Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 10:47am PT
|
Metal Melting Point
(oC) (oF)
Admiralty Brass 900 - 940 1650 - 1720
Aluminum 660 1220
Aluminum Bronze 600 - 655 1190 - 1215
Antimony 630 1170
Beryllium 1285 2345
Beryllium Copper 865 - 955 1587 - 1750
Bismuth 271.4 520.5
Brass 930 1710
Cadmium 321 610
Cast Iron, gray 1175 - 1290 2150 - 2360
Chromium 1860 3380
Cobalt 1495 2723
Copper 1084 1983
Cupronickel 1170 - 1240 2140 - 2260
Gold 1063 1945
Hastelloy C 1320 - 1350 2410 - 2460
Inconel 1390 - 1425 2540 - 2600
Incoloy 1390 - 1425 2540 - 2600
Iridium 2450 4440
Iron 1536 2797
Lead 327.5 621
Magnesium 650 1200
Manganese 1244 2271
Manganese bronze 865 - 890 1590 - 1630
Mercury -38.86 -37.95
Molybdenum 2620 4750
Monel 1300 - 1350 2370 - 2460
Nickel 1453 2647
Niobium (Columbium) 2470 4473
Osmium 3025 5477
Platinum 1770 3220
Plutonium 640 1180
Potassium 63.3 146
Red Brass 990 - 1025 1810 - 1880
Rhodium 1965 3569
Selenium 217 423
Silicon 1411 2572
Silver 961 1760
Sodium 97.83 208
Carbon Steel 1425 - 1540 2600 - 2800
Stainless Steel 1510 2750
Tantalum 2980 5400
Thorium 1750 3180
Tin 232 449.4
Titanium 1670 3040
Tungsten 3400 6150
Uranium 1132 2070
Vanadium 1900 3450
Yellow Brass 905 - 932 1660 - 1710
Zinc 419.5 787
Are these numbers wrong?
Aviation fuel.
Flash point: > 38 °C (100.4 °F)
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)
Freezing point: < −47 °C (−52.6 °F) < −40 °C (−40 °F)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
Density at 15 °C (59 °F): 0.775 kg/L - 0.840 kg/L
Specific energy >42.80 MJ/kg
Are these numbers wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel
Here is some math for you Mensa man.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htmTHE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.
"The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).
Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.
"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).
What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.
Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.
Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.
It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.
It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.
It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).
And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).
Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:
(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O
(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O
(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O
Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.
Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.
In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.
Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.
We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).
For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:
(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O
However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.
Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.
So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:
Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.
Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:
(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2
From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:
CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs
In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.
Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.
Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.
So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel
will release 10,850 x 44,000,000 = 477,400,000,000 Joules of energy.
This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.
That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:
39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.
To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.
Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
Nitrogen 1,038
Water Vapor 1,690
Carbon Dioxide 845
Lightweight Concrete 800
Steel 450
Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:
39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
1,400,000 x 800 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.
The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.
So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is
= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) Joules.
Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that
1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) = 477,400,000,000
1,857,653,675 x T - 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000
Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).
So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.
Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.
"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).
Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.
Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."
Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."
Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."
Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.
Summarizing:
We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.
Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).
Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.
It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).
Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.
Conclusion:
The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.
So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 11:00am PT
|
the south tower collapse refutes your domino effect, jennie. the upper part remained intact and began to lean. it should have toppled outward but instead continued straight down--because the entire structure below it dissolved.
your shot of the rubble is interesting. the towers did not have "perimeter columns". they had a shell that functioned pretty much like a giant window screen, assembled from interlocking units staggered for strength in three directions, vertically, horizontally and diagonally. when assembled, their details lined up and looked like columns. in the rubble you'll see how some of it stayed locked together. you'll also note a complete absence of pancaked flooring--no stack of pancakes. look at photos of the mexico city earthquake to see what a stack of pancakes looks like. this is the great giveaway to controlled demolition and another refutation of your domino effect:
a contractor named tom petrizzo was involved in supplying flooring materials to the wtc during construction in the 1970s. in 2001 he was one of the participants in the cleanup and removal of debris, and he saw nothing of the expected familiar materials which he had supplied 30 years previous: "i didn't see one floor panel come in here with a bar joist in it. they must have disintegrated ... there were 6,000 of them ... there's stuff crumpled up, but go identify it as a floor deck if you can. i couldn't believe it--not one floor panel."
