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.

 

Fairbanks Video stabilized with horizontal charges.

page: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by 11 11
 





Yes, you are. As you do not understand the simple physics of "resistance".


Clearly.


By the way, somebody's understanding of something does not measure their bias or objectivity.




How about the THIRD possibility? The one that never crossed your mind because you are bias and objective.


I am biased and objective?





That possibility is the FACT that you didn't answer the question correctly. Nor did anything you say have anything to do with the resistance the undamaged building would have given the collapsing upper floors.


Simply because I didn't give the answer you wanted me to does not mean I answered incorrectly. I challenge you to ask any competent scientist and see if they agree with me or not.




Hmm thats funny, now you are ignoring my post huh? Go figure, maybe thats why I am giving you the "eye for an eye" treatment. Heck I recall you even using my evidence to support your non-evidence.


What? You're insane, how does me asking you to back up your assertions with science mean I'm ignoring your post? Doesn't it imply the exact opposite?




Its hard to believe this video evidence I posted earlyer starts with a great huge "8.4" on the front of it in the YouTube preview window.


I'm sorry to hear that, you have my condolences.




Everything you posted in that post is 100% correct, and it is knowledge I have known for YEARS. Now, what you are failing to do, is explain to us how the undamaged section of the WTC "got below equilibrium", and allowed the top section of the building to pass through it with zero "friction". Got it?

Maybe you need to read slower.


Maybe you need to read full stop. If you understood what I said in those posts, we wouldn't be having this argument.




Actually I have been ignoring most of what you have said because you haven't said anything important, or anything that has meaning. Everything you have ever said, I herd before.


Reality begs to differ. Perhaps you have heard everything I've said before, but you quite clearly don't understand it.




The value of my efforts to make you look wrong every post you make is enough.


Doesn't that require for you to be successful?




Actually, I make this world a living hell for anybody that isn't intelligent, because I have the power to show them their lack of intelligence. That's not an easy thing to do sometimes, its like trying to explain to a fish that it is not smart at all.


You keep telling your self that chump. Now I know you're deluded.




I find it funny that you link to other topics of mine. Especially a 9/11 topic with video evidence and research of a laser beam light. On top of that, you link to my thread that actually holds the key to The Secret of the Universe that was responsible for all of Nikola Tesla's inventions, including the particle beam. Its a proven fact that the entire universe is design with two basic forces. Attraction and Repulsion.


Ahahaha, this is quality, you're completely missing my point but you're doing a good job of proving it.





But, I only expect geniuses to find The Secret to the Universe. Einstein was searching, but never found it. Obviously, himselfe, will never find it.


So you're a genius?





p.s. I know the real reason why the us gov. executed 911. The answer lies in the obelisk's. I know why they did it, just foggy on exactly how.


Oh man, thanks for that, I was feeling quite depressed earlier, but your post has made my day.


Anybody want to be associated with this guy?




posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





You obviously don't understand what you are saying. An opposite force is anything in the way. You are talking nonsense. Just from this statement alone I can see you have no idea what you're talking about.


Simply because you have no idea what I'm talking about, does not mean I have no idea what I'm talking about.




The buildings top section had no where near the mass of the lower undamaged sections and it didn't get heavier or get 'extra' energy from anywhere.


If anybody ever needed proof that you have no idea what I'm talking about, you just gave it right there.




LOL you don't have to make that claim IT HAPPENED. The building fell at close to free-fall speed give a few seconds without any slowing down, so don't you think it's pretty obvious there was no resistance?


What is this "free-fall speed" you talk of?




No I'm claiming there was no resistance because there was none.
Jeez it's hard to debate with people who are so confused.


Oh sorry, I didn't realise we were on the 'defying the laws of physics' thing again.




What extra energy are you talking about? You are right that there was extra energy, the question we're asking is what was that extra energy?


Gravity + Object = Momentum & Kinetic energy. Did you even bother reading what I posted?




