mart ot Target, pay cash for the phone and the minutes, and leave. Or have one of your "associates" do the purchase so that you're not on the store cameras.
What you mean they don't have "pre-pay" mobile phones in North America yet. The rest of the world has had these for quite some time.
For some people, an ISP is a TCP/IP connection. Beyond that maybe they give you an email address, usenet, and some web space, but primarily its a TCP/IP connection. For those of us who view it that way, we don't want any software, we don't need any tech support, we only want to bother you when our 1's and 0's are getting to our home network.
Whilst this catagory of people dosn't want "tech support" they do still need "fault reporting".
Don't distribute any software. All you need is printed instructions giving the phone numbers to dial and the ip addresses and names of the gateway, dns and other pertinant servers.
Even if they feel they must distribute software they should always do this.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying Windows was not designed in a modular fashion is saying that Windows was not competently designed.
The thing about Windows is that lack of modularity appears to be deliberate in some cases...
How would this be different from taking a DNA sequence and markup, prininting it out and claming copyright as a visual work of art? or just copyrighting that same text as a novel?
There is a short story entitled "The Preserving Machine". (Can't recall who wrote it). In this story musical scores can be changed in to animals and back again... The idea is that works of art can be preserved by turning them into animals. Problem is that they don't breed true.
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.
If the steel had been coated with spay on asbestos it would still have been blown off the steel by the explosion. You might as well have used shaving foam...
Asbestos has a melting point far in excess of 1000 degrees. Substitutes for asbestos have lower melting points.
The thermal properties don't matter a bit when the insulation is no lonver even on the steel.
There are materials which are considerably more insulating than asbestos. e.g. the materials used on the space shuttle. Of those about the only ones with major structual strength are the graphite nose and wing leading edge coverings.
While there may be explanations for the collapse of the twin towers, I have seen no explanation for the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on the afternoon of September 11. It was across the street from the rest of the center, and physically separate. The building next-door to it did not collapse.
Not only that WTC 7 wound up an unrecognisable heap of rubble. WTC 3 which was right next to the south tower still actually looked building like...
If I was a terrorist, I would hijack a 747 cargo plane. Lots of potential for causing damage and no passengers to deal with.
You' also want to hijack it at its nearest point to your intended target...
However, I find interesting the fact that the lack of asbestos coating for the structural steel above the, what was it, 60th floor is being ignored. That was the insulation that was supposed to reduce the heat impact on the structural elements in just such a fire for ~8-10 hours.
Because what is more relevent is that the insulation was blown off by an explosion. It can only protect for 8-10 hours if it is actually still on the steel.
Had the fire proofing insulation on the steel contained asbestos it wouldn't have stuck to the steel any better. Had the dry wall panels been asbestos rather than gypsum plaster they wouldn't have stayed in place any better.
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.
Even a much smaller amount of fuel would still have created an explosion and started fires.
Fact is had more asbestos been used in WTC, towers would have taken longer to collapse, more people would have gotten out.
Are you familiar with asbestos spray on fire proofing? The stuff would have probably been blown off even more easily than the fire proofing which was installed.
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.
Are any of these asbestos containing materials physically stronger than alternatives?
That is the important point. After the explosion there was a lot of exposed steelwork.
A lot of fire/heat resistant materials are highly fragile. Remember how much fuss NASA made about the shuttle's tiles...
But the asbestos would have likely slowed the failure of the structure, and perhaps more lives could have been saved.
Had asbestos been used in the spray on coating of the steel and in the dry wall paneling around the core I really can't see it making any differance at all.
I was asked to provide a source elsewhere in this thread substatiating my first post. Try this link. [foxnews.com] It explains that fireproofing was not applied abouve the 64th floor.
This is nonsense, all the steel work would have had fireproofing material applied to it. Maybe it's confusing with a program to increase the thickness of the fireproofing. Which had started at the top and was working down.
I'm not convinced that doubling the thickness of the fragile coating would have made much difference anyway.
If possible, use an alloy of steel with a higher melting point. Adding Tungsten might help immensely by raising the melting point from 2,000 degrees to 3,000 degrees or so. Probably way too expensive though.
The melting point isn't relevent, since the steel never actually melted. It's the point at which material loses strength. But if you raise this it becomes far more expensive to forge things such as I-beams.
In the future, who knows? Asbestos fireproofing certainly would have helped as well.
The problem was more that the covering didn't stay on the steel. Had it been physically stronger, it would have worked better.
A serious question; for the sake of argument, let's assume you can put out jet fuel with a sprinkler, which, of course, isn't the case.
Whilst this might not be the case where you had actual puddles of burning fuel what you more likely have is something like a carpet soaked in burning fuel..
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.
What I am trying to say is that the people who are thinking "the sprinklers couldn't have been expected to put out the fire because jet fuel was keeping it burning" and "the building collapsed because the fire was especially hot from the burning jet fuel" are wrong, because the jet fuel was gone long before the building collapsed.
