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.

 

WTC Challenge

page: 17
4
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Just out of curiosity, seeing as though the ENTIRE structure of WTC 1&2 were 100% steel and only the floor and ceiling was concrete. There was no electricity so if there was alot of heat on one part of the steel, wouldn't heat conduction occur, wouldn't the heat travel and be cooled as it spread further away. Not forgetting it was high up, I'm guessing the wind "may" have acted like a fan on processor heatsink.

Its just a theory.




posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   
OK now y'r stretching it a bit.....


You can not compare a computer "HeatSink" with the Wind and the WTC....the amount of "wind" to compare a heatsink with the building would be "Minimum" a "hurricane" force wind to "extract" the heat....plus if anything wind would "increase" the fire spreading.

But in my humble (20 years) working in construction......believer you/me....it's def. taken down by the planes...but as mentioned before will start to Poke the question to Real Structural Engineers...and will let y'a all know what they say.

Plus pretty sure they only provided "concreate topping" on the floors not a concreat slab like in "most" buildings.....just shows how much concreat can handle the heat....unlike steel.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
You can not compare a computer "HeatSink" with the Wind and the WTC....the amount of "wind" to compare a heatsink with the building would be "Minimum" a "hurricane" force wind to "extract" the heat....plus if anything wind would "increase" the fire spreading.


Shows how you have even less of a clue about heatsinks as you claim others to have about structural engineering.

A 65W AMD Ahtlon XP heating a decently constructed 4 by 4 by 8 cm heatsink can be kept around 50°C under full load when the static air temperature insider the case is around 30°C, this without using a fan on the heatsink.

The only thing needed in the case is a means of escape for the warm air. This in turn drawing in colder air. For dispersion of hot air, you preferably use a hole in the top of the case or a setup where the computer parts are setup without a case (which would be a rather good comparison to a building in the open air.

Your right about not being able to compare a heatsink with a building, a heatsink inside a computer case with no way of dispersing the heated air is MUCH harder to cool then a building in the open air.


[edit on 9-7-2005 by thematrix]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Yon can not copare the two (as the person mentioned) ...simple.

That's what I tried to show...that you can not compare....and in particular the "AIR FLOW" the amount of c.f.m.'s needed to make the comparison would be "HUGE"...that's all i was trying to say....not the best at "expressing" myself, always my bad point, but always trying to improve
....(dam...even my spelling is getting better)


Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
Since when does jet fuel burn out quickly but fuel paper and chipboard tables to increase in heat to the point of melting steel, even thou the tempurature achieved in this test is well below the stress levels of heat for steel???

NOTHING in an office will burn hotter than jet fuel or even close to a point which will melt steel, this test even proves that! Steel doesn't even begin to soften until over 1350 degrees C (2500°F). The tempurature NIST have measured is not enough to do anything to the WTC structure, let along in the small amount of time it was burning.


You don't have to melt the steel, just heat it up enough to cause creep and yield.






The fact that after 33 minutes in the NIST test, their office all turned to ash and gases adds to the fact that there were fireman reporting the fires contained in WTC. It confirms the fires were undercontrol because there was little left to fuel a fire and there's photos and videos of people standing in the gash the plane left without any fires or smoke near them to also prove that.


Look at the NIST report on the fire progression. The photo with the woman was early in the fire, before it had time to progress around the building.

Also look at the photos that show the piles of debris along the exteriro walls. THis would have taken much longer than 30 minutes to burn.


Office furniture is either going to melt and what does burn is not going to burn hotter than jet fuel, after the jet fuel is spent, for less than an hour and cause a steel framed building to come down. It's never happened before so why should it be reasonable to consider on 9/11?


The amount of heat produced by burning office furniture and burning fuel is about the same. you asked me to provide proof, and I did. Why do you still deny this basic fact of thermodynamics?






I don't buy it, NIST are just throwing around assumptions because they have to find a solution which explains a theory other than what the firemen on the day reported - bombs.


Assumptions that are based in prooven science, research and backed up by hard data. You have no hard data, just speculation based on your incomplete understanding of chemistry, engineering, and physics.



