by Scott Creighton
“Professor Muller (at about 7:30) is led by Boston Public Radio host Tom Ashbrook to the subject of what future presidents should know about the physics of terrorism; specifically, how did those buildings come down?”
Professor Muller is currentlywith the University of California, Berkley and also a member of the JASON Defense Advisory Group which brings together top scientists as consultants for the United States Department of Defense. So he shouldn’t be too biased, eh?
He writes a monthly column for MIT’s magazine and by all accounts, he is a very smart man (you can tell by how he holds his glasses there). So, let’s see what he says in the interview about the physics of 9/11, shall we?
This is part of what he says during that interview:
“TNT is uh, a (sic) explosive, releases a certain amount of energy, I like to measure the energy in food calories, per gram or per pound.
If we compare the energy released by gasoline, many people are surprised to learn that gasoline releases more energy, 15 times the energy of TNT.
The planes carried about 60 tons of jet fuel, and if you multiply that by about 15 to get a sense of it, it was about 900 tons of TNT or the equivalent. 2 planes=1.8kila tons. That’s why there was so much damage done.”
First, let me say that jet fuel isn’tgasoline, though Muller interchanges the two during his talk. The jet fuel used in these planes was Type A jet Fuel. “The most common fuel is an unleaded/paraffin (kerosene) oil-based fuel classified as Jet A-1 (otherwise known as AVTUR), which is produced to an internationally standardized set of specifications.” Wiki, here.
Now, aside from the equation of “15 times the energy of TNT” statement he makes, which I don’t know whether that is true or not of “gasoline”, since we are talking about Type A Jet Fuel, I don’t think it makes a difference. But I want to work out the math for you, and then show you a video real quick.
But, since gasoline is derived from oil, even though it does have several additives that make it more volatile, we can basically derive that the energy output would be close that of oil when compared to TNT.
So, we are looking at something akin to a 10 to 1 ratio as opposed to a 15 to 1 as he claims, depending on the additives. But he is the professor, not me, so I will yield to his pedigree on this one.
Let’s “do the math” shall we? He says there were the equivalent of 900 tons of TNT on each plane, and that is what caused “all the damage”. Well, 900 tons (Short Tons) equals 1,800,000 lbs. That is nearly 2 million lbs of TNT… per plane. Wanna see what 1 million pounds of TNT does? Almost HALF of what Muller says is the same as what the planes did to the Trade Center? Take a look…
Feb. 1965. 1 million pounds of TNT detonated to simulate a nuclear explosion. Half of the explosive energy that Muller suggests was released in EACH of the plane crashes.
Half (meaning that by Mullers calculations, the explosions of the plane impacts were twice this size. Did they LOOK twice this size?)
This link is a MUST SEE. it is a 50 ton test from 1963. Remember that Muller said that EACH plane carried the equivalent explosive energy of 900 tons of TNT. So watch what 50 tons does, and tell me, just how accurate Professor Muller’s math really is.
In the 1st video you can see how the blast wave sweeps over the land and water then nearly crushes the battle ships anchored 1000 meters away. Clearly this is NOT what we saw when those planes hit the towers. If it had been, it would have blown the tops off those buildings immediately.
Now, this IS what we saw on Sept. 11th. It is the actual damage done to the building after the plane hit.
When the planes hit the buildings, the vast majority of the Jet Fuel was burned in the initial fireball; meaning that most of the energy was spent AT THAT MOMENT, according to both NIST and FEMA and many other scientists who have studied the attacks. You can clearly see it in the videos; the orange fireballs are OUTSIDE the buildings, so the destructive force is exerted AWAY FROM the interior columns.
Perhaps that is why the buildings REMAINED STANDING for so long, Mr. Muller.
Well, now that we have that straight, and we can pretty much tell Muller’s numbers must be WAY off… let’s see what else he had to say.
“Gasoline, in my mind, is the most dangerous thing, the thing that is the greatest danger for a future terrorist attack.
The lack of terrorism, since 9/11, something I said in my class… as I told my students, as we learned last week, gasoline has 15 times the energy of TNT. Let me describe to you how the building collapsed; what happened. Basically I got it all right.”
Lack of terrorism since 9/11? What do you call the anthrax attacks of late September 2001? I would call them ”terrorism”. But that’s just me…
“Once the fires weakened the steel and when that happened the upper floors collapsed on it like a sledge hammer.”
Oh jesus… he “got it all right” huh? He’s been soooo wrong so far.
Let’s see. Aside from the fact that if his numbers had been correct with the 900 tons of TNT equation, then the plane crash would have blown the tops of the buildings to Jersey, let’s look at the rest.
“The fires weakened the steel”. Very simple; A-36 structural steel melts at 2,750 deg F. and it starts to lose structural integrity at around 1,475 deg F (but that doesn’t mean it fails at that temp as the UL tests proved). But that is INTERNAL TEMPERATURE of the core of the steel. meaning, that the EXTERNAL TEMPERATURE would have to remain at least that hot for a prolonged period of time in order to heat the core of the steel to that point.
The thicker the steel, the longer it takes to “weaken” it. Seems simple, right?
NIST and FEMA both said that the hottest exterior temperatures of the steel they tested was around 650 deg. F, no where NEAR hot enough to cause that kind of CORE STEEL TEMPERATURE. There may have been patches of fires that heated the steel beyond 650 deg. F but, remember that the steel isn’t sitting there by itself. It was designed as a heat sync; meaning that it was all interconnected, and the heat energy transferred throughout the steel structure so that the steel would not reach that point quickly. That is how it was designed.
Perhaps that explains why the Underwriters Laboratories truss-test showed no significant weakening of the steel assemblies when they burned at hotter temperatures than were possible in the towers, for a longer period of time. But hey, that’s just me being a stickler for experiments and physics.
“I don’t think that Osama bin Laden expected that building to collapse. I don’t think anybody did.”
Wow, does he get anything right?
Not only did the owner of a controlled demolition company (that was brought on the site right after 9/11 to “clean up”) call people in New York (by his own admission) while while the buildings were still standing to tell them to leave the area because he knew the buildings would collapse, but also, the Fire Chief at the time reports that an engineer who specializes in demolitions, who just happened to be there, told him that Building 7 was going to collapse.
So, yes, people knew the buildings were coming down. You can see video still of fire fighters walking away from building 7 saying that they found explosives in the building and it was going to collapse.
So, Professor Muller, you got zero correct. ZERO. And considering that you are a lot smarter than that, I have to surmise that you didn’t just blurt out those horrible fabrications for the fun of it.
You see, this is what should happen when someone obviously tries to advance their career by parroting the “official conspiracy theory” to give it credibility; we should launch like a pack of well informed wolves on his story leaving nothing but the rotting carcass of his career.
Because what he is really doing is trying to turn a profit from the tragedy of 9/11, all the while hoping people who are smart enough to see through his bullshit won’t take the time to expose it. Well, once again, he made a vast miscalculation.
The interview is recorded and available as a MPEG, here.