On 6/28/06, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The max fuel load of a top-of-the-line 737 is 37,712 Kg, or around 90,000 pounds. Figure 8 pounds of water in a gallon and you've got better than 10K gallons of fuel in a 737, give or take.
Oops. Fuel weighs less than water (a fact that is impressed upon one when learning to fly). Part of every pre-flight inspection to drain a bit of fluid from the lowest points on the tanks, to ensure that what comes out is fuel, not water (typically from condensation in the airplane, the fuel truck or tanks). If you get water, you keep draining until you don't get any. Jet-A weighs 6.5 to 7 lbs/gallon, nominally 6.76 lbs/gallon in the United States and Europe. Okay, not a foot. A decimeter, about four inches. But you get the idea.
That is a hell of a lot of explosive fluid, and the 737s that hit the WTC towers were on long-distance flights, at the beginning of their journeys, and damn near capacity in their tanks.
Explosive, you say? This is kerosene, not gasoline. Try this at home (away from flammable stuff). Put some kerosene in a glass (don't use styrofoam). Light a match. Stick it in the kerosene. It will go out. Do not try this with gasoline. And yes, it's kerosene, not gasoline. Lower octane rating. But the
flashpoints of the two are close enough to one another (-40 C for gasoline, 29 C for kerosene, which is a lot in human space but nothing for chemistry) that any spark hot enough to light a cigarette would set them off.
Baloney. Really. I've used a lot of kerosene to start fires (to burn brush at my parent's farm) and I can assure you that it is not so easy to ignite. It is nowhere near as volatile as gasoline.
And the higher flashpoint of jet fuel was one of the reasons the towers burned so long. Think of carpeting, wallpaper, ceiling tiles -- wicking all that kerosene and then burning slowly like a candle. Heat on heat, mounting slowly, on the central steel framework of the buildings until their central columns were like hot solder.
Sorry, but that strikes me as simply arguing from your conclusion. I'd like to see a peer-reviewed simulation. Maybe there's one out there. It's not high heat in a crock pot that makes your stew; it's a long,
slow cook.
Uh, isn't that an argument against high temperatures???
You suggested earlier that fires are chaotic. Well, they are. (You'd know.) For the first 18 minutes or so, no one even knew the US was being attacked in a coordinated effort. So conflicting reports, chaotic orders and strange omissions in emergency responses aren't that hard to understand, are they?
I'm not talking so much about what happened after the attack as what was happening by coincidence prior to it. What's more plausible? That buildings designed to implode I hadn't realized that the buildings were designed to implode. Many sources seem to agree on this, it seems, which helps me to feel reassured.
As much as I'd love to see Bush done up for treason, I just can't get aboard here.
I'm not "aboard" either. I'm just bothered by how many things seemed to come together for this to happen. But then again, that's often the way it is when an unusual event takes place. Perhaps it was the Hand of God at work. (I'm really, really not serious, except that there's part of me that thinks anything is possible.) Let's think of what didn't work for a moment. The Pentagon didn't
collapse; only one face was affected.
Wasn't that the just-reinforced face? And why were the engine parts at the Pentagon from a different airplane? That's the sort of thing I'd like explained. But there just isn't credible evidence to accept the idea of a
conspiracy.
No disagreement here. As I said, I'm more concerned about the lack of answers, rather than the implications of the evidence available. There could be a lot more evidence available. What's more deserving of a deep and thorough investigation? How about some explanations of why there hasn't been more investigation? Of course, the answer is probably purely political.
The > outrage of fire investigators is appropriate. At the very least, we > failed > to learn a great deal that could go into designs to resist such > attacks. How? How can you possibly make a skyscraper with every possible contingency in mind?
Nobody has proposed that. Have you seen the comments of frustrated fire engineering experts? A great deal could have been learned. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