Did NIST in this test actually prove an office can melt steel when their test showed that an office will turn to ash in 33 minutes in tempuratures lower than required to even begin to make steel pliable or did they just assume that must of been what happened when after 33 minutes there was no fuel left for the fires to keep burning?
How much steel did they actually weaken or melt in that office to ash test.


See the chart above. Also, do yourself a favor and google the terms post flashover temperature

You will see that fire temeratures can easily hit over 1000 C.

Remember also that it wasn't nessessary to melt the steel, just heat it up enough so that it started to buckle. Given the impact damage and the redistribution of building loads as a result of the impact damage, it would not have taken much to critically weaken the structure.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Think about what happens when metal is heated up...

Imagine a piece of steel under stress, getting hotter from fire...

Now picture what you think would happen...

1. Would it keep supporting the weight until it hit a certain temperature and then suddenly fail?

Or

2. Would it begin to bend under the stress as it reached a high enough temp to soften it...



You have to think of it in terms of a structure. If a column fails, the load that that column supports just doesn't go away. It gets redistributed to the other columns, which now have to bear the load they were designed to support, plus the additional loads from the failed columns. The loads from the columns that were directly severed, or bent (a bent column is the same as a severed column. once it is no longer straight, the load it can carry is drastically reduced) were transfered to the undamaged columns.

If the heat of the fire caused a few more columns to reach the point where the were no longer carrying their share of the loads, those loads would have transfered to the remaining columns. In addition, as the floors sagged and collapsed, the connections to the columns pulled those columns inward, disturbing the load transfer. as this happened, the loads transfered from one set of columns to another. The top of the building started to move back and forth. Eventually the point would be reached where the the remaining undamaged columns would no longer be able to support the structure. At this point the failure would progress so fast that it would seem to be instantaneous.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
You def. have the fact's to back yourself up Howard
and def. know how to express yourself (some of us are proud and look to you for strenght)


Just find it funny how people look for the smallest detai(s)...then claim a lot from it...with no backing and don't want to listen to other views.....then try to insult the other people of how little they know. I've never claimed to be an "expert" just trying to give my view and what I personaly think....that's all....

and ain't going down the road to say what "little" other people know, and I will always listen to others and your view. And my personal 20 years in construction i'zzzzz....the Plane took the 2 main Towers...and pretty sure you ask most in the field of construction.....they will agree (and as i mentioned will def. start asking around and post when i get it )

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

Thanx again Howard



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Hey CR, you forgot my post, again! Second-to-last post on this page:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What do you think, guys? Is he going to respond? Has he ignored my posts specifically for any particular reason..?


The amount of heat produced by burning office furniture and burning fuel is about the same. you asked me to provide proof, and I did. Why do you still deny this basic fact of thermodynamics?


Where did you provide the "proof" of this exactly? And what does "about the same" mean, exactly?

What I have posted, showing that the fires, by all available evidence were not at sufficient temperatures, you are totally ignoring. The link is right above this text. I'm sure you've seen me request your response numerous times by now.

And Svenglezz, if you knew anything about Ayn Rand's character Howard Roark, you'd see how extremely ironic it is that you play a yes-man to Coward with nothing of your own to add to this topic. I say stick with Canadian affairs, mate: You're just happy that someone can even pretend to argue intelligently what you have been attempting to spatter words at for your last few posts. Until Coward successfully rebutts my post, he hasn't shown a damned thing, because the temperature of the fires is crucial to the NIST argument. As I've said, all available evidence shows that the fires were never hot enough.

Does CR here usually ignore posts in this fashion?



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Until Coward successfully rebutts my post, he hasn't shown a damned thing, because the temperature of the fires is crucial to the NIST argument. As I've said, all available evidence shows that the fires were never hot enough.

Does CR here usually ignore posts in this fashion?


Do you usually ignore etiquette and maturity whilst resorting to childish name-calling?

This is doing absolutely nothing for your argument. Get past the name-calling, and back to debates, please.

Jeez.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
That's what I tried to show...that you can not compare....and in particular the "AIR FLOW" the amount of c.f.m.'s needed to make the comparison would be "HUGE"...


