Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11 conspiracies are nonsense

page: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   


Wrong. And deflective.


Well I meant that its wrong and deflective.
I tried to point out in a previous post that if heat can't escape via conduction, convection or radiation, that higher temps can be produced.

An example might be a blacksmiths forge.
In times past using no more for fuel than hardwood charcoal or coal of which each piece has a limited amount of energy temps high enough to "melt" steel are easily produced even though each of the individual pieces could never achieve that high a temp.




The claim seems to be that that fires and other forces were not enough to cause failure.


This seems clear enough.
Is the claim that fires were the only forces working on the structure? If not, which others do you accept? Please name them for clarities sake.


Wrong. And deflective.




posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty

Originally posted by reallynobody
Heat goes through steel dude, steel conduces heat. The bottom half was just as heated as the top.


Is this a serious conclusion you have come to or just a flippant comment that you'd like to reconsider? Are you implying the whole building was heated to the point of collapse?


Ehm no, I did not meant to say that the temperature reached the same levels everywhere, I meant to say that it got heated BOTH at the level of the fire and further away of it. The beams would have been less capable of bearing weight both near the fire and below it.

A sudden increase of weight on any level, caused by the collapse of a higher floor, would be enough to cause the collapse of the level below that. Even if that beam wasn't as weakened as the ones nearer to the fire, it still wasn't designed to hold the combined weight of multiple floors crashing down all of a sudden. And the weight increased as the collapse progressed.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

First law of thermodynamics:


The increase in the energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.



See now, that is an incomplete formulation. I altered it in the wikipedia to:

The increase in the energy of a system is equal to the total amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.

Hopefully you now understand the process.

Also don't forget to read my other replies on the previous page.


Important Topic Updates

Oh I just found this lovely little excerpt about how forest fires get started.

"Litter surfaces composed of dry leaves, needles, and grass have low heat capacities, and as mentioned above, are also poor heat conductors. For these two reasons, direct solar radiation often heats litter surfaces to temperatures far above temperatures of overlying air without heating the soil below."
www.wildrockies.org...

In other words, if a material is isolated, let's say... because of concrete casings and heat isolation foam, it can get to temperature higher than the environment.

[edit on 3-7-2006 by reallynobody] extra DIV



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   


So you agree with reallynobody, Vushta, that metal can be heated beyond the temperatures of the fire that's heating it?


Never said that and I don't believe reallynobody did either.




Funny thing is that I can say that most any steel on any given floor lost about 1% integrity from fire, and I would have more physical evidence going for my claim than either of the figures you reference here


How do you arrive at the 1%? What figures did I reference?--and would you provide provide this "more physical evidence than" ?



NIST only found two samples heated to 250 C.


---thats for the primeter columns or beams?
I think you're misunderstanding something. When the figure 250C is given for the samples, that doesn't mean that that is the HIGHEST temps that existed.. period--it is a scale that states the highest temps in those areas were measureable to at least 250C--



At 600 C you would have seen steel columns glowing red in broad daylight. How many did you see?


--you can see thru walls and smoke?..at any angle?




I don't think you even bothered to get a grasp on the post before responding.


uh-huh.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Ofcourse sometimes the truth is simpler than you think.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No molten steel among rubble of WTC afterall?



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody
it might just take a while for it to fail sufficiently enough to fail completely.


So a while to you is like 58 minutes, or however long it took for the first collapsing World Trade Center from impact to collapse.

If 15 minutes under the initial hydrocarbon fires wasn't enough to cause significant damage, but 45 latter minutes of smaller, inefficient fires were, especially considering the fires didn't out exceed 600, what's it to say. Look at BSB's post, is it irrelevant?

We're talking about significanty inefficient office fires had enough temperature to cause sigificant damage in the 58 minutes. It takes that long, even with sprinklers, "whatever fireproofing was left", concrete floors separating heat and the like, so many factors, that a fire that obviously had to be relatively hot on a global scale around the impact zone to cause sigificant damage to the trusses, to take down a skyscraper.

That's not anything any engineer or architec would be proud of.

We make stronger buildings than that.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody
Only if the system can give the energy of to it's environment. If you charge a battery, does the total amount of energy stored not exceed what you put in at any given time?


Your analogy would be more comparable to what you said before if you were trying to tell me that the voltage in any given part of the circuit could be in excess of the maximum amount of voltage the battery could exert, just because the battery has been running for a long time.


My favourite example is the car in the sun.


You would understand that this isn't a legitimate analogy either if you knew the difference between heat and temperature.

A car heats up because the air inside is held captive and heated to a temperature closer to the actual temperatures provided by the rays reaching the surface. The air outside would be heated just the same if it weren't for the fact that there were so much of it, and it moves upwards when heated.

There is no EXTRA energy, no matter how you look at it. It's just concentrated into a smaller space and can't escape and be replaced by cooler air.



The increase in the system energy is still almost equal to the input, but only if you take the time-factor into account.