If you are claiming that the top had the 'extra' energy to pancake the building then that is nonsense. Where did that extra energy come from?


Why on earth do you keep going on about 'pancake'?




So what are you claiming?


That the mechanism of the collapse was not each floor progressively falling on to the floor below.




All I've seen from you so far is quotes from the NIST report.


Then clearly you didn't read the posts you were only just referring to.




They don't support the pancake theory but also they offer no alternative to that theory.


Yes they do.




LOL you can see the concrete and the steel being blown up and out. Where do you think all that concrete was coming from then?


Floor.




'Upwards? Magic' what was that comment about? It's obvious it's being blown upwards as you can clearly see that in the vids. Maybe you should watch some.


The dust is yes.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
Clearly.



When you copy and paste something, at least understand what you are copying and pasting.


Originally posted by himselfe
By the way, somebody's understanding of something does not measure their bias or objectivity.


Although, their LACK OF understanding can measure it quite well.



Originally posted by himselfe
Simply because I didn't give the answer you wanted me to does not mean I answered incorrectly. I challenge you to ask any competent scientist and see if they agree with me or not.


The answer I wanted you to give me was the correct one. B.T.W. ever herd of Prof. Steven Jones?




Originally posted by himselfe
What? You're insane, how does me asking you to back up your assertions with science mean I'm ignoring your post? Doesn't it imply the exact opposite?


Why would I need to back my assertions with science when I have video evidence of what happen on 911. How hard is it to time a building collapsing with a timer? Not hard at all is it.. straw man tactics 24/7 from you.




Originally posted by himselfe


Its hard to believe this video evidence I posted earlyer starts with a great huge "8.4" on the front of it in the YouTube preview window.


I'm sorry to hear that, you have my condolences.


WTH? Do you understand that you are making fun of yourself? You are asking for evidence, but you have already seen it. You even tried to use that evidence to support yourself. Thats how idiotic this entire moment right now is..




Originally posted by himselfe
Maybe you need to read full stop. If you understood what I said in those posts, we wouldn't be having this argument.


I think if YOU understood your own posts, we wouldn't be having this argument. How hard is it to see that the undamaged part of the building should have slowed down the damaged sections fall?


Originally posted by himselfe
Reality begs to differ. Perhaps you have heard everything I've said before, but you quite clearly don't understand it.


No, once again, I have heard everything you've said before, but YOU don't understand what you are saying.




Originally posted by himselfe


The value of my efforts to make you look wrong every post you make is enough.

Doesn't that require for you to be successful?


Hence the reason why I have been.




Originally posted by himselfe
You keep telling your self that chump. Now I know you're deluded.


Nope, I just know things common people don't.


Originally posted by himselfe
So you're a genius?



Yes, I know how everything in the entire universe works.


Originally posted by himselfe
Oh man, thanks for that, I was feeling quite depressed earlier, but your post has made my day.


Anybody want to be associated with this guy?


Someday when your soul is captured into the Earth via an obelisk's magnetic powers, for a sacrifice to the negative side of God, you might understand.



posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
Simply because you have no idea what I'm talking about, does not mean I have no idea what I'm talking about.


I have no idea what you're talking about because you are not making sense.



If anybody ever needed proof that you have no idea what I'm talking about, you just gave it right there.


LOL what can I say?...
Go check it out for yourself then.



What is this "free-fall speed" you talk of?


The buildings fell close to free fall speed, how can you argue they didn't?
Go time it for yourself. And I mean near free-fall, in other words a few seconds slower.



Oh sorry, I didn't realise we were on the 'defying the laws of physics' thing again.


Huh?



Gravity + Object = Momentum & Kinetic energy. Did you even bother reading what I posted?


LOL Sry but gravity doesn't have the energy to laterally eject pieces of the steel facade 600ft. Gravity doesn't have the energy to pull a building through itself. And what 'object' are you talking about. There is no 3rd party object, just the building. The top was NOT severed from the bottom if that's what you think.

