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.

 

Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

page: 19
3
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
*SNIP*

WTC 7's implosion video of freefall symetry coupled with Silverstein's admitting to 'pulling it' is more than enough evidence to justify a grand jury investigation.

*SNIP*

Mod Edit: Civility & Decorum.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 20/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
actual measured physical evidence from the fire zones indicates steel temperatures of 600 degrees for fifteen minutes, at the very hottest, and most steel was measured at 250 degrees.


Actually, your first statement is the result of a common misreading of the NIST steel-testing data, and your second is incorrect in your use of the word "most". Allow me to explain.

NIST conducted metallurgical analyses of steel components recovered from the wreckage to determine to what temperatures they had been exposed. They experimented with numerous methods, but found two methods to be of applicable use in the case of the WTC fires. One method was measuring the change in condition of the steel primer paint, and the other was "microstructural changes in steel":

Here's a description of the paint method:

NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel - pdf page 142

NIST has developed an approach to evaluating the primer paint on the structural components for evidence of exposure to high-temperature excursions (see Appendix D of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C). This method was found to be relatively easy to implement and robust enough to examine an entire component in the field. Calibration tests in the laboratory showed that, although there was little or no change in color, the primer paint used on the WTC steels that reached temperatures over 250°C cracked (similar to a "mud cracking" pattern) from the difference in thermal expansion between the paint and the steel.


A more in-depth explanation can be found on pdf page 147 of this report:
wtc.nist.gov...

The steel microstructure method is described in the same report:

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C: Appendices - pdf page 150

The as-fabricated microstructure of structural steel may change with exposure to high temperatures. As seen in Sec 5.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-3E...exposure to 625°C for as little as 15 minutes produced noticeable changes in the microstructure.


And these is a brief summary of the results:

NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel - pdf page 43

More than 170 areas were examined on the recovered perimeter columns; however, these columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns on the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors. Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250°C. These areas were:

* WTC1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,

* WTC1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,

* WTC1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence suggests that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse.
[...]
Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of the steels known to have been exposed to fires were characterized. These microstructures showed no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600°C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e. limited exposure if any above 250°C, were found for the two core columns recovered from the fire-affected floors of the towers,
which had adequate paint for analysis.


The misconception that NIST recorded steel temperatures of 600°C stems from the following phrase, which is a brief summary of the findings in the summary report: "microstructures showed no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600°C for any significant time". The sentence appears to imply that the steel was exposed to temperatures exceeding 600°C but only for a short time, yet that is not the case. When you understand the testing method and it's limitations, you realize that what it means is that NO steel reached the temperature required to give a positive result for the steel microstructure test, which only gives results when steel is exposed to 625°C for 15 minutes or more. The actual temperature experienced by the steel could have been a) anywhere between 20°C and 625°C, or less likely b) over 625°C but for less than 15 minutes thereby still failing to give a positive result.

NIST goes out of their way to repeatedly state that the components recovered are not indicative of the entire floors. However the important thing is that ALL of those 170 areas from which they examined the steel were indeed exposed to fire, yet a measly 3 of those areas were exposed to any temperatures in excess of 250°C. NONE of the areas examined from photographs and video (independent of the 170 areas of recovered steel) experienced temperatures over 625°C for more than 15 minutes, and more likely not at all.

Furthermore, NIST states that they excluded truss assemblies from their temperature exposure tests because it could not be determined what floors the trusses came from. Wouldn't you expect them to at least take a look and see if ANY of the trusses they recovered HAD been exposed to fire and check to what temperatures they were exposed? Especially since a) they are capable, by their own admission, of determining if temperature excursions were experienced in the debris pile after the collapses, and b) their collapse theory hinges so heavily on high temperatures being experienced by the trusses?

Comparing the steel components that they did test with their computer simulations, outrageous inconsistencies become apparent. The components, despite registering negative for the paint condition tests and therefore meaning they experienced temperature excursions of LESS than 250°C, were located in regions at which NIST's ridiculous simulations predict OVER 1000°C fires.



[edit on 2005-12-20 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
The blacksmiths forge over time has been fuelled by fuels such as charcoal, coal and gas.

For forging, where the steel is hot and you bang on it with a hammer and it goes "ding ding", not "slop slop...dribble".


