Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA13070 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:43:36 +0100 From: <AaronLynch@aol.com> Message-ID: <ae.1b5a6ed0.28e396dc@aol.com> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:38:52 EDT Subject: Re: The Real Weapon To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 113 Sender: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Thanks, Lawrence.
The figure of 250 tons of TNT is consistent with my estimate of 0.15 kilotons
per Boeing 767. If the jetliners had full fuel tanks equaling 0.15 kilotons
each, or 150 tons, the total would have been 300 tons equivalent. But the
jetliners would not have had completely full fuel tanks after taking off,
ascending, and flying for a while. Still, I did not use an exact figure for
the heat of combustion of TNT.
While even first generation nuclear weapons are far worse than jetliners into
skyscrapers, there is evidence that Mohammed Atta and others were trying to
get crop dusters that could deliver chemical and biological weapons. That is
again evidence that the organization would use nuclear weapons. It is one
more reason why the problem of "loose" nuclear warheads and bomb-grade
fissile materials should be taken much more seriously than it has been.
Unlike chemical and biological weapons, there are no countermeasures that can
be taken after an attack has started. And even the first H-bombs tested back
in the early 1950s were equivalent to 14 megatons of TNT. An entire
metropolitan area can be killed with a single bomb.
--Aaron Lynch
http://www.thoughtcontagion.com
In a message dated 9/26/2001 12:54:08 PM Central Daylight Time,
debivort@umd5.umd.edu writes:
> Subj: RE: The Real Weapon
> Date: 9/26/2001 12:54:08 PM Central Daylight Time
> From: debivort@umd5.umd.edu (Lawrence DeBivort)
> Sender: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk
> Reply-to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>
> A physicist/engineer friend put the energy release at the equivalent of
> 250
> tons of TNT. Another friend explained that steel melts at between 1200 and
> 1600 degrees (depending on the steel) and that the fire in the WTC is
> thought to have reached 2000 degrees.
>
> Lawrence
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf Of
> > AaronLynch@aol.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 9:43 AM
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: Re: The Real Weapon
> >
> >
> > As it turns out, the real weapon was the jet fuel on the
> > airplanes after all.
> > My initial calculation mistakenly divided gravitational potential
> > energy as
> > expressed in Joules by combustion energy as expressed in
> > kilojoules. Thus,
> > using methane as a rough guide to the heat of combustion of TNT,
> > the energy
> > released by the collapsing building would only have been equal to
> > 42 tons of
> > TNT, not 42 kilotons. 42 kilotons does seem a rather shocking
> > figure, come to
> > think of it. I don't happen to have the exact figure for the heat of
> > combustion of TNT, so this corrected figure is still just a rough
> > estimate.
> >
> > I also misspelled kilotons "killotons," putting in the word
> > "kill." Perhaps a
> > Freudian slip, as the attack resulted in a mass kill of people.
> >
> > --Aaron Lynch
> >
> > http://www.thoughtcontagion.com
> >
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 9/20/2001 10:57:00 PM Central Daylight Time,
> > AaronLynch@aol.com writes:
> >
> > > Subj: The Real Weapon
> > > Date: 9/20/2001 10:57:00 PM Central Daylight Time
> > > From: AaronLynch@aol.com
> > > Sender: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk
> > > Reply-to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > >
> > > Thanks, Anne.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I don't think that Dawkins identifies the main
> > weapons, at
> > > least not as used in New York. The main weapons used in New
> > York were the
> > > trade center towers and surrounding sky scrapers themselves.
> > They were the
> > > source of most of the energy that did the mass killing. I
> > suspect that the
> > > planners of this attack actually carried out the calculations of
> > destructive
> > >
> > > power before the attack, and that running the calculation
> > again may give a
> > > view of their mind set.
> > >
> > > As a trigger device, the Boeing 767 derived most of its energy
> > from the on
> > > board fuel. Its fuel capacity is about 90,000 Litres, which
> > would weigh
> > > about
> > > 80,000 metric tons. That is, 0.08 killotons of reducer, which comes to
> > about
> > >
> > > 0.15 killotons of something such as TNT (trinitrotoluene), which has 6
> > > oxygen
> > > atoms per 7 carbon atoms.
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 26 2001 - 21:48:50 BST