Look at this pic, concrete exploding up and out and huge pieces of facade exploding out. Gravity doesn't have the energy to do this...





Why on earth do you keep going on about 'pancake'?

That the mechanism of the collapse was not each floor progressively falling on to the floor below.


So what was it then? If there were no explosives involved, what you are claiming as we've already pointed out is impossible.



The dust is yes.


What dust? That must have been a really dirty building...lol
It was concrete and furniture and bodies! All the concrete etc was turned to DUST. Again look at the damn pics it right in front of your nose.
And listen to the firefighters who talk about the concrete dust.

But even so you just finally admited the 'dust' was going up and out, which is all you need to know to realise that the squibs could not have been compressed air...


Thanx for playing...Now go do some real research you're getting boring...

[edit on 24/8/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by 11 11
 


ROFL


You are proving exactly what you know and understand, so there's nothing I need to add to that.





Yes, I know how everything in the entire universe works.


Quality
, I think that's going in my signature.




Someday when your soul is captured into the Earth via an obelisk's magnetic powers, for a sacrifice to the negative side of God, you might understand.


Well here's to that day then eh?



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 





I have no idea what you're talking about because you are not making sense.


I realise that now, it's just that anybody with a competent understanding of even basic science would understand what I'm saying. I challenge you to find any competent scientist that disagrees with me.




The buildings fell close to free fall speed, how can you argue they didn't?
Go time it for yourself. And I mean near free-fall, in other words a few seconds slower.


I think you missed the question, I meant what is "free-fall speed"? I mean literally.




LOL Sry but gravity doesn't have the energy to laterally eject pieces of the steel facade 600ft.


No, kinetic energy does that.




Gravity doesn't have the energy to pull a building through itself.


When structural failure is involved, yes it does.




And what 'object' are you talking about. There is no 3rd party object, just the building. The top was NOT severed from the bottom if that's what you think.


The object I'm talking about in relation to momentum (if that's what you're asking?) is the upper collapsing section of the building.




Look at this pic, concrete exploding up and out and huge pieces of facade exploding out. Gravity doesn't have the energy to do this...


Kinetic energy?




So what was it then? If there were no explosives involved, what you are claiming as we've already pointed out is impossible.


You can point something out as much as you like, without the science to back it up it's just an opinion. I have provided the science to back my assertions up, I realise that you don't understand this science but I have provided it nonetheless. How about you provide the science that proves me wrong?




What dust? That must have been a really dirty building...lol
It was concrete and furniture and bodies! All the concrete etc was turned to DUST. Again look at the damn pics it right in front of your nose.
And listen to the firefighters who talk about the concrete dust.







posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
In the tests you are referring to, did NIST reproduce the exact conditions of the fires in the two towers?


No. They tested the actual steel from the towers. I said to site that part because when you just site the ceiling temps. and not NIST's own testing of the actual steel, it kinda looks like you are being a little selective and bias in your delivery here. No offense ment.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 





No. They tested the actual steel from the towers. I said to site that part because when you just site the ceiling temps. and not NIST's own testing of the actual steel, it kinda looks like you are being a little selective and bias in your delivery here. No offense ment.


Well I would imagine for any test to be conclusive they would need to reproduce the exact conditions. I cite the bits about ceiling temps because they are most relevant to the points I am making. As I understand it, the upper air temperatures would be the most important factor in those fires because that is the greatest point of heat. If you disagree with what I am saying you are welcome to cite any part you want to try and disprove my point. Any test that does not subject something to the same conditions as a certain scenario is not an accurate measure of how something would perform under that given scenario. Perhaps you would care to cite your points and show us how it relates to the ceiling temperatures possible under the circumstances surrounding 9/11?



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
Well I would imagine for any test to be conclusive they would need to reproduce the exact conditions.


Reproduce what conditions? NIST tested the actually steel columns from 9/11. How hard is that to understand? How can they reproduce those tests? Have another 9/11 and test that steel?

