Rafe’s Roundup appeared in the quarterly Policy magazine from the Centre for Independent Studies in the 1990s and surfaced again in the old Catallaxy where the idea was to remind readers of the range of liberal/conservative organizations in Australia with links to their sites.
This morning, James McPherson on the hypocrisy and divisiveness of “reconciliation”. The Manhattan Contrarian on the responsibility of California and New York to press on with green insanity.
Jo Nova on the green exploitation of tragic floods in Pakistan to promote their agenda.
From the archive. Original Roundups.
Welcome back Roundup.
Interesting banner there.
In 1945, a B25 Bomber crashed into the Empire State Building. The Building is still there.
There is no way that those jet planes destroyed those Twin Towers on 11/9. Steel girders do not melt like that or so fast unless they are in a Blast Furnace.
Steel girders do not melt like that or so fast unless they are in a Blast Furnace.
Do the following experiment. Obtain 12mm diameter steel bar. Put one end in vise. Try to bend. Good luck. Next, heat to red heat and try to bend. Will bend.
You don’t need to melt steel to have it fail to carry the structural load it was designed for.
“Rafe’s Roundup” put me in mind of something to be used to spray “progressives”.
And I guess that’s what this is.
Thanks Rafe, glad this has resumed.
Eyriesays:
September 12, 2022 at 8:34 am
Thanks Eyrie.
To which I’ll just add, when the theories about “the steel wouldn’t have melted” etc started circulating I asked a friend who’s spent decades in the demolition industry whether there was any reason to doubt the official explanation. He said there was nothing even remotely surprising about the way the buildings responded to being hit by jet aircraft.
Some of us spent many years attempting to teach people how to fly jet aeroplanes, I say “attempt” for in many cases people from countries who practice the religion of peace shouldn’t be allowed near aeroplanes, even as passengers! Just how those people managed to fly largish jet aeroplanes and manage to hit the twin towers and the pentagon took more skill than the skills they possessed for many of them would be lucky to be able to hit an airfield let alone a building or land on a runway. Maybe luck, maybe something else.
Eyriesays:
September 12, 2022 at 8:34 am
Steel girders do not melt like that or so fast unless they are in a Blast Furnace.
Do the following experiment. Obtain 12mm diameter steel bar. Put one end in vise. Try to bend. Good luck. Next, heat to red heat and try to bend. Will bend.
You don’t need to melt steel to have it fail to carry the structural load it was designed for.
Nobody told the Empire State Building that as it is still standing.
“He said there was nothing even remotely surprising about the way the buildings responded to being hit by jet aircraft.”
Fair enough, I am no expert on engineering.
I note however, other experts, do stray off the official line.
What I find amazing about Sept 11, is that 3 buildings collapsed in NY, after two aircraft hit the two towers of the WTC.
Building 7, was NOT hit by an aircraft, yet “fell” like the two WTC buildings, ie fell almost exactly into its footprint.
I guess it was so upset by the WTC towers getting hit, it just collapsed.
Either that, or it was worried about climate change and thought, “why go on, ….”
In 1945, a B-25 hit the Empire State Building. The fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. 14 people died.
B-25 Weight: 35,000 Lbs. Fuel capacity: 695 gal. Cruising speed 230 Mph.
Both the kinetic energy of impact and fuel load of the B25 was, at best, 1% of the 747 .
On 11 Sep 2001, a 747 hit the WTC.
747 weight: 717,000 lbs, Fuel capacity: 57,285 Gal, Cruising speed 550 mph.
The kinetic energy of the 747 was (550/230)^2 x (717,000/35,000) = 117 times the max of the B25
The fuel load was 82 times greater.
The B25 was a bug on a windshield. The 747 was a meteor hitting a window. Comparing the two in terms of structural damage as being similar, is utterly ignorant. Comparing their fire damage capability in terms of fuel loads is even more ignorant.
Planes were 757/767.
Comments on the banner should be on the Open Thread, they don’t relate to the Roundup post.
Interesting but distracting.
Well, Dopey, its like this:
B25 weight: 35,000 lbs, fuel 695 gal, cruise speed 230 mph
747 Weight: 717,000 lbs, fuel 57,285 gal, cruise speed 550 mph
757 Weight: 200,000 lbs, fuel: 11,276 gal, cruise speed : 525 mph
767 weight: 271-400,ooo, avg 350,000 lbs, fuel: 24,000 gal, cruise speed 550 mph
Kinetic energy ratio compared to a B25 as 1.0
747: 5.7
757: 5.2
767: 5.7
Fuel ratio compared to a B25 as 1.0
747: 87.6
757: 16.2
767: 34.5
The B25 was a nothingburger. It splattered on the Empire State Building.