I wonder if the Jet fuel (a hydrocarbon) burning off will have left anything similar to the coke produced from burning coal (also a hydrocarbon) described below? Is that possible?

Ahhh, the wonderful all-purpose jet fuel comes to save the day again. Is there nothing this stuff cannot do?? Do you mean the jet fuel 98 storey's up in the sky which was burnt off in the course of the fires but reappeared in the basements, or do you mean the fantastical jet fuel that somehow survived the fires and was then thrown out 600 feet in all directions, only to fly back down and crawl into the basement. Or perhaps you mean the super-duper even more magical jet fuel which somehow traveled down 105 storeys of elevator shafts and HVAC shafts to the bottoms of the basements and sometimes exploded and sometimes burned at various intervals and in perfect synchronicity with all the events many attribute it to, including but not limited to, explosions in the basement just after the impacts, the explosions an hour or more later and just before each of the collapses, the disappearing 50-ton-capacity hydraulic press, and the melting of steel into pools of molten metal. MAYBE you mean the magical jet fuel which traveled over to the WTC7 basement and melted the steel there too.


...This lightweight substance ignites rather easily, and burns hotly - with a forced-air draft it can reach temperatures approaching 4000 degrees Fahrenheit...4000 deg F achieved there, more than enough even melting the steel!

Yes, it's called a "blast furnace", and the air is pressurized. I don't think they had gargantuan bellows under the WTC basements.


The melting point of iron is about 1510 °C (2750 °F)

The melting point of steel is 1370 degrees C (2500°F)

Charcoal burns at 1100 deg C (2012 deg F)

Exactly. Even under absolutely optimal, controlled conditions, it's not hot enough to melt steel into pools of molten goop.


I wonder what happened to all the clumps of paper, doors and the wooden desks for example?

They were pulverized into dust and confetti just like everything else that wasn't made of steel, they weren't in the basement, and they certainly weren't present in sufficient quantities or conditions to create absurd coal mines 7 storeys below the buildings.


[edit on 2005-12-20 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
As for it being molten - it has never been properly confirmed that this is even true and some people have even debunked it.

The only thing that even vaguely implies thermite was used would be the alleged pools of molten steel which are not confirmed and some have debunked.


Can you provide links to these alleged "debunkings"?

HowardRoark typing up a couple of lines of straw-clutching and adding ten grinning smilies does not constitute "a debunking".

[edit on 2005-12-20 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:04 AM
link   
I'm sorry but there is no way you can say my theory is wrong, there is no way you can possible know one way or another. It has just as much chance of being true (more so actually) than any explosive theory and has just as much or little evidence to support it.
My evidence is the glowing steel
Just as it is yours, so unless you've been to Ground Zero and personally been involved in the clean up operation it has just as much chance of being true as any of your ideas. The conditions could have very well produced a charcoal type substance which could have reached temperatures capable of heating metal until it glowed like in the photograph.
This theory is no more absurd, even less so actually, than mini-nukes, thermite, etc and has just as much evidence to support it.
You have to be prepared for there to be more rational explanations for the things that have occured, the same way you expect everyone else to be open to these explosive theories.
Nothing I said is actually impossible and in the same way you expect everyone to believe that explosives were used, you have to be open to other possibilities.....
You see the fact is that there is a good chance no explosives were used, which means there are rational explanations for the various things that occured. You have to be prepared to look for alternative explanations too if you want to be sure of finding the truth. The explosives theory is just that, a theory - the same as what I wrote and all the other ideas that people have had. There is virtually no way now of being able to check so we have to rely on the information we have. Any explanation that is scientifically viable has to be considered and if there are viable explanations for what some people interpretated as signs of explosives then they would seem the more likely explanation.
Saying that other theories are stupid or flawed is a bit hypocitical coming from someone promoting the idea that the WTC was wired with explosives.
Nothing I said is actually impossible or even that improbable....


Originally posted by Billybob
there was no coal, smith, old man. nor were any reports of this amazingly efficient chaos furnace written up. the heat was at it's peak immediately after the towers fell.
and then it began to cool.