As far as citing the NIST report, I'm not about to find the quote for you. It's been posted here plenty of times. They clearly state that the steel they tested did NOT reach temperatures over 650C. That is plain and simple.


I cite the bits about ceiling temps because they are most relevant to the points I am making.


Well, to be acurate, you would have to cite the portion of the NIST report where they actually tested the steel to see what temperatures they got to. You haven't as of yet and your responses tells me that you didn't know they did this.

The ceiling fire temperatures have nothing to do with how hot the steel became.

[edit on 8/24/2007 by Griff]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 





Reproduce what conditions? NIST tested the actually steel columns from 9/11. How hard is that to understand? How can they reproduce those tests? Have another 9/11 and test that steel?


The conditions that allowed the steel to get so hot.




As far as citing the NIST report, I'm not about to find the quote for you. It's been posted here plenty of times. They clearly state that the steel they tested did NOT reach temperatures over 650C. That is plain and simple.


You're the one going on about it, if you can't be bothered to cite the bits you're pandering on about, don't pander on about them. For the steel they tested to get to over 650c they would need to subject it to conditions that allowed it to get to over 650c.




Well, to be acurate, you would have to cite the portion of the NIST report where they actually tested the steel to see what temperatures they got to. You haven't as of yet and your responses tells me that you didn't know they did this.


I couldn't care less if they did it or not, you have yet to provide a citation of exactly what the test involved, and no, as far as I remember, nobody else has cited it either, although you're welcome to point to which post I missed if I have missed one. Was that test done to prove that steel softens at 1000c or was it a test to see how steel responds at lower temperatures?

Whether or not I know about all the tests NIST performed is inconsequential, my argument is not what NIST did, it's what their conclusions are and how science backs that up.



The ceiling fire temperatures have nothing to do with how hot the steel became.


What ceiling fire? I'm talking about the temperatures the upper air would reach in an intensive building fire.

I apologise for giving you credit. Since giving you the benefit of the doubt you have done nothing but pander on about moot points, and you have provided none of the research you offered to do. Given that you are still committing your efforts to nitpicking my points and arguing against me, rather than doing research and providing proof, I think you're objectivity is obvious. You seem a little offended by my stance, that's hardly indicative of neutrality.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by himselfe
 



How hard is this? The NIST tested the actual steel from the towers. How can they recreate that without another 9/11? I'll get back to your points in a sec.


NIST examined more than 170 areas on the steel recovered from the Twin Towers for evidence of fire exposure (NCSTAR 1-3, p. xli). Only three of these 170 locations indicated temperatures above 250 C, and according to NIST, one of these three locations appeared to have experienced temperatures above 250 C after the collapse. According to NIST (wtc.nist.gov...), the steel was selected specifically from the areas that experienced fire and impact damage, included all 14 grades of steel used for the exterior columns and two grades of steel used for 99% of the core columns, and was adequate for estimating the maximum temperature reached by the steel.


Here is what I'm talking about. Instead of jumping down someone's throat who disagrees with you, why not edumacate yourself?



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by himselfe
For the steel they tested to get to over 650c they would need to subject it to conditions that allowed it to get to over 650c.


And the fires in the towers weren't it.




Was that test done to prove that steel softens at 1000c or was it a test to see how steel responds at lower temperatures?


No. These tests were done to find out the temperatures the steel got to.


my argument is not what NIST did, it's what their conclusions are and how science backs that up.


Your argument is moot because NIST's own studies into the temperatures that the steel got to contradict their own conclusions. How is that scientific?




The ceiling fire temperatures have nothing to do with how hot the steel became.


What ceiling fire? I'm talking about the temperatures the upper air would reach in an intensive building fire.


Re-read what I said. The ceiling fire temps. Not the ceiling fires. Reading comprehension would be key.


I apologise for giving you credit.


And I appologize for giving you credit when you can't even understand a simple sentence.


Since giving you the benefit of the doubt you have done nothing but pander on about moot points, and you have provided none of the research you offered to do.