and i have to include these two quotes from fire department "rescue" workers (the higher ups knew damn well there wouldn't be much rescuing going on):
//"the silence of the scene--it was extremely silent ... what i expected to see was nothing like what i actually did see ... there wasn't much that you could say, you could describe. everything was dust and metal. there was no typewriters, there was no chairs, there was no nothing." (kenneth christiansen)
"you have two hundred-story office buildings. you don't find a desk, you don't find a chair. you don't find a telephone, a computer. the biggest piece of a telephone i found was half of a keypad, and it was about this big [indicating with thumb and index finger]. the building collapsed to dust." (joe casaliggi)//
maybe a passport, but no desks.
jennie, the tower demolitions had to have been rather complex, engineered to attack the three-part structure of core, flooring, and shell. as philo mentions, there was extensive witness to basement explosions, which would have shorn the deep anchors used by any skyscraper, and other explosions and flashes occurred on the lower stories, things that surviving firemen couldn't believe they were seeing. no collapse could have taken place at the speed recorded without extensive engineering.
-
let's make it just a little thicker than a coathanger, which might involve a questionable alloy. some steels flex, some spring, some stand strong. a blacksmith will get his horseshoe--pure iron, i believe--red- to orange-hot, which will be 700-900C (1300-1660F). you don't attain this heat casually. you need a bed of coals to retain the heat and a bellows to force oxygen into it. heat retention is important--how quickly it cools when you stop pumping the bellows. i don't dispute jennie's temperatures. it does lose strength, but it's pretty strong stuff to begin with. the blacksmith has to hit it hard with a hammer against an anvil in order to shape it.
yes, rrradam, no wind, but more importantly, no evidence of intense burning. rather, there was considerable evidence to the contrary, including a woman standing rather calmly in the opening made by the airplane, hoping for a rescue.
the building 7 nag gnome again: no jet fuel, no jet fuel, no jet fuel.
structural steel, iron alloyed for strength with chromium, turns to liquid at 1510C (2750F), slightly less than the point for pure iron. and you better believe there was extensive molten steel found in the rubble, even weeks after the event because it can retain heat that long. the new york times called it "the greatest mystery". there's one easy way for that to have happened. thermite (Fe2O2 + 2Al), an agent used in certain controlled demolitions for cutting steel, burns at 2480C (4500F). and state-of-the-art nanothermite, milled very fine, is even more effective.
bump to philo on kerosene. burns at 980C (1800F) under ideal conditions. the smoke from the towers was turning black. fires were going out. a radio communication from a fire chief inside one of the towers told of it being under control. time to push a button?
___
"official", largo? reminds me of that captain granitic panel: "the press wants to know what brand of condoms you use."
there are thousands of people involved in this worldwide, and believe me, we have a hard time agreeing on details. but we all know something is rotten bigtime.
with some due respect, i think your use of the term "shadowy elements" belies political naïveté. you have to learn how congress works, how the military works, how the two-party system works, how big media works, how agencies like the cia and fbi work. we have lots of talk about the power of the pyramid, the all-seeing eye, the chain of command, the power of the paycheck. keeps a hell of a lot of people in line and a hell of a lot of others from asking questions. i'm a nice nobody, but i volunteered for ae911truth.org for awhile and couldn't help admire people putting their names and professional reputations right on the line here. there's something about a hard-headed engineer once they get an idea straight.
if you ever get involved in this, you'll hear interesting rumors. i'm kinda partial to laphroaig, but a bottle of knockando is what got me started on scotch. a good climbing partner gave me one at the end of an ambitious season, with the reading "no can do".
i do most of my research from books. i won't give you a reading list. buying the right books is the scholar's art, and i think you probably understand that. "they" don't care what goes into a book because books don't get widely read and are probably the easiest thing to pooh-pooh. nightly network news is what has to be protected, and secondarily the front pages of large metropolitan newspapers. i'll never forget the lead line the last time i thought i'd give television network news a chance: "this just in from roswell, new mexico ..."
the internet is a fluid mess, always changing, things coming and going, important things being taken off. once in awhile i get to question someone in person. ronald o. hamburger was interesting.
you have to forget about arab terrorists. there were no arab terrorists. the alleged hijackers whose faces appeared miraculously in the newspapers the next day were all "assets". don't ask me whose. one of them had even stayed at a u.s. naval base in florida. osama bin laden was an asset. he has likely been dead for some time due to diabetes. shortly before 9/11 when he was supposedly already the most wanted man in the world, he was interviewed by a lower-level cia official at an american hospital in one of the emirates, in for dialysis. this was widely reported for a couple years but may be hard to find now. daniel hopsicker has researched the florida activities of the alleged hijackers thoroughly and credibly. they liked to snort cocaine and hang out with lapdancers, acting like guys with a little too much spending money rather than militant and secretive islamic fanatics.
