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.

 

"Screw Loose Change" video

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by diggs

Originally posted by Masisoar

Bingo, after the jet fuel pretty much was exhausted, there's not much else in the building that could cause an enriched flame hot enough to cause any major damage.

Does anybody know off-hand at what temp does skyscraper steel weakens at and how long it takes under that temp? What's it's melting point?

Also what did NTSB say how hot the fires were?

I doubt the fires were hot enough.


Ahem, from the PM that no one likes because it attacks with facts..



Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


There is also Penn and Teller's "BULL#" on 9/11, where they interview 2 fire fighters who state the same thing

[edit on 5-6-2006 by OneSidedCookie]




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by bsbray11


And this is all assuming that the fires were hot enough or lasted long enough to do any significant damage, which is another assumption than has never been justified with any conclusive evidence.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by bsbray11]


Bingo, after the jet fuel pretty much was exhausted, there's not much else in the building that could cause an enriched flame hot enough to cause any major damage.


Am I hearing this from a guy with education on fire, or someone talking out of his ass?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   
WOW COOKIE!

You have DEBUNKED EVERYTHING IN 48 HOURS!

I think you are Sparticus and had to come back with a new name after I owned you last week...

I will respond to all of your distorted facts and canned answer soon. I need to work for a few.




[Mod edit - quote removed. Please Review This Link.]

[edit on 5/6/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
Ahem, from the PM that no one likes because it attacks with facts..



Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


There is also Penn and Teller's "BULL#" on 9/11, where they interview 2 fire fighters who state the same thing

[edit on 5-6-2006 by OneSidedCookie]



Your precious PM article leaves out ONE GLARING PROBLEM...

Interconnected steel is a GIANT heatsink. The steel would have transmitted the heat. This would have NOT allowed any section to reach the temperatures you suggest.

In this house we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics.

Do you actually know anything about physics and material science or are you pretending?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I'm quoting the article. Unlike the CTs, I don't claim to be an expert on anything. But I'm hearing from guys who takes a #ing ASTROMY for buildings falling down than a structual engineer or fire fighters.

You have any proof of your claim? Any idiot can make statements.

Just noticed a huge glaring problem with your argument. IF fire cannot BRING down the towers, why do they need to heatsink it?

[edit on 5-6-2006 by OneSidedCookie]


[Mod edit - quote removed. Please Review This Link.]

[edit on 5/6/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie

I'm quoting the article. Unlike the CTs, I don't claim to be an expert on anything. But I'm hearing from guys who takes a #ing ASTROMY for buildings falling down than a structual engineer or fire fighters.

You have any proof of your claim? Any idiot can make statements.


Quoting an error does not make it correct... Nice logic.

Are you seriously asking me to prove the steel/iron distributes heat VERY well, that it is it is an excellent conductor of heat?

Are you asking me to prove there were over 308,000 tons of INTERCONNECTED steel in the WTC buildings?

Or, finally, are you asking me to prove the laws of heat transfer?

Please clarify and I will find you volumes of information on any of these indisputable facts.

Okay, prove it for yourself... Take a 3' long steel bar, place the end of it in a forge, wait five minutes and grab the end not in the forge... did you observe the third degree burns on your hands?


[edit on 5-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie
IF fire cannot BRING down the towers, why do they need to heatsink it?




I do not think I can even respond to this...

It is not planned as a heatsink, it just naturally is one.

What the heck are you talking about?


Introduction to Thermodynamics

colos1.fri.uni-lj.si... IALS/JAVA/THERMODYNAMICS/THERMO_UK/Thermo_index.html

If you look on that page you will see a link to ENTROPY... The single biggest PROOF that the offical collapse stories of 9/11 are a LIE!

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Steel is good at conducting heat, but how fast can it conduct heat?

Take a welding torch to the end of a piece of steel. The end will become exceedingly hot and glow, and at the other end it doesn't seem to visibly change.

I doubt a building with steel would work any differently. If it did, the piece of steel being welded would have it's temperature rise equally, which obviously does not happen - otherwise welding wouldn't work.

So I would say the steel at the location of the exploding plane would be much hotter than the steel halfway down.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Okay, prove it for yourself... Take a 3' long steel bar, place the end of it in a forge, wait five minutes and grab the end not in the forge... did you observe the third degree burns on your hands?
[edit on 5-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]


No, because I'd wear gloves. But anyway.

The piece of steel in your analogy is short - and you expose it to intense heat for five whole minutes. Comparing your situation to the world trade centres is inadequate. Get a twenty metre long piece of steel and give it a try instead.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Wouldn't each joint between the segments also hamper the heat conduct severly?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xar Ke Zeth
Steel is good at conducting heat, but how fast can it conduct heat?

Take a welding torch to the end of a piece of steel. The end will become exceedingly hot and glow, and at the other end it doesn't seem to visibly change.

I doubt a building with steel would work any differently. If it did, the piece of steel being welded would have it's temperature rise equally, which obviously does not happen - otherwise welding wouldn't work.

So I would say the steel at the location of the exploding plane would be much hotter than the steel halfway down.


You are correct to say that the steel would be hotter in a localized area, however, many of your other statements are misleading.

1. The planes did not burn like a "welding torch". There was not oxygen pumped in like you would have in a blast furnace or torch. The heat would not be as localized as you are inferring.

2. "Welding Torchs" create an extremely localized source of heat by design... kerosene fires do not.

3. I am not implying that the steel would evenly heat as that is impossible, I am stating that the heat would travel quite a distance ensuring that no piece of steel would be even close to the perceived or stated maximum temp. of the fire itself.

4. Remember how many insulators were involved to 1. protect localized areas and 2. ensure efficient heat transfer.

5. The heat of the steel is < the heat of the fire... guaranteed by the laws of thermodynamics.

6. If the building did not collapse at the max heating temp, the steel would have started to cool. This process would have actually started to INCREASE the strength of the steel.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
Wouldn't each joint between the segments also hamper the heat conduct severly?


The core colums were butted and welded so we can assume very little loss in crossing these connections.

The exterior colums would have conducted even better as they were an interconnected lattice of steel AND exposed to the outside moving air which would have cooled them.


[edit on 5-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Slap NutsYour precious PM article leaves out ONE GLARING PROBLEM...

Interconnected steel is a GIANT heatsink. The steel would have transmitted the heat. This would have NOT allowed any section to reach the temperatures you suggest.

In this house we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics.


There is one problem with your theory: you have no idea what you are talking about.

Steel has a low thermal conductivity (relative to other metals); it does not conduct heat instantly and homogeneously ... as you suggest with your paltry interpretation of physics.




posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
There is no need to compare the conductivity of steel with other metals. What purpose does it serve? Sure compared to gold, steel might suck and conducting heat, BUT compared to cement, gypsum and the rest of the materials present in the WTC it is a FANTASTIC conductor of heat.

Since the building did not collapse "instantly" the high speed of transfer you impose is also moot.

The point is simple, if the fires burned at a max. of 800 F localized, there is no way a the larger system (let's say an entire floor or two) got anywhere near that temp AND given the PM quotes, the steel could not have lost even 20% of it's strength. Since the buildings were triple redundant 20% should have caused no failures.

Are you implying that the interconnected steel would not "wick" a large percentage of the heat away from the mose affected areas?

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[Mod edit - quote removed. Please Review This Link.]



[edit on 5/6/2006 by Umbrax]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I think that some of you need to get a refund on your Thermodynamics classes and books. Heat transfer is a function of cross-sectional area. The whole idea behind the structural steel shapes is to maximize strength while lowering weight and the amount of raw materials needed. The I-beams and C-channels also have a larger surface area than rectangular bars. This increased area would allow for a rapid build-up of heat in the section of the beam exposed to the heat source, while the reduced area of the beam's cross-section would slow the transmission of that heat along the beam.

I'm getting sick and tired of people stating that no other steel structured buildings have collapsed from fire. Hasn't anyone looked at the design of the WTC towers? It is my understanding that they were unique. The vertical loads of the towers were designed to be carried by the center structure and the outer walls of the towers. This design was used to give the largest amount of unobstructed area for each floor. When the planes hit the towers it was possible to estimate the damage to the outer structure from the video and pictures that were taken, it was impossible though to estimate the damage to the inner structure. All the fire had to do was to weaken a few points in an already overstressed structure for a collapse to occur. Another thing to take into consideration was that the tower's structure was designed to take a static load, not a dynamic one. As the top sections of the tower started to fall they gathered a massive amount of kinetic energy which overloaded the structure beneath. As the collapse continued each floor gave way and added its mass to the load put on the next floor. Try a little experiment. Set a brick on a soda can with the brick's long axis in the vertical. The can will hold the brick with no problem. Pick the brick up 1 foot above the top of the can and drop it. What happens to the can?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I think that some of you need to get a refund on your Thermodynamics classes and books. Heat transfer is a function of cross-sectional area. The whole idea behind the structural steel shapes is to maximize strength while lowering weight and the amount of raw materials needed. The I-beams and C-channels also have a larger surface area than rectangular bars. This increased area would allow for a rapid build-up of heat in the section of the beam exposed to the heat source, while the reduced area of the beam's cross-section would slow the transmission of that heat along the beam.


1. The box colums were not C or I shaped. The walls of the columns were 2"-4" thick. This is a HUGE amount of mas to heat in order to "weaken". The cross section area is not small like you are making it out to be.

2. The exterior lattice is a heatsink of EPIC porportions.
a. Shaped like 'fins' in a radiator.
b. Exposed to air movement.
c. Connected in a mesh at many points.


Originally posted by JIMC5499
I'm getting sick and tired of people stating that no other steel structured buildings have collapsed from fire.


I never referenced that fact.


Originally posted by JIMC5499
... The vertical loads of the towers were designed to be carried by the center structure and the outer walls of the towers. ... All the fire had to do was to weaken a few points in an already overstressed structure for a collapse to occur.


Yes, an ASYMETRICAL collapse could have occured IF "a few" points were weakend, but NOT a TOTAL and SYMMETRICAL collapse... ENTROPY.


Originally posted by JIMC5499Another thing to take into consideration was that the tower's structure was designed to take a static load, not a dynamic one. As the top sections of the tower started to fall they gathered a massive amount of kinetic energy which overloaded the structure beneath.


At the collapse onset there would have been exactly ZERO kenetic energy. We would have observed and ACCELERATING collapse which we did not. The only way to generate this "instantaneous kenetic energy" would have been to... REMOVE THE RESISTANE quickly. Your scenario does not acomplish this.


Originally posted by JIMC5499 The can will hold the brick with no problem. Pick the brick up 1 foot above the top of the can and drop it. What happens to the can?


When did a mass ten times the weight of the tower fall on top of the tower from THREE TIMES ITS OWN HEIGHT as your example includes?

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by OneSidedCookie


You're a dumbass. The video already counters these stupid claims.


Hmm...and yet you haven't been warned? Seems to me that official story believers on this site get away with much more than the rest of us. What gives? Where's Mirthful Me when you need him?

On topic. I haven't watched either Loose Change or Screw Loose Change because I like to do my research myself and not listen to someone else's babble. That said, I'm going to go back to lurking.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Let us not forget that these fires were:

1. Hot enough to weaken steel 50%...

2. People were seen and photographed STANDING IN THE HOLE on these INFERNO, blast furnace like floors...

How could humans stand in an area you all claim was so hot?

I patiently await your baseless insults and charachter assassination attempts.

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
One-sided Cookie, I suggest the next time you want to argue your point using a link (as you attempted to do in anotherthread). Give us some of your insight into the matter with information based off the link, your words, your opinions.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   
By the way, the fire directly after the initial impact and explosion were oxygen starved, so don't anticipate a high intensity flame out of anything else in the building.

Also I'm curious, how did they acknowledge such pockets of fire hit 1832°F within the building?

But from this One-Sided Cookie, you're saying the initial explosion from the jet fuel, wasn't as intense as the burning of materials in the building after the jet fuel was spent?

Lemme get this straight, an oxygen starved fire, not enriched with jet fuel, fueled by office supplies and building materials burned hotter than a jet fuel enriched flame, for a good portion of an hour, to bring down the buildings?

Alright, I don't see something straight there, if a normal fire like that, was strong enough to bring down a skyscraper, then why the risk?

Oh wait, the flame retardant material was "Knocked Off". Wait.. how? Because of the "impact of the plane?".

(Quick side not, those two links you posted One-Sided Cookie, a page ago, conflict each other in that one says A) The plane struck with a larger force than the building was built for and one says B) the impact wasn't very overwhelming.)

Alright, back to the the flame retardant material being knocked off. How? All the material within the building, preventing fires just "dissappeared". Sprinkler systems (GONE). That oxygen starved flame was getting pretty strong.

I still don't understand how everything simulataneously buckled due to this "strong fire" around the impact zone.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join