Again. There is no way in hell a fire can heat a piece of metal to a higher temperature than the fire itself.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Claim 8) The passport was found, but he black box was destroyed???? Sorry, that ain’t happenin’




The black box was found at the Pentagon after the crash. They also found pieces of the plane with identifiable markings on them.

www.popularmechanics.com...


Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands,


Mod Edit: Fixed Link.



[edit on 3/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody
If the fire was on it's peak, the rate of damage inflicted on it may have been the highest, but it might simply not yet have been enough damage to cause it to collapse. Like the drop that causes the bucket to spil, even a cooler fire would be higher than what is good for the metal


>.<

Higher than good for the metal?

If you heat piece of metal to 600 degree and then apply a 400 degree flame to it, guess what's going to happen?

THE METAL'S GOING TO BEGIN COOLING TO BELOW 400 DEGREES.

Heating something isn't like simple addition. You don't just inflict damage upon the steel and it loses hit points or some bs like that. It's dynamic.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
I tried to point out in a previous post that if heat can't escape via conduction, convection or radiation, that higher temps can be produced.


Well you have your work cut out for you then. You have to prove that air was unable to escape from the Towers, and thus higher temperatures were reached. Good luck explaining how all that smoke managed to escape, too.



Originally posted by Vushta

So you agree with reallynobody, Vushta, that metal can be heated beyond the temperatures of the fire that's heating it?


Never said that and I don't believe reallynobody did either.


Then you must not be reading his posts. . . .


How do you arrive at the 1%?


Visual estimation of about how much integrity steel will lose at 250 C.



Source.

I hope you can read graphs well enough to match 250 C with the integrity loss it produces.



What figures did I reference?


60% and 90% integrity loss were suggested.


--and would you provide provide this "more physical evidence than" ?


NIST only found two steel samples heated to 250 C. They found no steel heated to any temperature beyond this, and further, there was no glowing or other indications of any steel ever being heated beyond this before collapses. Therefore I have infinitely more physical evidence going for me, since you have absolutely none to bolster your claims of heating to beyond 600 C.

Or are you going to post some?



---thats for the primeter columns or beams?


You mean perimeter columns or core columns?
They sampled both.


I think you're misunderstanding something. When the figure 250C is given for the samples, that doesn't mean that that is the HIGHEST temps that existed.. period--


You're right, but not for the reason you try to explain. There could've been material heated beyond 250 C, but NIST just wasn't able to find any. Therefore there's neither evidence for or against its existence.


it is a scale that states the highest temps in those areas were measureable to at least 250C--


No, you don't know what I'm talking about, and so have no idea what you're addressing. And yet you post anyway. Why?

This is the part of the NIST Report in question:


Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC.


From the NIST Report, pages 90 and (after the ellipsis) 140.

Like I said before, they didn't sample much, and therefore there could've been more heating, but there's no evidence for or against it. Again, no evidence. Only evidence of low temperatures.

What you were saying does not fit this part of the report at all.


--you can see thru walls and smoke?..at any angle?


The perimeter columns were on the exterior of the building. Aluminum panels were all that covered them, and they totally melt at around 660 C. And there were also totally exposed columns, and they also weren't glowing at all.

[edit on 3-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   


If 15 minutes under the initial hydrocarbon fires wasn't enough to cause significant damage, but 45 latter minutes of smaller, inefficient fires were, especially considering the fires didn't out exceed 600, what's it to say. Look at BSB's post, is it irrelevant?


What makes you say they didn't excede 600?



We're talking about significanty inefficient office fires had enough temperature to cause sigificant damage in the 58 minutes. I.


What are you basing that on?



that a fire that obviously had to be relatively hot on a global scale around the impact zone to cause sigificant damage to the trusses, to take down a skyscraper.


Aren't you leaving something out of the equation?..maybe something more damaging than the fires...something like...oh I don't know...a huge frickin' plane crashing into the structure at 500mph maybe?



That's not anything any engineer or architec would be proud of.


But they are proud of it. The structure performed above expectations.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   


You mean perimeter columns or core columns?
They sampled both.


Not really. I meant beams..as in floor beams. That is what failed.---well--I did kinda mean core columns too.






Well you have your work cut out for you then. You have to prove that air was unable to escape from the Towers, and thus higher temperatures were reached. Good luck explaining how all that smoke managed to escape, too.



Wrong.
It would depend on the rate of loss wouldn't it?
What does the smoke have to do with it?



Then you must not be reading his posts.


Maybe you're not understanding what hes getting at.



Visual estimation of about how much integrity steel will lose at 250 C.


Now THATS science---and I'm sure very accurate.



I hope you can read graphs well enough to match 250 C with the integrity loss it produces.



250C? What part are you talking about? I pointed out the the 250 reading in no way is meant to be proof that the temps were no higher than that.



60% and 90% integrity loss were suggested.


I stated this? Its possible, but I don't recall those numbers. Can you guide me to the post?