--
monolith is voicing hamburger's argument about office contents fires. things like carpets, computers, furniture "can burn quite hot," he told a los angeles audience about three years ago. he conceded that the jet fuel is not a realistic scenario for the destruction that ensued. it was the charcoal lighter that got the barbecue going, to use his metaphor. pay attention, guys. forget the jet fuel. this is a real expert on your side of things.
i tried to get hamburger to lighten up a little before his talk with a joke about our respective last names, but he acted like the worried man about to sing a worried song. he seemed somehow a fine fellow behind a dour exterior. he admitted that, yes, his first impression on 9/11 was controlled demolition. he spent a lot of time on the apparent horizontal buckling shown in one of jennie's photos here, and he tried to construct a scenario whereby weight would be transferred over the hat trusses, which go over the top of tall skyscrapers to transfer pressure on the windward side to leeward anchors. those trusses, of course, would only strengthen the hold on that 30-story "hat", connecting the whole thing directly to ground anchors on the undamaged sides. but hamburger seemed to think it would "trigger" something catastrophic. you might try to contact him about it. i certainly couldn't follow it.
when he called on me for my question he groaned that he was probably going to regret it. i asked him about the chemistry of office contents producing such intense heat and he demurred--"not my area".
we should note that building codes often call for fire-resistant materials to be used on interiors. on the other hand, you do have to admit that there have been some hot skyscraper fires. we had one high in the tallest building in downtown los angeles in the 1980s, a real towering inferno. but the steel stood strong. yes, the towers were elegant, light-looking and structurally complex. but don't forget the nag gnome. he will sneak up on your wild imaginings.
--
rrrad, grid structures don't "fail". a little lesson on what a grid structure is. if you can find the old style monkeybars in a city park somewhere, that's a grid structure. steel pipes attached to each other in a three-dimensional grid, attachments at regular intervals in all directions, a mass of connected, open cubes. nearly every functional office building less than 70 stories high is designed this way. mies van der rohe even thought it was beautiful. go up to the monkeybars and play king kong. grab them, shake them, climb on them. they stand solid as rock. walk around manhattan sometime. lots of grid structures holding pretty good. they aren't houses of cards. building 7 coming down like a folding accordion required the breaking of every one of those connections in extremely close sequence.
btw, bon voyage. try to log on during a spinnaker run in light air--not much going on then unless the crew distracts you.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 11:13am PT
|
"you have two hundred-story office buildings. you don't find a desk, you don't find a chair. you don't find a telephone, a computer. the biggest piece of a telephone i found was half of a keypad, and it was about this big [indicating with thumb and index finger]. the building collapsed to dust." (joe casaliggi)//
maybe a passport, but no desks. Once again... This is a false statement (just one of many that you continue to make), as the PASS devices (electronic devices) worn by many of the firefighters survived the collapse to alarm for quite some time from within the rubble. That's just one example, that has been posted in this thread, yet you conveniently ignore it, and continue to believe that it "was turned to dust".
Go back up where I mention the absurd things proponants of this believe, and when shown to be wrong, conveniently ignore it, and continue to believe absurd things.
Thanx... I have a genoa and a regular jib, but no spinaker. I also don't take my laptop on the boat.
Logging off... As I am leaving the room now.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 11:29am PT
|
You know you don't have to be an artist to understand art. Nor do you have to be a structural engineer or physicist to understand something is rotten in Denmark.
Like Sarah Palin being an expert on foreign relations because she can see Russia from her house I am an expert on the 911 myth because I can see NIST from my house. lol.
It should be noted what occurred at the Federal Labs here in Boulder right after 911. Those experts who dared to question and worse yet contradict the "Official" story were shown the door or threatened with immediate termination unless they "got on board". Hmmm tough choice truth or paycheck.
Why would that be?
Now that Spurious George and his goon squad are thankfully out of office many of those same experts are now coming forward with their doubts and adding their names to the growing list of scientist who refute the "official" story.
Why would that be.
Doesn't it bother any of you staunch defenders of the "official" story that the evidence was so rapidly removed and sent over seas for recycling before forensic examination could take place?
It was the equivalent to removing a corpse from a murder investigation and cremating it before an autopsy. Don't you even wonder about that?
Or was anything Georgie did okie dokie 'cause it made you feel all macho like the bully on the play ground?
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 11:48am PT
|
When I smell a skunk I don't need a chemical analysis to tell me it stinks. Nor do I appreciate others trying to convince me it was just an unwashed jack rabbit.
But that's OK 'cause you guys have Popular Mechanics on your side.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 12:30pm PT
|
Jolly Roger, keep on keepin' it real.
But if you are expecting a response from Mensa Man realize you already have. He does not understand the physics you present. He (and a few others here) are so desperate to believe their government incapable of wrong doing that they refuse to question. Yet they easilly accuse the "911 truthers" of being unwilling to question.
Phunny, I thought we were questioning while they were accepting on blind faith.
There are way too many improbabilities and impossibilities to believe the Bush administrations story.
Show them truth and they will deride you and suggest a tin foil hat.
Tin by the way would melt in a jet fuel fire.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 01:06pm PT
|
Quoting from above;
"Open air burning temperatures (of Aviation fuel); 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)"
"It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media."
550 F wouldn't have even melted the copper wiring.
Melting point of Copper 1084C 1983F.
550F would soften and weaken copper wiring but would not significantly weaken structural steel.
549.5 degrees Fahrenheit is easy to do in a pizza oven.
Coat hangars are not structural steel.
"No... Have you been paying any attention? Temperatures have been cited here. Is it the "C" that confuses you? That means Celcius, different from F."
Who has C & F temps fuzzy?
People survived sitting around for ten to fifteen minutes in areas we have been told were infernos raging for hours and melting steel. The Fire men who responded thought the fires were easiy manageable. Then BOOM the basements rocked and snap crackle pop the upper floors sparked with timed charges and the buildings fell at free fall speed with no resistance from the structure.
"Or, are you just an idiot? The last few pages of replies from you would lead me to believe so, as you really say some STUPID stuff, and when corrected, you conveniently ignore it, and likely continue to beleieve that STUPID stuff."
And yet you cling to the Popular Science version of the new universe.
Yeah you are right; Iz stooopid, youz smharat
By the way the WTC were BUTT ugly, garish buildings choked with toxins like asbestos. Not to mention that pesky rent control crap.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 01:48pm PT
|
I was told by a guy who claim to be part of the architectural team for the towers, that they were outfitted for demolition (or installing demolition) from the get-go, as that would be cheaper than doing it later and many such buildings were being demolished and rebuilt in those days.
It is an interesting thought experiment to note that there is a scenario where, even if the Towers were hit by Arab Terrorists with no help or blind eye from the Government, that once hit, that a decision to pull the plug on them with the controlled demo might have been made anyway, to protect nearby properties, collect insurance, destroy the investigation files for big corporations in building 7, and so on. Nobody could admit this due to the liability from deaths caused. Not saying this happened, don't think it did but think about it.
If that plane in Penn had been shot down by a missile, do you think the government would care to admit that? Even if it was a good call given the choices?
Peace
Karl
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 01:53pm PT
|
Probably restate the same crap as he always does as it is all he knows.
Edit to add:
People survived sitting around for ten to fifteen minutes in areas we have been told were infernos raging for hours and melting steel.
People die in temperatures over 212 F.
How did they survive raging infernos of blast furnace temperatures?
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 02:31pm PT
|
Sigh... You just aren't getting it. Let's try this way...
1) Not doing the math right yields the wrong values. Even if he did the math the right way, it would be analogous to him trying to calc the inertia of a billiard ball, but coming up with the numbers for a tennis ball. Big difference.
2) Here is why the math needs to be done the right way...
A while back, I was inspecting a hotel. The desk clerk had to step out, and asked me to watch the front desk. 3 men came in and asked for a room. I told them that the room was $30. Each of them put in $10 bucks (3 x $10 = $30), and I gave them their key.
After a bit, the clerk returned, and asked if I check anyone in... And I said, "yes, 3 men came, and I told them $30 and checked them in." She said that the rate was $25, and gave me $5 to return to the men. While walking to their room, I realized that $5 wouldn't divide amongst the 3 evenly, so I figured I'd tell them the rate was actuallly $27, and give each of them a dollar back (initially $10 per man, now $9 per man, since they were each getting a dollar back, and 3 x $9 = $27), and pocket the rest.
Sounds good so far... To those who don't look into this, as I had $5 to return to them, gave each of them a dollar ($3), which only leaves me with $2. In case Tony, Philo, or any other is missing this... If each of them paid $9 ($10 - $1 = $9), that means they paid $27. But, they paid $30 initially, so there should be $3 left over, NOT $2, which is what I have left.