As I said in my previous post, that is completely incorrect.

You do NOT need any extra airflow apart from natural thermodynamics to cool a heatsink if its in the open air(like buildings are).

Then, CFM rates and airflow in a computer are 2 different things, the CFM rate is the amount of air moved, as where the airflow is the way the air moves trough the case.

I've seen computer setups with cables hanging everywhere and cards and cool looking additions totaly blocking the airflow inside the case, eventhough the person had 250CFM intake and close to 500 CFM exit fans on this case. His CPU was utterly shielded from any fresh air getting to it and still overheated because it got compartimentalized in a 10 by 10 cm space, airflow being blocked by the CD-drives, GPU, PSU, cables and this buduggly looking caselight he put in.

Only when your heatsink is inside a computer case, you need to setup decent airflow, the CFM rate is not as important as the actual airflow.
There are cases built by people like Zalman that have zero airflow inside them and still stay perfectly cool, this trough the use of gasducts and cleverly put openings to let thermodynamics do its thing.

When talking about buildings, they are always in open air, and then as with computers, the desipation of heat does not need much more airflow then the natural thermodynamics to give considerable cooling. Hot air rizes and cooler air takes its place. Then adding that there is, most likely, quite some wind in a city like New York, I'd think that the towers were having heat taken away from them rather well.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinkleflower
Do you usually ignore etiquette and maturity whilst resorting to childish name-calling?

This is doing absolutely nothing for your argument. Get past the name-calling, and back to debates, please.

Jeez.


LOL Did you even read this whole thread and see where the abusive name calling originated or do you just feel like siding with HR and making someone who is more intelligent (bsbray11) seem childish.



[edit on 9-7-2005 by Lanotom]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by svenglezz
OK now y'r stretching it a bit.....


You can not compare a computer "HeatSink" with the Wind and the WTC....the amount of "wind" to compare a heatsink with the building would be "Minimum" a "hurricane" force wind to "extract" the heat....plus if anything wind would "increase" the fire spreading.


I said "may". Anyhows that does not contradict the heat conduction theory.


Plus pretty sure they only provided "concreate topping" on the floors not a concreat slab like in "most" buildings.....just shows how much concreat can handle the heat....unlike steel.


Yep, repeated every 12 or 13 ft. I believe, along with steel plates that go around the entire building acting like straps again repeated every 12 - 13 ft. I think it was 47 rectangular steel core columns with a wall thickness ranging from (i think) 4" at the bottom and 2" at the very top. And (I think) 236 exterior columns.

Thats an awful lot of steel. I think it was 200,000 tonnes of steel in each building. So none of that steel would conduct heat? Or would it not conduct heat.

ps.
I know it was stupid to compare a PC heatsink and fan to what was 2 of the worlds tallest buildings. I just though about the amount of steel there was it would make great heat conduction.

peace



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   



LOL Did you even read this whole thread and see where the abusive name calling originated or do you just feel like siding with HR and making someone who is more intelligent (bsbray11) seem childish.

[edit on 9-7-2005 by Lanotom]


Yes, thanks


Did you?

Try option #3. I read the whole bally thread, saw where the name calling began, got heartily sick of it and the same message applies to everyone partaking in the willy-waving slanderfest.

Now. Are you going to continue in the same vein, or are we going to actually return to discussing the matter at hand?

Should I bring popcorn?



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Please I know I have no right to say this but I will anyway could we please refrain from knocking each other I would hate to see another thread deteriorate and be closed.
Please thank you



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Hey CR, you forgot my post, again! Second-to-last post on this page:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What do you think, guys? Is he going to respond? Has he ignored my posts specifically for any particular reason..?


The amount of heat produced by burning office furniture and burning fuel is about the same. you asked me to provide proof, and I did. Why do you still deny this basic fact of thermodynamics?


Does CR here usually ignore posts in this fashion?


Your post is not the only one left unanswered.

This one is also,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think it's getting too hard for HR to continue coming up with excuses to use as answers.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Yes, thanks


Did you?

