2001-10-17 This would be the same analogy as the Queen speaking to her subjects in Cockney. She'd still be the Queen, but hearing her speak cockney would somehow put a big damper on things.
John ----- Original Message ----- From: "James R. Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, 2001-10-17 10:56 Subject: [USMA:15653] WTC energy release > The 2001 November issue of Scientific American contains data on page 15 > about the energy released in the attack on the World Trade Center > towers and their collapse. Citations for the work are contained in the > sidebar in which this information was presented. > > Despite the name of the magazine, the units worked in include "feet", > "pounds", "gallons", "tons", "mph", and "btu"s. They then pull off a > Hail Mary play and convert the whole mess to joules. But just > centimeters from the goal line they turn around and pass the ball > backward to "tons of TNT". Nice science but lousy choice of units, > except for the joules. I feel yet another letter to Scientific American > coming on. > > The main categories break down as follows: > 2 TJ collapse of the towers > 5 TJ explosion and burning of jet fuel > 9 GJ kinetic energy of the two jets > Personal aside: most experts are saying that it was the heat from the > fires, weakening the steel, that caused the collapse. Essentially then, > the jets were used as flying bombs; had they been nearly out of fuel, > the disaster would have been less exothermic. > > Thus the kinetic energy of the jets provided just over 0.1 % of the > energy released in this attack on humanity and civilization. > > Jim > > -- > James R. Frysinger University/College of Charleston > 10 Captiva Row Dept. of Physics and Astronomy > Charleston, SC 29407 66 George Street > 843.225.0805 Charleston, SC 29424 > http://www.cofc.edu/~frysingj [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cert. Adv. Metrication Specialist 843.953.7644 >
