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.

 

9/11 Physics: THE Death Blow to the Official Fairy Tale

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by thomk
 



Your interpretation is completely wrong. The extreme over pressure is the RESULT of the explosion (and does the damage).



You’re wrong. Diesel fuel / jet blast / kerosene - all (i)about (/i) the same oil. Typical diesel piston engines have a compression ratio of around 20 to 1. Since you are clueless, if you have a 400cui piston V8 engine, each cylinder is 50 cui. To fire diesel, you need to produce a certain amount of heat and this comes from compressing the AIR in the cylinder to about 1/20 th. of it’s original state. This means compressing the air from 50 cui down to about 2.5cui in any given cylinder. That makes the heat. NEXT, the fuel is injected into the cylinder and the BURN begins. As the burning fuel/air, mixture expands, the resulting pressure acts to push “down” on the piston. This pushes on the connecting rod, which transmits the power to the crankshaft. The idea of exploding jet blast not under artificial pressure (over 14.--- to 1) is a joke. Gasoline vapor may explode if the conditions are just right but we used to bet quarters throwing lit matches into old mayo jars of pump gas with no explosions, few fires, and mostly extinguished matches.

The fuel in your kerosene heater, you know - the one in your living room, is about the same as jet blast and is about as dangerous. Without COMPRESSION, all you get is fire. Try pushing 10lbs thrust out of one of GE’s finest without the turbines/pumps/stators being A OK.

Time to go… Popeye’s on.




posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


I have a suggestion for you talk to a sword maker blacksmith etc. They can tell you how many swords snap in 2000 degree heat. You expect steel to act the same until the point it melts? well load capacity decreases and steel can literally shatter.Its nice that in your fair tale world steel maintains its tensile strength until it melts but reality says other wise.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 



I have a suggestion for you talk to a sword maker blacksmith etc. They can tell you how many swords snap in 2000 degree heat. You expect steel to act the same until the point it melts? well load capacity decreases and steel can literally shatter.Its nice that in your fair tale world steel maintains its tensile strength until it melts but reality says other wise.




When was the last time you saw a cast iron block / sleeve assembly melt under normal operating conditions? You’re continuing to mix apples and oranges which tells me enough about what you don’t know. Anyway, Wimpy only likes hamburgers, not fruit.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
I have a suggestion for you talk to a sword maker blacksmith etc. They can tell you how many swords snap in 2000 degree heat. You expect steel to act the same until the point it melts? well load capacity decreases and steel can literally shatter.


What on Earth are you rambling on about?


I could give a few different reasons why your post is totally irrelevant, but I'll just give this one:

Even according to the NIST report, strength loss due to heating has NOTHING to do with the collapse initiation or global collapse afterwards. It was another effect of heating that NIST blamed: displacement due to sagging, ie expansion/contraction of the trusses. There was way too much steel, and not nearly enough heat, to cause the columns themselves to fail due to strength loss. Even the government-appointed, out-sourced engineering team tells you as much. Those columns, especially the core columns, were utterly massive. No way in hell you are going to heat those significantly with open-atmosphere office fires. And there is no evidence of it, either, despite NIST looking hard for it in their debris collection.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
Explain multiple CREDBLE witnesses (sorry for Schoeder but he has some
problems and keeps changing story) reporting elevator doors blown off,
flames shooting out of elevators and people burned in lobby

I love how every witness, whether they are credible police and fire officials or not, all keep "changing their stories" when their accounts don't agree with the anti-truthers.

I assume you have some links to show how FDNY firefighter John Schroeder keeps "changing his story"?

As far as witness seeing people burned and elevator doors being blown, remember that Schroeder was at his fire house when the first plane hit. Then however long it took him to saddle up, travel to the WTC, enter and get his orders, THEN there was ANOTHER large explosion that caused the elevator doors to blow open and have people on fire. And this is well after the first plane, so your jet fuel theory on this point is automatically moot from a witness standpoint.

And don't forget, there were still continuous explosions even after that that caused Schroeder and his team to evacuate to a lobby that had been obliterated from the continued explosions. Must be the magical jet fuel exploding itself over and over again...






[edit on 8-12-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Let’s just face a few simple facts.

Skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. They must also sway in the wind. The people who design skyscrapers MUST figure out how much steel and how much concrete they are going to put on every level before they even dig the hole for the foundation.

After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTCs 1&2? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. So even if the planes did it that 10,000 page report is CRAP!

Conspiracies are irrelevant. The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools in the country.

Watch that Purdue simulation. If a 150 ton airliner crashes near the top of a skyscraper at 440 mph isn’t the building going to sway? Didn’t the survivors report the building “moving like a wave”? So why do the core columns in the Purdue video remain perfectly still as the plane comes in?

That is the trouble with computer simulations. If they are good, they are very good. But if they have a defect either accidental or deliberate they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure out the flaws.

The distributions of steel and concrete are going to affect the sway of a skyscraper whether it is from the wind or an airliner.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

How much does one complete floor assembly weigh?

You know those square donut floor slabs? They were 205 ft square with a rectangular hole for the core. There was a steel rebar mesh embedded in the concrete which was poured onto corrugated steel pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses. There has been talk about those things pancaking on each other for years.

But has anyone ever said what the whole thing weighed? Why haven't we seen that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS? The concrete alone is easy to compute, about 601 tons. But the concrete could not be separated from the entire assembly, the upper knuckles of the trusses were embedded into the concrete. So what did the whole thing weigh and why haven't the EXPERTS been mentioning that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So why hasn't Richard Gage and his buddies produced a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? How much computing power do they have now, compared to the early 1960s when the buildings were designed? I asked Gage about that in May of 2008 at Chicago Circle Campus and he got a surprised look on his face and gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. Gravity hasn't changed since the 1960s. They should be able to come up with some reasonable numbers.

psik



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Softened, melted. Whatever semantics. How would the entire structures have softened/melted, and so quickly, when the impacts would have affected only a few floors?

Where are there photos of anything more than a burned patch of grass at Shanksville, and anything resembling an entire plane at the Pentagon? Again, pixie dust, fairy tales.



Wow, for a guy wringing his hands about physics you take a pretty lax attitude when defining the state of matter. Maybe that is why you're sooooo upset about the seeming lack of physical credulity, you have no clue as to how the real world acts.



Melting is a process not a state of matter.

A stick of butter left out of the refrigerator and just beginning to soften is melted just as a stick of butter in a frying pan that is nearly liquid is melted.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTCs 1&2?


What would be the point of that?.......

So what did the whole thing weigh and why haven't the EXPERTS been mentioning that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS?

Because what would be the point? What would it prove?

Why havent the conspiracy theorists done it?



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTCs 1&2?


What would be the point of that?.......

Because what would be the point? What would it prove?

Why havent the conspiracy theorists done it?


DUH! What is physics?

The NIST had 3 years and $20,000,000 and produced 10,000 pages.

WHY AIN'T IT ALREADY THERE?

People that BELIEVE THINGS don't need to UNDERSTAND THINGS so they can BELIEVE complete nonsense without even knowing what questions to ask.

An airliner crashing into a skyscraper has to do two things, punch a hole doing structural damage and push the building off center which will start an oscillation which will damp out. The NCSTAR1 report has a very good graph of the oscillation of the south tower damping out over four minutes. The building deflected about 12 inches at the 70th floor which was 130 feet below where the plane hit. Curiously I don't see them doing an extrapolation of how far it had to deflect at the 81st floor. Possibly about 15 inches.

But if it deflected one foot 130 feet below where the plane hit it should have done the same thing above. That means a 260 foot section of the building moved horizontally in about one second. That would be 21 floor slabs at 600 tons each. But all of the pans and trusses had to move with that concrete. So the energy involved cannot be computed without knowing that weight. So how much of the planes kinetic energy did structural damage cannot be computed without knowing the distribution of mass that was deflected by the plane. So basically the NIST is either botching the whole thing by not collecting the data or they collected it and are not telling us.

Now why would they do that?

But all of you people that just want to trust in AUTHORITY and run around in circles screaming "CONSPIRACY THEORY" don't need to ask for obvious information.

Personally even if I believed a plane weighing less than 200 tons with 34 tons of kerosene could totally destroy a 400,000+ ton building in less than two hours I would expect to be given all of that information.

psik



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I assume you have some links to show how FDNY firefighter John Schroeder keeps "changing his story"?


Exactly. They are either changing their stories (in one case someone said Rodriguez changed his story simply because he used something like "big rumble" in one case and "deep boom" in another
) or suffering from a mental disorder... any and all kinds of complete nonsense. Never will they say, "Oh, you know what, that man has no reason to lie, maybe he is telling the truth."


As far as witness seeing people burned and elevator doors being blown


The elevators servicing the LOWER FLOORS were blown out, NOT the ones servicing the UPPER FLOORS where the impacts were!! If you don't believe me then look up NYPD Lt. William Walsh's testimony, he is very clear about this. His interviewer, a police officer himself, even asks Walsh if he is sure, and Walsh says yes, he is sure of what he saw and where the elevators he saw blown out were located in the lobby.

So anyone mentioning blown-out elevators is barking up the wrong tree because that evidence also contradicts their case when you actually read the witness testimonies.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The elevators servicing the LOWER FLOORS were blown out, NOT the ones servicing the UPPER FLOORS where the impacts were!! If you don't believe me then look up NYPD Lt. William Walsh's testimony, he is very clear about this. His interview, a police officer himself, even asks Walsh if he is sure, and Walsh says yes, he is sure of what he saw and where the elevators he saw blown out were located in the lobby.

So anyone mentioning blown-out elevators is barking up the wrong tree because that evidence also contradicts their case when you actually read the witness testimonies.

The above is especially pertinent in light of the live cell-phone testimony of the late James M. Gartenberg (located inside WTC1 at or near the 86th floor), who described the "core blown out" and "windows blown from the inside out". See this old thread (but beware the "noise" around page 1-2):

WTC Victim Gartenberg Live On ABC
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now especially when one considers the pressure-distance effects of High Explosives (HE) and the approximate 1/(radial distance)^3 "scaling" for a spherical blast [like many/most un"shaped" HE blasts naturally tend to be, and the "pressure scaling" is related to the 4/3*Pi()*R^3 volume of a sphere and from -dW= d(PV) ~= P dV + V dP, but that might be getting a little technical for our purposes here], the folly of the VERY THIN "elevator shaft" excuse becomes readily apparent.

As others have pointed out, the "blast" timing/velocity issues, heat content of a finite amount of Jet-A, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics all serve to further erode that tired, exceedingly weak OGCT "elevator" excuse.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by rhunter]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
First, the story has not and will not change ..I’m not a scientist, hell I even got a C in Science in High School.. But if the building was wired with explosives you would have figured they would be placed strategically to cut the steel and make the building fall the way it did.  Wouldn't this be noticeable in the clean up?? ? Another way would be for the heat from a 400mph plane crashing thru an immovable object.  That friction alone must have sparked the fuel and everything around it, like the carpet, drop ceiling, desks, paper towels, toilet paper, paintings, this stuff would make the fire burn hotter in my opinion. Parts of the plane must have landed over parts of the elevator shafts and dropped fuel down the shafts sending huge explosions down below... there are stories to back this up where people were burned in the sub-ground levels from explosions from the elevator shaft. By seeing the way the government reacted should be sign enough that they couldn't get their crap together in New Orleans either, then how and the hell could they mastermind a plot with literally thousands of participants. Impossible. We think to much of Georgie B. and his cast of merry friends. There are some good people in government, do you think for one second that this whole plan might have escaped someones ears and no one try to stop it? I live in Florida, these guys that flew some of the planes that crashed into the towers were drinking at bars that I had been too and live close to! Clearly if someone knew what they were conspiring at the time, someone would have tried to stop them. The FBI, CIA are no different at solving crimes then your local detectives are, and imagine how many unsolved cases they have... They are all human, none with super human powers as made to believe. On this day, the govt was one day late and a lot of lives short. We are not Vietnam, were are not Korea or Red China, we do not sacrifice our own for the advancement in war, just plain crazy.

Just my opinion,
Bud316



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
Softened, melted. Whatever semantics.


This goes right along with the quote from another post talking about "There's proof! I saw it somewhere on the Internet!"

This is a good one, though. Someone bringing "Physics" into the equation, striving to project an air of scientific acumen to this 8-year long discussion, and not caring about the difference between "softened" and "melted" with regards to construction steel.

Beautiful! Is there *really* any question why the Truther Movement is seen as a bunch of beclowned dweebs? I can see Paris Hilton saying "Melted....softened....what-EV-er!"



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by trebor451
 


You know a bunch of structural engineers also came out right after 9/11 saying the towers must have collapsed because the columns were melted by the fires.

A lot of the confusion probably stemmed from those "experts."



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by trebor451
 


You know a bunch of structural engineers also came out right after 9/11 saying the towers must have collapsed because the columns were melted by the fires.

A lot of the confusion probably stemmed from those "experts."


I don't know if that is true or not, I don't remember, however, I don't think it is relevant. I can see some engineers talking to the press and trying, in layman's terms, to explain why the building collapsed and using those simple terms. The difference is when an engineer produces a paper and puts his/her stamp on it. I don't think you will find the word melted.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nomad451
I promise you all that one day, if i ever become a multi-billionaire, I will buy some land and the original blue prints of both WTC towers, WTC 7, two Boeing jets (Were they 757's? I can't remember)...

I will hire builders and everything and everyone needed to completely re-build the towers, and remotely fly both airliners into the towers as accurately as possible to where they impacted on the towers on 9/11, with the same amount of jet fuel, and stand back and see what happens.

I would bet whatever remaining money I had left that the fires inside the towers would smolder until they went out, and you would all see two perfectly upright Twin Towers, un-collapsed, with a great big hole in each building.

I would also set fire to the same floors that were ignited in WTC 7 and I would also bet my money and my life that they would eventually extinguish and there would be NO COLLAPSE.

It will be the greatest experiment ever conducted



Nice post ! You could contact Larry Silverstien and ask him for the insurance money and DO IT ?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Softened, melted. Whatever semantics. How would the entire structures have softened/melted, and so quickly, when the impacts would have affected only a few floors?

Where are there photos of anything more than a burned patch of grass at Shanksville, and anything resembling an entire plane at the Pentagon? Again, pixie dust, fairy tales.



If you don't know the difference between softened and melted, then you have no business discussing the topic!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I don't know if that is true or not, I don't remember, however, I don't think it is relevant. I can see some engineers talking to the press and trying, in layman's terms, to explain why the building collapsed and using those simple terms. The difference is when an engineer produces a paper and puts his/her stamp on it. I don't think you will find the word melted.


So you are criticizing a laymen for saying melted but simultaneously don't mind a licensed professional saying the same thing?


Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building's steel supports. 3



Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire." 4


911research.wtc7.net...


"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.

"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."


news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by hooper
I don't know if that is true or not, I don't remember, however, I don't think it is relevant. I can see some engineers talking to the press and trying, in layman's terms, to explain why the building collapsed and using those simple terms. The difference is when an engineer produces a paper and puts his/her stamp on it. I don't think you will find the word melted.


So you are criticizing a laymen for saying melted but simultaneously don't mind a licensed professional saying the same thing?


Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building's steel supports. 3



Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire." 4


911research.wtc7.net...


"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.

"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."


news.bbc.co.uk...


Please show me where those engineers stated that there is no difference between something being softened and melted. That's the problem.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by hooper
I don't know if that is true or not, I don't remember, however, I don't think it is relevant. I can see some engineers talking to the press and trying, in layman's terms, to explain why the building collapsed and using those simple terms. The difference is when an engineer produces a paper and puts his/her stamp on it. I don't think you will find the word melted.


So you are criticizing a laymen for saying melted but simultaneously don't mind a licensed professional saying the same thing?


Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building's steel supports. 3



Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire." 4


911research.wtc7.net...


"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.

"The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."


news.bbc.co.uk...


Please show me where those engineers stated that there is no difference between something being softened and melted. That's the problem.


Also, I couldn't help but noticed that you didn't put any dates on those quotes. I believe they were all collected withing 72 hours of 9/11/01. And the engineers were right, steel does melt when exposed to sufficient heat over a long enough time. However, there was no way to know exactly what the conditions were when those gentlemen were interviewed. Please contact them again and ask them if

A) They think the steel melted
B) There is no difference between something being softened and something being melted.

Thank You for Your Attention



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join