Try option #3. I read the whole bally thread, saw where the name calling began, got heartily sick of it and the same message applies to everyone partaking in the willy-waving slanderfest.

Now. Are you going to continue in the same vein, or are we going to actually return to discussing the matter at hand?

Should I bring popcorn?


Yes, you should bring popcorn, and a blanket, coz this one's going to go on till the truth is accepted.

TF, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but you're only making matters worse, particularly since your first post in this thread was not a blanket request, rather it was pointing the finger at a single member who has been quite patient and civil throughout, nor was he the one to start with the baiting and name-calling.



BTW, still love that name..."Tinkleflower"... *giggles*

[edit on 2005/7/9 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

You have to think of it in terms of a structure. If a column fails, the load that that column supports just doesn't go away. It gets redistributed to the other columns, which now have to bear the load they were designed to support, plus the additional loads from the failed columns.


That's a nice fairy tail Howard. For your theory to work then every steel column on every floor would have had to fail. How many floors were supposedly on fire? What caused the lower floors to fail? As soon as the weakened upper floors hit the unaffected floors bellow, the collapse would have at least been slowed down. As you can see from the vids, there is no resistance from the lower floors as the upper floors fall. I guess normal physics were on a break at that time?

If you really believe that fire alone bought down the WTC buildings (which would have to be the case because WTC 7 was not hit by an A/C) then I want you to explain to me this picture...(I know it's been posted here many times, but I'd like to hear Howards explanation).



I guess the raging fires were also on a break? It must be a union disaster....


[edit on 9/7/2005 by ANOK]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   
wecomeinpeace - ah, I know, I know. I suck. I was too hasty, and too uncaffeinated. Apologies to all. Your avatar still scares me though.....and I'm still tinkling happily


ANOK - That's possible one of the most horrifying images I've ever seen.

This does leave me with questions, yes. And no, I've not seen enough evidence in either direction to convince me either way.

But to this admittedly untechy eye (both of them, actually), what happened to WTC 7 doesn't fit with what we do know about a) what happened to the other towers, and b) what we know about building demolitions.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


I guess the raging fires were also on a break? It must be a union disaster....



Now, you DO realise this photo was taken very early in the timeline of the WTC event right? Why is it you guys post 1/2 thruths and take "evidence" out of context and then resort to name calling and berating or mocking somebody? Somebody that is trying to respond to 5 posts -- half of which are posts filled with nonsense and stuff that defies the laws of physics -- with intelligent responses backed with some level of research and evidence.

Meanwhile, some of you on here keep posting YOUR OPINIONS and toss up a photo here and there and expect Howard, or whomever else, to jump up and down to answer questions you're either too lazy or just too stupid to answer for yourself.

I have formed no opinion regarding the collapse of WTC7, I have formed no definite opinion regarding the collapse of WTC1 and 2. Because of that I can objectively look at all the photos, and videos, and radio transcripts, and dispatcher tapes, and security logs, and maintenence reports, and try to see what's what. For myself.

So far, from reading 4 transcripts, I can see there was indeed a horrible fire in the top of WTC 1, I can also see maintenence and securty people trapped up there pleading for help and for somebody to "Open 103! For christ sake open 103!" and demanding "Where are the goddamn sprinklers, turn on the goddamn sprinkers!" and little ditties about how stairwells were gone, how elevator shafts were chopped in half, and how people were suffocating on the top floors due to smoke.

But, far be it from me to expect you to read any of this stuff for yourself. That's for other people to do and to refer to when responding to your questions. Otherwise what would you have to taunt and berate right?


[edit on 9-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
How do you figure EVERY column would have to fail? Do you really think that if you destroyed the load bearing capacity of half of the colums on any given floor that they would easily be able to support the weight of the floor and every floor above it? The extra stress is going to go to every other column on the floor. I had to go SOMEWHERE. As more and more columns failed, more and more stress was put on the undamaged columns until they finally snapped. As each of the undamaged ones failed, it put more stress on the REST of the undamaged columns, etc, until you finally had a complete failure. Once that floor went, it put more stress on the floor below it, which caused a failure on that floor, etc.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join