I was talking about the heat in the rubble pile, I thought that hot spots of around 750 deg C were supposed to be measured by satellite even days after, and that glowing and molten metal was pulled out? This is what was being explained. I was also demonstrating how the conditions could have created fuel which would have burnt hot enough under the conditions to cause this after the collapse in this case.



so, there was just no time for all that imaginary fuel to get stoked up. there was more importantly, NO SMOKE indicating the burning of fossil fuel.


No smoke, lots of smoke? Make your mind up. One minute reports state there is smoke for days and weeks after which indicates the presence of fires and now you come along and say there was no smoke?...

Are you ever going to contribute to a discussion Billy, or are you always just going to be WCIPs shill (and not very good at it either)?

[edit on 21-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Actually the white smoke some have attributed to thermite is also explained by the charcoal theory:


The smoke will start out white. This is the water vapor burning off. Next the smoke will go blue/grey which is the alcohols and phenols burning off. Then the smoke appears yellow, which is the tar burning off. Finally the smoke will clear and you will just see waves of heat.
www.velvitoil.com...


If I remember rightly from the BBQ, charcoal does not give off much smoke at all when burning does it? Most of the smoke is from fat dripping down.
The charcoal would at least be able to explain the glowing metal and sources of intense heat in the pile.

You can imagine the conditions being created like in this charcoal pile, or 'clamp':




Phase two: cooling the 700° C charcoal to a point where it wouldn't just burst into flames the minute it saw the light of day.
www.regia.org...


700 deg C, sounds familiar.... (Don't forget this is during the process which creates this - it burns hotter).

In addition I'm surprised that more people don't attribute at least some of the white smoke to steam from the water dousing the fires, burst water mains, etc.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I'm really sorry for you, resorting to conjecture and all, i remember how i suffered defeat many times on computer hardware forums (yeah, i was a bigoted little fanboi, but don't tell anyone pls) 'cause i hand picked benchmarks to proove my 'point' *sniff* of course, i got my behind handed to me on a platter until i eventually learned the intrinsic wisdom of reading through specs and gathering fundamental knowledge about what a bump mapping is for example, along with understanding that my fav. manufacturer wasn't always right, of course..

i consider the 'charcoal issue' issue pure fantasy, used to distract from one of the most glaring inconsistencies of the wtc collapse: egregious amounts heat.

of course, you know that no sane firefighter would leave the subway access tunnel wide open (provided it wasn't completely blocked by debris in the first place) and that this rather moot point is only valid for wtc#2, since envisioning a compressed pile of rubble and fine dust spontaneously creating optimal air circulation below all 3 destroyed buildings strains credulity to the theoretical maximum, but you can't let go since 'team pancake' doesn't have a plan B, or has it?.

more smoke and mirrors, detraction and what not just to avoid adressing the big stinkin' elephant eating the decoration at your dinner party.

these towers apparently (strange in itself) created huge amounts of dust and light debris upon collapse, which of course means, that, firstly, there were less large intact parts to create any cavities, and secondly, that any such cavities would have been filled or sealed with tons of dust.

wait, doesn't that remind you of powder based fire extinguishers, but i digress...


PS: in case you didn't notice - a furnace isn't bult by lumping a few tons of stuff together, it requires careful construction, and it took mankind millenia to develop the tech to our current standards. furthermore, the chaotic charcoal theory lacks a distinct feature: evidence, as in unburnt charcoal and ash in substantial amounts.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Yes of course what a ridiculous idea, back to the mini-nukes and lepricorns..


While your at it please explain how the metal stayed at high temperature without a heat source.. I looked at some sites relating to steel maufacturing and from what I've seen it can stay hot for days - in controlled ovens designed to cool it down slowly... So what kept it hot in this case?

[edit on 21-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

PS: in case you didn't notice - a furnace isn't bult by lumping a few tons of stuff together, it requires careful construction, and it took mankind millenia to develop the tech to our current standards. furthermore, the chaotic charcoal theory lacks a distinct feature: evidence, as in unburnt charcoal and ash in substantial amounts.


Lance does have a point here Smith. But, on the other side, there is not any evidence (unless you take into account the loss of momentum, loss of angular moment, the near free fall rate, the eyewitness accounts of explosions etc.) for the explosives theory either.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I do apologise, I didn't realise you all got to examine the rubble afterwards. I guess while you were not finding evidence of what I am suggesting you found evidence of explosives did you? Why don't you share it with us?