A 747 was a Meteor that sliced through the building and exploded within it.
A 757 was a small meteor that did exactly the same as a 747, but only 1/4 of the fuel load.
A 767 was a medium meteor that did exactly the same as a 757 but only 1/3 the fuel load.
My point remains. A B25 was nothing compared to any of the 700 series aircraft in terms of kinetic energy or fuel load. Comparing them as “equals” is untruthful. Any of the 700 series you mention are between 500% to 600% kinetic energy of a B25 and 1600% to 8700% of the fuel load.
Oops. Left out the mass multiplier in kinetic energy. Correction
B25: 1
747: 20.48 x 5.7 = 116.76 times the maximum B25 kinetic energy.
757: 29.7
767: 57
The point remains the same. A B25 was 1% to 3% of the impact of any 747-767 series aircraft.
The fuel load of a B25 was 1% to 6% of the same 700 series aircraft.
The B25 exploded Outside of the Empire State Building. The 747/57/67/ exploded Inside the WTC with 30 to 100 times the fuel. That is a very big difference.
Another factor: the Empire state building is stone clad with old fashioned over-engineered heavy steel.
The twin towers were paper wrapped around knitting needles by comparison.
As someone with a bit of a background in civil constructions and building systems, I will l add the follow9ing:
The aircraft that hit the towers were essentially fully fueled for medium / long-haul flights..
The “pilots” tried to hit the buildings dead level and as low as they could. It was NOT “random”.
Modern airliners are pretty tough beasts. One bit of footage clearly shows an aircraft slicing into the side of a building and leaving a VERY large, aircraft-profiled entry wound.
Many tonnes of prime Jet A, suddenly turned into a mist and a couple of HOT, jet engines throttled up is a good recipe for a fire.
Now for the boring Civil Engineering stuff:
The towers were among the last ever “traditionally-built” skyscrapers. This used a riveted steel frame and poured concrete floors and walls etc. As with a ferro-cement yacht, the steel framing provides structural integrity and a degree of flexibility; the cement is there to keep the water OUT.
Those aircraft also did one vital bit of additional damage; they severed the central services core. Lift shafts, fire stairs? GONE! Even more importantly, all electricity, water and communications IN, ended at the height of impact. The icing on the cake, as it were was that the huge water tanks at the top of the building for fire fighting, had their DOWN pipes severed, dumping all that water down the central core, instead of into the sprinkler system. FINAL “feature”, the towers were among the FIRST EVER such constructions hit by the lunatic Asbestos scare; they had a substitute “heat-resistant” cladding on the steel support-structure beams.
Old Osama certainly lined up the stars in his favour. Speaking of the devil, was he not an “engineer? A CIVIL engineers?
The entire rock show was planned by people who totally understood structural engineering and the hazards thereto. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing.
The KEY reason for striking fairly low on the buildings is fairly obvious.
Once the Jet A and all the furniture, fittings and stationery in the floors above and below had blazed merrily for a while, the steel, stripped of its second-rate, government-mandated fire-lagging by the impact, started to get hot and to SOFTEN. Remember the height of the impacts? There was an ENORMOUS tonnage of building ABOVE the heavily damaged impact zone. Once the beams stared to bend, the result was inevitable. Watch the footage again; the upper part of the building DROPS through the impact zone and acts like a multi-thousand tonne pile-driver on the rest of the building The shock-waves of that would have traveled down to the bedrock and, just as with a “pile-driver”, bounced back up again, doing more structural damage on each pass. Such “wave reflection” in pile-driving operations has long been known. If the driving “hammer” has been lifted off the pile before the return wave arrives, it is quite common for the top of the pile to be shattered as it is distorted by the shock-wave reaching a serious material discontinuity .Tank gunners familiar with HESH rounds will get it instantly.
As for the idea that the entire structure was brought down by “demolition charges”? Madness.
Anyone who has ever observed building demolition using explosives will be aware of the “preparation time” AND the rather obvious fact that the slabs of explosive and a LOT of very colourful fuse and detonators / delay blocks give the building a bit of a festive air. Furthermore, in order to CONTROL the demolition, weeks or longer of jack-hammering of critical structural points to MINIMIZE the amount of explosive is required. This is not an “economy” measure; it is done so as to not hurl chunks of building for city blocks. So , might somehow, some of the thousands working in the buildings, DAY AND NIGHT have noticed SOMETHING in the preceding months?
Roundup”:
A serious “weed kiler”
See also “Tordon 40”; apart from “copyright issues” it sounds like a good name fror a Blog.
“Kiler”???
“Killer”.
Thanks Rafe. Appreciated!