IIRC quite a bit of it escaped from the buildings unburned.
The sprinklers had a chance to put out the fire after the fuel was gone, but they didn't.
They didn't because the sprinklers in the most damaged areas had no water supply due to impact and explosion.
It's even possible that working sprinkers above the impacts could have hastened collapse, by ensuring that the upper floors stayed structually sound.
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.
It dosn't need to be especially hot. More significent would be the lack of fire protection and fire supression.
The jet fuel did NOT directly cause the collapse of the towers. It was gone "within minutes," all burned away. 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. They say it was an ordinary blaze, ignited by the fuel but left to burn on its own.
The jet fuel was simply what fire investigators call an "accelerent". It is well know that ordinary fires can damage steel (which loses it's strength long before it melts.) that is why there was fire protection put on the steel as part of construction. Problem was that the fire proofing materials were fragile. Mineral foam and plasterboard (better known in the US as "sheetrock").
For once thing, jet fuel burns so hot that you need foam, not water, to extinguish the flames. The heat would have vaporized the water even before it would have reached the flames.
Even this would be wortwhile. Water has a high latent heat of vapourisation, whilst a water spray might not extinguish such a fire it will contain it.
Firstly, because if the plane were shot down as it approached, the debris would still hit _something_. New York is known for, amazingly enough, having more buildings than just those two.
Something else Manhatten is known for is being an island...
Anyway there are 3 major airports in the area. Controlled airspace stretchs out a lot further than the city.
What a stupid mentality, to think of such a thing. (which, incidentally, didn't work -- the White House is reputed to have SAMs available, yet a light plane was deliberately crashed into the grounds in the 90's)
These wern't light planes, flying VFR. These were large planes, flying IFR, which had deviated from their approved flight plans. Note that any of deviation from planned route, loss of all radio contact with ATC, failure of transponder are considered emergency situations. (IIRC the FAA regs state that if a controller is uncertain if there is an emergency then consider it one.)
My personal opinion is that enough has been said - and we should move on - talking about how the Twin Towers collapsed isn't going to bring them back
It is however highly revelent to any other buildings constructed using similar methods.
Also the issue of what brought down WTC 7 appears forgotten.
The looked at factors like the blast having blown the fire protective coating off the steel and the way the building was designed with the majority of the load being carried by the steel skeleton on the perimeter of the buildings, as opposed to columns within. The achilles heel was reported to be the steel trusses running under the floors connecting the outer steel to the core.
Actually the unusual thing about the WTC design is that both the outer wall and the central core are structual elements. The failure of either would cause the building to collapse.
With the North tower the aircraft hit head on, made a big hole in the wall and dumped most of it's mass and fuel into the central core. Eventually the impact and fire damage caused the core to fail...
With the South tower the aircraft didn't hit straight on, didn't damage the core so seriously, but did make almost horizontal cuts in the outer wall. (The wall being cut horizontally is far more damaging in terms of its ability to hold up the building than having a big hole.) Pictures show the South tower initially bending, not at the initial impact point, but towards the most damaged outer wall.
However, if an organization wants to switch to OpenOffice, they only need compatibility with the latest version of MS Office they had been using. From that point forward, the only problem is communicating with others who use MS Office.
The major issue here is likely to be handing office files sent to them. But they could still have troble with some of these if they stuck with MS Office.
It consisted of a thick "business card" phone -- a circuit printed on plastic and wrapped in paper, slightly larger than your average business card. The phone had about 60 minutes of talk time, couldn't receive calls, and had a single large button on one side. The idea was that you could buy a sheet of these phones for about $5-10 per, print your business card on them, and "burn" your own number into the phone. Pressing the button on the phone dialed that number.
I don't see the point of this over a generic pre-pay mobile. This thing still needs to interface with the network and the time used had better not be recorded on the phone. Otherwise it can trivially be hacked into a free network access pass.
Disposable phones are perfect for a terrorist, drug dealer, or other criminal. Simply go to Wal-Mart ot Target, pay cash for the phone and the minutes, and leave. Or have one of your "associates" do the purchase so that you're not on the store cameras.
What you mean they don't have "pre-pay" mobile phones in North America yet. The rest of the world has had these for quite some time.
For some people, an ISP is a TCP/IP connection. Beyond that maybe they give you an email address, usenet, and some web space, but primarily its a TCP/IP connection. For those of us who view it that way, we don't want any software, we don't need any tech support, we only want to bother you when our 1's and 0's are getting to our home network.
Whilst this catagory of people dosn't want "tech support" they do still need "fault reporting".
Don't distribute any software. All you need is printed instructions giving the phone numbers to dial and the ip addresses and names of the gateway, dns and other pertinant servers.
Even if they feel they must distribute software they should always do this.