It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ATS: Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theorist Offers $100,000 Prize Relating to WTC Collapse

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   

And we already know that it not physically possible for jet fuel to melt thousands of tons of steel that's has a specific heat capacity of 700-1000 degrees more.


I was just reading that. I noticed I made a minor blunder, Pity, I can't edit my reply. I meant the melting point of steel is 700-1000 degrees more, not the "specific heat capacity" which is something entirely different. I thought I would say that before someone tries to take another stab at my, ahem "limited knowledge of physics"



[edit on 17-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]




posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

Structural steel begins to soften at 450 C, half of it's strength is lost at 650 C


No it doesn't.


the maximum temperature that jet fuel burns is more or less 1,000 C.


No it isn't.


Wow...."no, it doesn't" and "no, it isn't"? that's really enlightening, but in a way you are right....i forgot that structural steel begins to soften at 425 C not 450C, now let me prove my information...


It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425C and loses about half of it strength at 650C. However, even with its strength halved, the steel would still be able to support two to three times the stress imposed by a 650C fire. There were also distortions of the steel due to higher temperatures in some areas than others. Because of these aspects, the failure of the steel was ultimately due to two factors: the loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and the loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire [3].


Excerpted from.
www.pitt.edu...



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Can you imagine that it can be set-up after closing hours? As in during the night?


now I know you're not thinking clearly.

Many NYC office buildings are accessible 24/7. I can come to my office at 3 am on a Sunday and there is a skeleton crew working and a guard watching the entrance. A building like the WTC more than likely had quite a few staffers working, not to mention the foreign market traders that worked the night shifts so they could keep an eye on stocks overseas.

A building like the WTC never closes. There are always guards in the lobby, people patrolling the floors, workmen fixing/cleaning etc. It is impossible for a crew to sneak in after the building is closed.

Closing hours in NYC, in a building that housed businesses that traded in markets worldwide. That's rich. You have made my day.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Pleeez, everyone should know the buildings were constructed WITH explosives for when the time "was right"

New World Order day, sort of.

Any google search will tell you this. bah



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
``

?? why not find-locate any other buildings, anywhere in the world,
that used the (at the time) unorthodox architecture !!!

?? most likely, there are no other WTC type constructions anywhere !!
~~

heres one for the researcher-journalists among youse all...
both the 'Washington Free Press' and the 'Villiage Voice' had stories
on and revolving around the premis: "WorldTradeTower #1...a house of cards",

and the unrest and student protests and such
about the construction, inspiration, elitist manipulation of world trade,
Rockefeller fingers in the pie (situs, financing...), etc etc

these articles were around spring-summer of 1969
and certainly before September '69 when the WFP
had to dodge the authorities, even 'riding the rails'

&, one might research the 'EastVilliageOther' for
similar articles, around the same timeframe.....
there was a great stress surrounding this idea
of an eventual TwinTowers WorldTradeCenter,
thats about as much lead that i heard about-
[Ole Hippy John & 'Crazy Jane' a reporter from
the defunct Wash.FreePress live here abouts]

^^



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:33 AM
link   
my bad. thanks for pointing that out.

You know, if the conspiracy theorists were to combine the various theories, the story might sound more plausible. I hear that the 9/11 attack was planned by Bush and then I hear that the 93 bombing was part of the same plot, which is ludicrous.

I'm blaming Bush for the toe I stubbed this morning on the way to the shower.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

Ehhhh, try again please. According to news reports of the time as well as interviews with the engineer and architects, Nova did a great show on it, they took into account the biggest fastest commercial plane of the time. A Boeing 707. The 747 was not considered a factor at that time.


The point has already been covered by Howard. I did not think it was worth addressing this moot point. The towers were built to withstand a 707 at 600mph.

There engineers on public record that also say they the towers could have survived a 747. A boeing 707 and a 767(the impact airliners) are only slightly different. The 767 is a little heavier, while the 707 is faster.

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707 is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767 is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

Here is the physics

The Kinetic energy(1/2mv^2) of a 707 at 600 mph is 5,607,720 Kilojoules

The Kinetic energy(1/2mv^2) of the 767's that struck the towers are:

AA Flight 11 at 470 mph is 3,950,950 Kilojoules
UA Flight 175 at 590 mph is 6,227,270 Kilojoules

Therefore AA flight 11 had 30% less energy than the towers were built to withstand. And UA Flight 175 was only within 10% more.

So we can rule out that it was the actual impact and stress that caused the towers to fall. The collapse is attributed to the melting of steel and not the stress caused by the impact.


I am afraid I will have to adopt my "patronizing attitude" once more.

No one is saying that the airplane impact knocked the towers down. The buildings did withstand the impact. The fact that they did not immediately collapse is proof of that. The impact did, however, cuase extensive damage to the building structures. This structural damage caused by the impact, combined with the additional structural damage caused by the fires is what caused the buildings to collapse. The buildings could probably withstood either one of those events separately. Against both of them together, however, they were doomed.


And we already know that it not physically possible for jet fuel to melt thousands of tons of steel that's has a specific heat capacity of 700-1000 degrees more.

. . .
I am getting sick of your patronizing attitude. I saw one source quote the specific heat capacity of jet fuel as 220 to 550 degrees, either way it is way below the actual melting point of steel. If you think your physics checks out, and I personally believe it a load of rubbish, go for the $100,000 and put your mouth where the money is(pun intended)


Sorry if my attitude disturbs you,
, but your ignorance bugs me.