Moot point that the steel didn't reach the temperatures that they quote for the fire? Care to tell me the difference between heat and temperature. Not a wikipedia link. Your own words. Thanks.


Given that you are still committing your efforts to nitpicking my points and arguing against me, rather than doing research and providing proof, I think you're objectivity is obvious. You seem a little offended by my stance, that's hardly indicative of neutrality.


No. I'm a little offended when people come in here and spew wrong ideas produced from mis-happened reports and act like they know everything more than others when they themselves don't even know what they have cited.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by himselfe
 



How hard is this? The NIST tested the actual steel from the towers. How can they recreate that without another 9/11? I'll get back to your points in a sec.


NIST examined more than 170 areas on the steel recovered from the Twin Towers for evidence of fire exposure (NCSTAR 1-3, p. xli). Only three of these 170 locations indicated temperatures above 250 C, and according to NIST, one of these three locations appeared to have experienced temperatures above 250 C after the collapse. According to NIST (wtc.nist.gov...), the steel was selected specifically from the areas that experienced fire and impact damage, included all 14 grades of steel used for the exterior columns and two grades of steel used for 99% of the core columns, and was adequate for estimating the maximum temperature reached by the steel.


Here is what I'm talking about. Instead of jumping down someone's throat who disagrees with you, why not edumacate yourself?


Now that wasn't hard was it? Although perhaps you'd care to link to the sources of your citation?

After searching for your text, I found the following section on page 43 of [url=http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf]this _/url]:



E.3.6 Fire Exposure and Temperatures Reached by the Steel

The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed to pre-collapse fires.

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached and it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the recovered perimeter column panels; 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:

  • WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,

  • WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,

  • WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

    Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse.

    Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show 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. Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.

    Perimeter columns exposed to fire had a greater tendency for local buckling of the inner web than those known to have no exposure. A similar correlation did not exist for weld failure.


  • Given the reference in your quote to "NCSTAR 1-3, p. xli", I assume that it is referring to the above section. Please not that due to the fact that I could not copy and paste from the pdf document, there may be grammatical inaccuracies in my reproduction, therefore I advise that you refer to the original document which I have linked to.

    NIST explains it pretty clearly so I have nothing to add to that.



    posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:36 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Griff
     


    I misinterpreted your original post thinking you meant that NIST had conducted some sort of additional test on steel involving an actual fire.

    It would have been much easier if you had simply cited the part you were referring to and avoided this whole tirade. However it is clear from your above quote and post that you (at least in some part) have either misinterpreted what NIST are saying or have not read the original document.

    To answer your question, heat is the energy transferred between two bodies due to their difference in temperature.

    I do not pretend to know everything about anything, however I do spend the time reading and understanding the things I cite. You hardly have the place to complain when you do little to expand on or prove your own assertions.



    posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 02:10 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by himselfe
    However it is clear from your above quote and post that you (at least in some part) have either misinterpreted what NIST are saying or have not read the original document.


    So, what do they mean then when they say "Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250C"? Thanks.

    How about: "These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600C for any significant time."? Thanks.

    How about: "Perimeter columns exposed to fire had a greater tendency for local buckling of the inner web than those known to have no exposure. A similar correlation did not exist for weld failure. "?


    I do not pretend to know everything about anything, however I do spend the time reading and understanding the things I cite. You hardly have the place to complain when you do little to expand on or prove your own assertions.


    Well, since you cite NIST and didn't know about this. I'd have to say, take your own advice.

    Can you tell me what I'm misinterpretting? Thanks.

    When I'm talking about you posting the AIR temperatures as being 1000C.


    Originally posted by himselfe
    Citation



    NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

    However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers.


    And then correlating it to this?


    Citation originally posted by bsbray11 here.



    However the behaviour remains stable until about 700°C when the first signs of runaway begin to appear.


    When I just showed you that even NIST's own analysis of the steel revealed that no steel got above 600C? Thanks.

    But, I'm sure you'll just come back with....you misunderstood.


    [edit on 8/24/2007 by Griff]



    posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 02:13 PM
    link   
    Also, can you explain this one?


    Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers.


    I'd like to see their thermodynamic calculations for that. Especially when steel is known to be a heat sink.



    posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 02:30 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Griff
     





    But, I'm sure you'll just come back with....you misunderstood.


    Clearly you have, or you are misrepresenting the facts for the purpose of your own agenda, so I'll highlight the relevant bits you missed:



    E.3.6 Fire Exposure and Temperatures Reached by the Steel

    The pre-collapse photographic analysis showed that 16 recovered exterior panels were exposed to fire prior to collapse of WTC 1. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were observed to have been directly exposed to pre-collapse fires.

    NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached and it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the recovered perimeter column panels; 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:

  • WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,

  • WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,

  • WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

    Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse.

    Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show 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. Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.

    Perimeter columns exposed to fire had a greater tendency for local buckling of the inner web than those known to have no exposure. A similar correlation did not exist for weld failure.



  • reply to post by Griff
     





    I'd like to see their thermodynamic calculations for that. Especially when steel is known to be a heat sink.


    You just answered your own question.



    posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 02:43 PM
    link   


    NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion.


    This here is why I will never believe a damn thing NIST says. They are basing their heat calculations on CRACKING PAINT. How stupid is that???? Do they think paint is only effected by the object it is painted on? Do they know there are 100000 different possibilities that could help crack paint?? Simply blaming all the cracked paint on "thermal expansion" is B.S.

    NIST developed a method....LOL! Let me develop my own method to help support MY claims.

    How anyone can even consider NIST a reliable source is beyond me. They even say themselves that most all of their calculations are based on photos and videos and interviews. Heck, anyone can guess what happened with pictures and videos and make some B.S. report and call it "official".



    posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 02:54 PM
    link   
    reply to post by 11 11
     


    Lets forget for a moment that you are a deranged and consider some facts:



    This here is why I will never believe a damn thing NIST says. They are basing their heat calculations on CRACKING PAINT. How stupid is that???? Do they think paint is only effected by the object it is painted on? Do they know there are 100000 different possibilities that could help crack paint?? Simply blaming all the cracked paint on "thermal expansion" is B.S.

    NIST developed a method....LOL! Let me develop my own method to help support MY claims.

    How anyone can even consider NIST a reliable source is beyond me. They even say themselves that most all of their calculations are based on photos and videos and interviews. Heck, anyone can guess what happened with pictures and videos and make some B.S. report and call it "official".


    You have yet to provide any scientific evidence that contradicts the established explanation. If you can, please do!

    EDIT: Also, while I make no implication as to the effectiveness of NIST's methods, can you propose an alternative method of measurement?

    [edit on 24-8-2007 by himselfe]

    Due to member demand, the 9/11 forum is now under close staff scrutiny.
    **POLICY STATEMENT FOR THE 9/11 FORUM: ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ**
    EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY... ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ

    [edit on 24/8/2007 by Umbrax]



    posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:01 PM
    link   
    reply to post by himselfe
     



    Name one thing I have misunderstood. You quoted NIST saying that the ceiling AIR temperatures were 1000C. Then in the same statement by NIST, they say that exposed steel would become the same as the air temperature.

    Then you quoted a source saying that runaway failures happen at 700C.

    I showed you were NIST said of the samples they analysed none were over 600C.

    Show me where I'm misinterpretting anything.

    I never said that the NIST analysis was a complete one. I'm not the one that stated that the air temperature was 1000C and then said that unprotected steel would reach this temp in the given time. Even though we know runaway type failures occur at 700C, how would they get higher if they fail out of the fire?

    That aside. I then told you to quote the part of NIST where they say their examples showed no exposure to those temps.

    Where is my logic flawed?

    Or could it be that you need to take a break and come back here with a clear head? No offense.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    15
    << 6  7  8    10  11 >>

    log in

    join