A furnace can occur naturally, look at the coal mine fires. It isn't that complicated or unlikely at all. The white smoke is explained with the theory, the glowing metal, everything (regarding the rubble pile). Sorry it doesn't involve your explosives..

Amusing that you mock this idea yet believe that they lined the towers with explosives - can you see the irony in that?


I still want to hear about how the steel retained these high temperatures for so long without a continuing heat source.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I never once mentioned mocking your theory Smith. Just mentioned as I also did with the explosives theory that there is no evidence for it (them). Why getting so deffensive? As for us being there and looking at the evidence....well you know the reason we can't as it has been hashed over and over again. Actually, I think your theory has as much credibility as the explosives theory at this point. The only thing is, if that was a possibility, why hasn't anyone (NIST, FEMA et all) even theorized anything about the molten metals and the "fires" that lasted for weeks? They could have come up with the same theory as you and then sheeple wouldn't even be concerned about it anymore.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by MacMerdin]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Sorry dude, I got on the defensive early on for some reason - didn't mean to get funny with you! (The poster previous to me got on my wick a bit too).

Here's a bit more, I expect it's flawed as I havn't spent much time on it!

Just to put things into perspective, I used the following website to calculate the heat loss

from a 30cm sphere of steel (density 7.8g/cm3 hypertextbook.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">

hypertextbook.com...) after 24 hours (86400

seconds).
I used an emissivity of 0.1 to be generous (in favour of it cooling slower), I'm not sure which steel they used in the WTC

and I'm pretty busy at the moment to bother looking. But it ranges from around 0.08 - 0.85 www.omega.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">

www.omega.com....

I put in an initial temperature of 1200 deg C (1473.15 deg K) and after 24 hours it had

fallen to 474.20 deg K (about 140 deg C). This is through radiation alone.

The website I used for the calculation is here:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

So how did the steel stay hot so long without a continuing heat source again?
I'm afraid thermite is not an answer regardless of how you look at it.

[edit on 21-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

So how did the steel stay hot so long without a continuing heat source again?

[edit on 21-12-2005 by AgentSmith]


Very good point. Of which, I have no answer for.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   



It didn't stay that hot for that long.

Once again, there is plenty of evidence for molten aluminum, such as the thermal image above. The only evidence for molten steel is a handful of eyewitnesses out of the thousands there at ground zero.

The eyewitness's can easily be explained. One woman reported molten steel flowing underneath the rubble she was standing on. Obviously an embellishment unless she has xray eyes.

The "expert" witnesses could have made a simple mistake, after all one glowing peice of metal looks about the same as the other. The only way they could have known if it was molten steel was by measuring the temperature, which I doubt they bothered to do.

Bsbray posted an excellent picture that perfectly illustrates my point.



How many of you saw this and said molten steel?


It is definetly not molten steel. No excavator buckets can withstand molten steel. Molten aluminum yes, molten steel no. You cannot use a steel object to pick up molten steel.

Another interesting thing about this photo, is that the metal pictured is described as molten. Yet it is obviously not a liquid, but glowing very hot like it was just removed from an underground fire.

While it is impossible to prove there was no molten steel and in fact prove a negative. I see no objective or quantitive evidence that points to there being molten steel. The nasa pictures clearly show heats hot enough to melt aluminum, but no where near hot enough to melt steel.





[edit on 21-12-2005 by LeftBehind]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
In addition I did the same calculations for a 30cm sphere of Liquid Iron (what thermite leaves behind) heated to 2500deg C (2773.15 deg K).

I used the density of 7.88 gm/cm3 from the same site as I did for the steel and I got the emissitivity from here.
As the range for liquid iron was form 0.42 - 0.48 I used a figure of 0.43 in favour of a slower cooling time.

After 24 hours through radiative heat loss alone it would be approx 295.81 deg Kelvin or ..... wait for it.... 22.6 deg C


Once again this was worked out from the site I used above:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

And I know at least one person speculated they may have used Uranium Oxide based thermite.

The calculations are as follows:

Using an emissitivity of 0.79 (from prevous site), density of 18.95g/cm3 and a boiling point of 4131°C (Boiling point appears to be higher than burning temperature, based on comparison of Iron boiling temperature (2861 °C) and the temperature of the thermite reaction (2500 °C) ).
Once again a 30cm sphere.

I used the boiling point temperature as the burning temperature to be generous, and after 24 hours the temperature would be....

323.67 deg Kelvin or 50.52 °C


So..... how did they stay so hot again...


(without something along the lines of my stupid charcoal theory)...


i'm really sorry for you, resorting to conjecture and all


Do you know what conjecture means?



1. Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
2. A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork: The commentators made various conjectures about the outcome of the next election.
www.dictionary.com...


Of course acting like 'explosives were used and that's final' doesn't come under that does it?

Now lets look at a hypothesis:



1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.


I think that's a more descriptive word for what I said.


If you ever need to know anything by the way, just drop me a U2U - I'm here to help


[edit on 21-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Molten aluminum (probably from the aircraft) flowing out of the building shortly before the collapse.






posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Lance does have a point here Smith. But, on the other side, there is not any evidence (unless you take into account the loss of momentum, loss of angular moment, the near free fall rate, the eyewitness accounts of explosions etc.) for the explosives theory either.


Of course. All those things and a few more excepted, no evidence. So in other words there is evidence. Granted, there's no direct, conclusive evidence of any particular type of explosives. I would cite squibs but of course those aligning with the official story have already tuned that one out, making a ridiculous assumption in that the buildings were airtight and that therefore air must have accumulated and blown out a totally random section of perimeter column, some random number of floors down.

All of those things you mention though, MacMerdin, are evidence of additional sources of energy. We all know that momentum does not remain constant in the collapsing of a tower when so much energy is required to destroy the tower in the first place, and in the second place the driving mass is utterly destroyed in the process and ejected outwards and away.

It's but a small step from looking at the evidence of additional sources of energy, to determine that the additional sources would've been explosive charges in all likelihood. I mean for a thinking person, anyway, and not the kind of people on here that think that self-compressing air flies down floors with speed above and beyond the collapse itself and blows out random chunks of perimeter and all that crap.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Hazardous materials at WTC
over 1500 compressed gas cylinders recovered.

www.osha.gov...

The parking garage under the WTC held nearly
2,000 automobiles, each tank holding an estimated
five gallons of gasoline. When recovery workers
reached the cars, they found that some had
exploded and burned while others remained intact.



Another danger involved the high temperature of
twisted steel pulled from the rubble. Underground
fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees.
As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the
pile, safety experts worried about the effects of
the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the
hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they
were concerned that applying water to cool the
steel could cause a steam explosion that would
propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special
expertise was needed. OSHA called in structural
engineers from its national office to assess the
situation. They recommended a special handling
procedure, including the use of specialized rigging
and instruments to reduce the hazards.



Structure fires can and do burn that hot.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
It is definetly not molten steel. No excavator buckets can withstand molten steel. Molten aluminum yes, molten steel no. You cannot use a steel object to pick up molten steel.


Oh, I bet you could do it. Might not be safe for the equipment, though...


Originally posted by HowardRoark

As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the
pile, safety experts worried about the effects of
the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the
hazards of contact with the hot steel
.


www.osha.gov...

Osha.gov, is it? The gov apparently confirms extremely hot steel in the debris, to the point of having potential to damage the equipment there, and thanks for that, Howard, but how does it prove that the heat was caused by the pre-collapse fires?


Originally posted by LeftBehind
Another interesting thing about this photo, is that the metal pictured is described as molten. Yet it is obviously not a liquid


Look at the stuff coming off of the metal, LB. I'll admit that I don't know how to prove whether or not that is steel or aluminum in that particular picture, but there does look to be some stuff coming off of the metal, like dripping. The same dripping portions are also very, very light in color, and were no doubt very bright as well, indicative of a very high temperature.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Did you bother reading my posts that touch on the circumstances that could contribute towards high temperature underground fires, as well as the posts relating to the short amount of time that it would take for even Uranium based thermites to cool?
Given free reign of your explosive theories, how exactly to you explain the consistant and long periods of time in which there were high temperature being recorded? How does using ANY type of explosive explain how even hot aluminium would be recovered some time later?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join