Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: summer
I am a professor of Aerospace Engineering at Texas A&M University. http://aeromaster.tamu.edu/Faculty/boyd.html I did my Ph.D. work in structural analysis of high temperature materials, with a focus on materials for jet engines. I teach materials science and structural analysis. For the record, I believe that the OK City building was brought down by contact explosives within the building, and I believe that a missile destroyed TWA 800. However, today's tragedy is easily explained in terms of the heat weakening the steel structure. The mainstream interpretation is correct. I doubt that the fire would be hot enough to melt steel, but even at 1300F the strength of steel is seriously degraded. These structural steels used in civil engineering are not intended for high temperature. The fire weakened the steel, and the upper floors crashed into the lower floors and the structure pancaked. Jim Boyd
8 posted on 09/11/2001 8:35:36 PM PDT by Jim Boyd (jboyd@cox-internet.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Jim Boyd
From the Albuquerque Journal.

September 11, 2001

Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says
By Olivier Uyttebrouck
Journal Staff Writer

   Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.    

The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.    

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.    

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.    

Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.    Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.    

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.    

Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon.    

He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.    

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.    

"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.    

The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said.    

"One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said.    

Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said.    

Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers.

Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had not been asked to take part in the investigation into the attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar explosions and studying the effects.

9 posted on 09/11/2001 8:37:50 PM PDT by arcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Boyd
I defer to your expertise, but I have felt that there was likely a coordination between the plane impact followed by bombs set in the building.

I really think it is likely that structural engineers contributed to the plan.

Perhaps the destructive power of a fueled jumbo jet is so much that my thoughts on a secondary explosion in the building to bring down the plane crash damaged structure is unnecessary.

10 posted on 09/11/2001 8:41:32 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Boyd
I doubt that the fire would be hot enough to melt steel, but even at 1300F the strength of steel is seriously degraded. These structural steels used in civil engineering are not intended for high temperature. The fire weakened the steel, and the upper floors crashed into the lower floors and the structure pancaked.

I agree with your conclusion. As a former firefighter and fire investigator, I have seen what a "normal fire" will do to the structural steel in a building. Having the intense heat of hundreds of gallons of jet fuel burning in an enclosed space will generate a tremendous amount of heat in a short period of time. The structural members on the interior of the building were exposed to the highest temperatures. Once enough of the interior supporting members failed, the sudden weight of the floors above collapsing would pancake the building. No additional explosives would have been needed.

11 posted on 09/11/2001 9:17:06 PM PDT by eggman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Boyd
fire weakened the steel, and the upper floors crashed into the lower floors and the structure pancaked. Jim Boyd

I remember the old joke that Civil Engrs aren't allowed to take Dynamics classes because if their work is in motion, something went wrong.

15 posted on 09/11/2001 9:52:03 PM PDT by sam_paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Boyd
Jim, Thank you so very much for your informative post #8. You have added so much to this thread's discussion.

Sincerely,
summer
21 posted on 09/12/2001 9:07:49 AM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Boyd
For the record, I believe that the OK City building was brought down by contact explosives
I'd like to hear *your* qualified explanation of what caused the widespread destruction in downtown OKC then - you know, the vehicles destroyed in the parking lot across from the Murrah building, what caused them to ignite, what caused the *structural* damage to several buildings in the area as well - you know, SMALL stuff that could be worked back to calculate the 'yield' of McVeigh's bomb and *disprove* this cockeyed 'contact explosive' theory that is also adhered to by ex-Gen Partin ...

BTW - Have you ever read the extensive report (The Oklahoma City Bombing: Improving Building Performance Through Multi-Hazard Mitigation) prepared by crack contingent of scientists/engineers/professors belonging the American Society of Civil Egineers?

Did you also know that the boys US Corps of Engineers Protective design Center :

http://pdc.nwo.usace.army.mil/protective_design_center_history.html

think it was an outside bomb which damaged the structure - which eventually then led to it's collapse?

http://pdc.nwo.usace.army.mil/protective_design_center_history.html#Postevent Surveys


40 posted on 09/12/2001 10:52:37 AM PDT by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Boyd, _Jim
Professor Boyd, I look forward to reading your post tearing apart _Jim's "scientific" explanation that he believes "proves" you wrong about the Murrah building explosion(s).

_Jim, I gotta hand it to you. Getting beaten time and time again just makes you come back harder. You're very tenacious. Good luck in matching wits with the good professor!

42 posted on 09/12/2001 11:14:16 AM PDT by HalfIrish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson