peepo,
As for your remarks about the 5th grader comment I made, it was just a smart a** response to Spin Master nothing more. Sorry that went over your head. As for the questions you asked about Charles N. Pegelow, simple research into his career as I did will answer all your questions. And if that is not good enough for you contact him and ask him about his career yourself. Again I only brought up 9-11 because some else did here, and I'm not here to answer questions about it. You really want to know the answers to the questions you pose go and research it.
I didn't fail to glean the smart a** context of the 5th grader response. I referenced it because we oft times refer to "common sense" in a physics situation when the reality is contrary to what one might normally attribute to common sense.
You're correct in as much as I can do the research myself on Mr. Pegelow. But you have to appreciate the context in which I asked you the questions. This is a discussion forum.
It isn't very helpful if Member A asks Member B questions about a reference made by Member B only to be answered "look it up yourself." There's not much discussion in that situation.
I asked you the questions without stating an opinion because the questions directly relate to your position on the issue.
You seem to have made some conclusions about the situation based on your knowledge of the events as well as your trust in the professional opinion of Pegelow. I think that its only fair, given the forum in which I asked, that you should at least attempt to answer them. If you don't know the answers to the physics based questions just state that you don't know. Its not a crime or a shame if you don't know the answers.
As to Pegelow I believe that the questions about his CV are spot on even if the correct answers are unknown or ultimately support his position. The fact is that his CV
seems to indicate a lack of current professional experience in the area of high rise construction engineering and that what experience he does have was as a junior (apprentice) engineer. There's a huge difference in the physics and engineering behind the construction of an oil platform and the physics and engineering behind building the largest buildings in the world. In physics and engineering scale is
always an issue.
Pegelow may well have the proper professional education, training and experience to profer a valid opinion.
Now, you've been bashing Ray with the "spin, spin, spin" rhetoric. In that regard I'd ask you this:
Prior to ever hearing about Pegelow had you already formed an opinion on the cause behind theTwin Tower collapse? If you had and if that opinion was on the side of the contrarians is it possible that when you read what he had to say that you accepted it without much in the way of questioning his conclusions? Is it possible that you heard what you wanted to hear, i.e. did the spin of his opinion match your preconceptions of the event?
Does his CV give you any pause to reflect on his qualifications?
Does the fact that he only holds a 34 year old B.S. degree in civil engineering have any weight in how you rate his qualifications?
And does the fact that the only references to him on the Internet or UseNet relate to this one event (meaning that there are no references to aricles written by him in professional journals or other engineering related media where he has experssed his professional opinion to his peers during the course of his 34 year engineering career)?
I assure you that I'm not being a smart a**. We see "opinions" everywhere on the Internet. That's what the Internet is all about, frankly. But when a professional offers a professional opinion in writing its helpful if that person has some sort of a track record against which we can make judgments about his/her reputation in "the community" (engineering in this case) and make better informed conclusions about his qualifications to profesionally opine on the instant event.
Don't get me wrong on this. Of course he has every right to state an opinion. But the opinion of an engineer who opines on an engineering problem tends to carry more weight with non-engineers and non-physicists than does a general lay opinion. We have every right to question and consider his qualifications to professionally opine about an area of engineering that appears on its face to be beyond his professional experience over the past 1/3 of a century.
Also please note that I haven't (yet) even questioned his objectivity. Qualified or not, there's still the possibility that he has some axe to grind or that his political positions have clouded his objectivity. I don't know the answer to that one and I haven't looked. For now, at least, it's irrelevent to our discussion.
I hope that you'll consider the above and attempt to answer.
Thanks
BTW:
Relative to the Jet-A being almost entirely consumed in the initial explosion I can give you a bit of assistance.
If even 10% the ~20,000 gallons of jet fuel had "instantly" burned off in the initial explosion we wouldn't have had to worry about the fire weakening the structure.
In our conventional weapons arsenal we have FAE's - fuel/air explosives (bombs) - also known as "Poor Man's Nukes". They atomize kerosene and oxygen into a large oxygen rich cloud and then a secondary explosive source ignites the vapor. BMFKB!
The BLU-96 FAE II is a 2,000 lb fuel/air bomb (that's the 10% I refered to above). When a FAE explodes the effects are very similar to a low yield atomic bomb explosion sans ionizing radiation. The temperature near the detonation is above 4,000 C degrees and the overpressure of the blast is on the order of 500 lbs/sq. inch. A BLU-96 FAE II could destroy the tower by blast effects alone.
If it were physically possible to "instantly" create a 20,000 gallon fuel cloud and ignite it the result would have been a bit more than a "low yield" nuke. It would have flattened several city blocks of lower Manhattan. Fortunately its not really possible to create such a cloud by crashing an aircraft. There's not sufficient time to expand the cloud while simultaneously suspending the vapor in the air before it becomes super saturated locally and insufficient oxygen to support instant ignition. The FAE's work because they carry pure oxygen and through very elegant technology mix the fuel and air and allow the cloud to expand before igniting it (BLEVE - boiling liquid, expanding volume explosion).
When a large aircraft crashes the fire frequently does involve a BLEVE-like fuel explosion. But the fuel consumed in that explosion is minute compared to the total fuel carried (unkless the tanks are mostly empty). It took a considerable amount of time for the fuel to burn off.