Point being... Most, Tony/Philo, will just be left scratching their heads here, trying to figure out where the missing dollar is, if they even followed thus far. And without having to go search google for the answer, would likely never figure out what the problem is. Worse, in calcs like for the mechanics of this collapse, they don't even see the missing dollar, since they answer yields what they want, so will never, ever, look for it, since they don't realize it is missing. You, Jolly, should know better.
The math needs to be done correctly to yield the correct answers.
GIGO!
Edit:
PS... This alone should show you that he doesn't know what he is talking about:The proper way to do this is to use strain energy methods and you will find that the collapse will be arrested and not allowed to continue."
That is absurd... Unless of course, you ignore all the missing dollars.
Do you honestly think that the fall of all that weight on the floor below would have been arrested?
Made it home safe... I'm off to the coffeehouse to meat friends and go to the boat.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 02:46pm PT
|
What ever floats your boat. You are perpetually hung up on the concept of upward force. Yet you conveniently ignore all the other pertinent details. And call us ignorant to offset your fear of being wrong.
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 02:48pm PT
|
JollyRoger says,
As far as the design load limits of the floor below, he is being very optimistic. The 95th floor, has to “At Least” be able to hold the weight of the 15 floors above, ie 68,181.81tons. He then added the weight of people, and left out safety factor. In reality the Net Force upwards would have been much larger. He is being very simple to make a point.
No floor "held" the weight of any of the floors above. The core held (cantilevered) the weight of all the floors.
Each and every floor was only meant to hold its own weight plus 1,300 tons; there is no way in hell those angle clips could hold 68,181.81 tons.
Was the second floor "holding" 495,454.55 tons?
You should go back and look at Jennie's link; it's quite good.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 03:16pm PT
|
Philo...Are these numbers wrong?
They will work well enough to show you that you were talking out of your arse...
Let's review:
Jennie's post said:"It is known that STRUCURAL STEEL begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C"
To which you wrote:Actually those are the temps for aircraft aluminum.
To which I replied:Where the hell are you getting that? Aluminum melts at 660 C.
Source please. Or, how about just admitting that you are wrong... AGAIN!
Which agrees with your own numbers:Metal Melting Point
(oC) (oF)
Aluminum 660 1220
Now, instead of admitting that you were wrong, and talking out of your arse, you instead shot yourself in the foot with:So if I put a piece of structural steel, say a piece of an I beam in my oven on high it will soften? How long will that take? And if I put it into a pizza oven it will soften to the point of being able to be bent into a donut? How long would that take?
Note what the melting temp is for iron, the major componant in steel:Iron 1536 2797
Then, look up at her numbers for weakening steel, then post what temp an oven gets to.
You are an idiot dude.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 03:17pm PT
|
|
|
WandaFuca
Social climber
From the gettin place
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 03:21pm PT
|
The want you to believe, that the clips, anchored to the inner core of 47 steel columns, and the outer skin failed due to the load of the floors comming down.
If this is the case, then shouldn't the floors have just slid down around the core. However, that did not happen did it.
No.
"Collapse of the WTC towers resulted in failure of many of the bolts in bolted end plate connections as the columns were subjected to large and unanticipated out-of-plane bending."
http://www.designaids.com/wtc/appendixb.html
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 03:21pm PT
|
Coz wrote
You really can't believe Bush and Cheney murder all those people, secretly demo the towers, vaporized the passenger in mid air, fire missle strapped with DNA into the Pentagon.
I'm struggling to believe anyone's side of the story, since one end seems extreme and the other is plainly lying for unknown reasons.
But one thing is clear, the government doesn't have a problem with killing all those people. By getting us into an unprovoked war in Iraq over known false pretenses, they killed many time more than died on 9-11, even if you don't count the uncounted thousands of Iraqis and millions of refugees.
Thats the real charges that should be brought and real investigation that's missing. 9-11 is a distraction when the crime of the century is obvious, documented and nearly ready for court....the bogus invasion of Iraq.
Peace
Karl
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 03:35pm PT
|
Coz, if LBJ was more than willing to insist the Israelis sink the USS Liberty, the most decorated ship in US naval history, with all hands on board why would it surprise you how cheap life is to Neo-Cons?
Well I just finished work on a pizza oven that easily reaches 900 degrees.
|
|
TYeary
Social climber
State of decay
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 04:01pm PT
|
Karl, you hit the nail squarely on the head.
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 04:32pm PT
|
Jolly, the Madrid building had a concrete reinforced core and a concrete firewall(technical) floor. The WTC's did not.
The steel only portion collapsed to the firewall(technical) floor.
The replacement towers for the WTC buildings will have a concrete core.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!