NIST only found two steel samples heated to 250 C. They found no steel heated to any temperature beyond this, and further, there was no glowing or other indications of any steel ever being heated beyond this before collapses. Therefore I have infinitely more physical evidence going for me, since you have absolutely none to bolster your claims of heating to beyond 600 C.


What part of the building is this referenced to? I claimed the temps were above 600?




Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC.





What you were saying does not fit this part of the report at all.


Well actually it does..but that would be another diversion and we've strayed WAY past the point.



The perimeter columns were on the exterior of the building. Aluminum panels were all that covered them, and they totally melt at around 660 C. And there were also totally exposed columns, and they also weren't glowing at all.


I meant the interior of the towers.
We're going tangental here.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
It would depend on the rate of loss wouldn't it?


Prove it however you'd like.


What does the smoke have to do with it?


Smoke is carried by air, you know.
If little air was escaping, little smoke would be escaping. I'll leave that to the photographs.



Maybe you're not understanding what hes getting at.


Ask him yourself.


250C? What part are you talking about? I pointed out the the 250 reading in no way is meant to be proof that the temps were no higher than that.


And I'm pointing out that this is nonetheless the only evidence we have. So what you're saying has none, and what I'm saying, has what little NIST would dish out for us.


I stated this? Its possible, but I don't recall those numbers. Can you guide me to the post?


You didn't say it, but I didn't say you did either. Reallynobody said it, I replied, and then you replied to me. That's how it became incorporated.


What part of the building is this referenced to? I claimed the temps were above 600?


All of it. They found NOTHING indicative of ANY part of the building being heated beyond 250 C. Read the sections of the NIST Report I cited for yourself. Check out around pages 90 and 140.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
If what you say is true Bsbray then why do they state repeatedly that the fires created temperatures well above 250C?

Are they confused? Or are you misrepresenting. their data.


wtc.nist.gov...

The hot smoke from the fires now filled nearly all the upper part of the tenant space on the impact floors. Aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of this upper layer were at about 500 °C, and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperatures reached 1000 °C. The aircraft fragments had broken through the core walls on the 94th through the 97th floors, and temperatures in the upper layers there were similar to those in the tenant spaces.







posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If what you say is true Bsbray then why do they state repeatedly that the fires created temperatures well above 250C?


Temperatures of fires and temperatures of steel are two different figures. Try to keep up. It's been about five years.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Very good Bsbray, they are two different things, but don't pretend that there's no relation.

Nice job at counting BTW.



Bare steel only takes 15 minutes of 500 degree heat to reach 500 degrees.

Fireproofed steel takes an hour to get there, but only takes a little over 35 minutes to get above 300.

That's right, I forgot some of you think steel has magical heat sink properties and is impossible to heat up.

[edit on 3-7-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar

We make stronger buildings than that.


I doubt it. There are lot´s of engineer talk on the web about it, and they conclude that if it was a modern building it wouldn´t even have leasted that long.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you heat piece of metal to 600 degree and then apply a 400 degree flame to it, guess what's going to happen?

THE METAL'S GOING TO BEGIN COOLING TO BELOW 400 DEGREES.

Heating something isn't like simple addition. You don't just inflict damage upon the steel and it loses hit points or some bs like that. It's dynamic.



Im SAYING that even a cooler fire would have prevented the steel from recuperating as quickly as it would without any fire present. DUH
And any moment longer that it takes for the steel to recuperate, which would already be deformed by the heating and the weight resting on it, is another moment where it can go wrong.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Vushta
I tried to point out in a previous post that if heat can't escape via conduction, convection or radiation, that higher temps can be produced.


Well you have your work cut out for you then. You have to prove that air was unable to escape from the Towers, and thus higher temperatures were reached. Good luck explaining how all that smoke managed to escape, too.


Originally posted by Vushta
Originally posted by bsbray11


Bull. Vushta is talking about isolated spots no the entire tower otherwize all teel would have melted and you ended up with a giant puddle of steel with some concrete in the middle.



How do you arrive at the 1%?


Visual estimation of about how much integrity steel will lose at 250 C.


What figures did I reference?


So why do all the experts say steel would have lost most of it´s integrity?!
Oh right I forgotall experts are all on the payrole of the illuminati. Good thing we have such a master of materials like you who can estimate how much a metal weakens by looking at a few pictures.



The perimeter columns were on the exterior of the building. Aluminum panels were all that covered them, and they totally melt at around 660 C. And there were also totally exposed columns, and they also weren't glowing at all.


And how exactly do the aluminum panels on the outside compare to the temperatures on the inside, where the actual fire was raging? Does the outside of a furnace melt together with the inside?



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If what you say is true Bsbray then why do they state repeatedly that the fires created temperatures well above 250C?


Temperatures of fires and temperatures of steel are two different figures. Try to keep up. It's been about five years.



Are you saying that the metal could reach temperatures higher than the fire it was exposed to?






top topics



 
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join