To begin with, you obviously have no idea what a specific heat capacity is, since its value is never expressed in degrees alone. (EDIT, I missed your correction there.
)

Clarification: There is a mistaken beliefe that the maximum temperature released by burning jet fuel is less then 500 degrees C. This is simply not true. The amount of heat release in a combustion reaction is a fixed amount given the quantity of the inital reactants. Heat an temeprature are not exactly the same thing, however.

For every combustion reaction, there is a discreet amount of heat released. This value is expressed in joules not degrees. This can also be expressed in Btu values. That is why when you buy a new furnace, you don't look at the maximum temperature it can deliver, but the Btus.

The adiabatic combustion temperature for a fuel is the theoretical maximum temperature that a combustion process can release (i.e. if all the heat released is converted strictly to kinetic energy (temperature))

As you can see form this table, the adiabatic combustion temperature for jet fuel is 2300 K ( 2026 C, or 3680 F)!

Now I'll admit that the fires in WTC probably did not get that hot, but on the other hand, the were not a cool 250 degrees C either!!!!

Please try to understand these concepts.


As for the $100,000 prize, it is a sucker bet. They are asking you to prove a negative, which logically can't be done.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 17-12-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Crackeur, actually i wouldnt let Bush get away with the stabbing of your toe. I'm sure you could email the WH and put in your complaint.



As far as the rest of it goes, the sub-gov and powers that be are responsible.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Pleeez, everyone should know the buildings were constructed WITH explosives for when the time "was right"

New World Order day, sort of.

Any google search will tell you this. bah


And your information comes from?.....

What do you have to corroborate your "claim"?



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Muabbib, man, if you dont know by now, you'll never know. Lets not go down that road.....

Tu no eres muy inteligente, mi hermano.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Muabbib, man, if you dont know by now, you'll never know. Lets not go down that road.....

Tu no eres muy inteligente, mi hermano.


DG....you should be the last person telling others in here about their intelligence....you are too gullible sister.... By the stories and conspiracies I have seen you post, you would believe almost anything DG....and as always you don't seem to need facts for some reason....

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Actually, a number of modern buildings are designed with predetermined failure points built in to allow for easier demolition. This is a relatively new concept that is not widespread.

The idea that the building was preloaded with explosives, however, is just silly.

For one thing, explosives are, by their very nature, unstable compounds. They do not age well. There is nothing more dangerous then old explosives.




[edit on 17-12-2004 by HowardRoark]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:52 AM
link   
wow. I thought the buyilt with explosives line was a joke.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by dgtempe
Muabbib, man, if you dont know by now, you'll never know. Lets not go down that road.....

Tu no eres muy inteligente, mi hermano.


DG....you should be the last person telling others in here about their intelligence....you are too gullible sister.... By the stories and conspiracies I have seen you post, you would believe almost anything DG....and as always you don't seem to need facts for some reason....

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Muaddib]
Actually, for being a person with 3 fluent languages i consider myself extremely smart and wise, maybe the grammer isnt up to par, but then again nevertheless the intelligence is there, brother.... Nothing gullible about me..in fact, its because i'm not gullible that i refuse to swallow the crap. Get the point?



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I guess I should clarify that a bit. Some modern structures are designed so that when the building is to be demolished, the collapse mode will be such that it will minimize the impact to surrounding buildings.

dgtempe, the ability to speak different languages does not guarantee that your critical analysis skills are also well developed. Communications and logic are two different things.

How's your math?

ever studied calculus?

Fractals?

Computer programing?

Law?






posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Actually, for being a person with 3 fluent languages


english, gibberish and piglatin?



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by dgtempe
Actually, for being a person with 3 fluent languages


english, gibberish and piglatin?
NOW your intelligence is showing.
Its ok,
think whatever you wish.

And a Merry Christmas to you too.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

Actually, for being a person with 3 fluent languages i consider myself extremely smart and wise, maybe the grammer isnt up to par, but then again nevertheless the intelligence is there, brother.... Nothing gullible about me..in fact, its because i'm not gullible that i refuse to swallow the crap. Get the point?


DG, speaking three languages is not that big of a deal, and it doesn't guarantee you or anyone else being less gullible. A person that speaks 1 language could be smarted than you or me by far....that I know of Einstein only knew two languages, yet I am sure you are not saying you are smarter than he was.....

Anyways....i don't want this to turn into another pissing contest DG. If you have "some hard facts" to prove your claim go ahead and post them please, but in the past you have shown to have a poor sense of separating made up/wild internet stories and real data to corroborate your points.




[edit on 17-12-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 12:50 PM
link   

building like the WTC never closes. There are always guards in the lobby, people patrolling the floors, workmen fixing/cleaning etc. It is impossible for a crew to sneak in after the building is closed.

Closing hours in NYC, in a building that housed businesses that traded in markets worldwide. That's rich. You have made my day.


So are there 50,000 people working at WTC at 3 am in the morning? You also have not noted that I am not exactly an avid supporter of the controlled demolition theory.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

NOW your intelligence is showing.
Its ok,
think whatever you wish.

And a Merry Christmas to you too.


I never said you weren't intelligent. I did, however, make a joke, which you clearly missed.

It was pretty lowbrow too. Next time I'll aim lower.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join