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: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

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


There IS a huge difference, and if anyone should know it, a structural engineer should, right?

Actually the study of steel's material properties most belongs to the field of metallurgy.




posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
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


Dude, I could have told you myself that there was no way office fires would ever melt steel.

Don't you remember all the old "conspiracy theories" that there's no way office fires can MELT structural steel? It's awfully easy to forget that kind of stuff now when you're suddenly (and bizarrely) on the other side of the argument, huh?



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by hooper
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


Dude, I could have told you myself that there was no way office fires would ever melt steel.

Don't you remember all the old "conspiracy theories" that there's no way office fires can MELT structural steel? It's awfully easy to forget that kind of stuff now when you're suddenly (and bizarrely) on the other side of the argument, huh?


Huh? No one but CT'ers ever argued that the steel melted. Just because you have a few ad hoc quotes from people with paper using the word melt (in one case less than a few hours after the buildings collapsed) means absolutuely nothing. And the fact that you are still representing the firestorms that rippped through those buildings as "office fires" proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you have little to no interest in the truth.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Huh? No one but CT'ers ever argued that the steel melted.


Man, you have some medical type tunnel vision.

I can even post SEs saying the same thing you attacked a poster for saying and you dismiss it saying that they meant other than what they said, it was just days after 9/11 so they must have been confused, etc.

Yet a layman member comes here and posts something about steel melting and you jump down his throat and try to make an example of him.

Just put the leash back on your dog for a second.


Just because you have a few ad hoc quotes from people with paper using the word melt (in one case less than a few hours after the buildings collapsed) means absolutuely nothing. And the fact that you are still representing the firestorms that rippped through those buildings as "office fires" proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you have little to no interest in the truth.


Firestorms, yeah.

So far I have only been posting facts. You're using sensationalist language and trying to split hairs between when an SE uses the word "melt" and when another guy comes on here using the same word. In the professional's case, it's completely forgiven and I'm attacked for even bringing it up to you, and in the other case, you jump down this poor guy's throat who's probably not even involved in any technical field to begin with.

I think the point is you must come here just to talk trash to people and get your rocks off that way, or else you wouldn't be making such a big deal out of this. It would be easy to say, okay, yeah, even professional SEs were confused and are obviously not the relevant experts when it comes to the material properties of steel, especially at different temperatures. That's what metallurgists study. But no, you can't have it that simple; you have to be the clear "winner" in this "debate" which means you (apparently?) have to defend the SEs in their mistake no matter what and continue to harass your "truthers."

Just stop for a minute before you post, take a break outside, and ask yourself why you are so damned polarized about this that two people can make the same mistake but you act completely differently (hypocritically) to them. It's obviously not because you have a logical case, because you're only making really weak excuses ('it was so soon after 9/11' -- excuse, not reason for the SEs being correct anyway, they obviously were not). Just stop trolling man. You must think you are not talking to real people or something. I can see right through your weak posts and see that you are just an extremely biased individual with no critical thinking going on for you except how to weasel your way out of today's "debate."

[edit on 5-1-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


First - office fires.

Second - it is one thing to make an honest mistake once and use the term "melt" but this "honest mistake" has been repeated 1000's of times over eight years in the dishonest hope of misleading people.

The persons you quoted using the term "melt" used it immeadiately after 9/11/2001. Conspiracist continued to abuse the term for almost a decade now. They only honest way to deal with it and all the other little semantic tricks is to immeadiately call them out, hence "office fires".

This little gem (office fires) is thrown around in hopes of misleading people into thinking there were only a few trash cans of paper involved in the conflagration and of course common sense dictates that a few trash cans of buring paper could never cause steel to "melt" so the only other rational conclusion must be that the WTC towers were purposely destroyed using pre-planted explosives or otherwise known as "CD".



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


There's a audio recording of a firefighter sayin they could "knock the fire down" with 2 lines .

I'll let you decide how big that fire was.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Sean48]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by bsbray11
 


First - office fires.


Right. The jet fuel burned off within about 15 minutes according to the NIST report and after then would have had to have been fueled by office materials, including papers, plastics, furniture, etc., and that this fire actually does produce the same amount of heat energy as a jet fuel fire burning in open atmosphere (ie not in a jet engine).


Second - it is one thing to make an honest mistake once and use the term "melt" but this "honest mistake" has been repeated 1000's of times over eight years in the dishonest hope of misleading people.


Just because you see one person here using the word "melted" in relation to what office fires do (or in this case don't) do to steel, doesn't mean everyone else who believes 9/11 was an inside job also believes fire could melt steel. In fact you would be pleased to find that most people here that you are arguing with don't believe that at all.


The persons you quoted using the term "melt" used it immeadiately after 9/11/2001. Conspiracist continued to abuse the term for almost a decade now. They only honest way to deal with it and all the other little semantic tricks is to immeadiately call them out, hence "office fires".



Description: NIST experiment to replicate an office fire in the World Trade Center.


patapsco.nist.gov...

Stop whining about the connotations you personally draw from the terminology.


This little gem (office fires) is thrown around in hopes of misleading people into thinking there were only a few trash cans of paper involved


Yeah, maybe it confuses you, not me. It means the fire was fed by the office materials. The stuff in the office was what was undergoing the energetic chemical reaction known as "fire." So they were office fires, just like all over major skyscraper fires. That's just what they tend to put in skyscrapers. It's not unusual.


in the conflagration and of course common sense dictates that a few trash cans of buring paper could never cause steel to "melt" so the only other rational conclusion must be that the WTC towers were purposely destroyed using pre-planted explosives or otherwise known as "CD".


This is a straw-man, a total mis-characterization of what I've posted and will continue to post.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48
reply to post by hooper
 


There's a audio recording of a firefighter sayin they could "knock the fire down" with 2 lines .

I'll let you decide how big that fire was.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Sean48]


Maybe I'll just look at the pictures and video. You know, the ones where the smoke can be seen for miles. From the office fires.

If the plane in question were just sitting on the tarmac somewhere burning do you think a firefighter could just "knock the fire down" with 2 lines?



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper


Maybe I'll just look at the pictures and video. You know, the ones where the smoke can be seen for miles. From the office fires.

If the plane in question were just sitting on the tarmac somewhere burning do you think a firefighter could just "knock the fire down" with 2 lines?


First off , Smoke is not fire.

Second , You or I didn't make the statement.

An experienced firefighter did .

Edit to add

the poor bugger didn't make it out , choose your words tactfully

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Sean48]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


And hooper will tell you that the firefighter who made that statement was referring to the fires only on one floor of a building. And I'm aware of that. But the fires were still not any worse than any other skyscraper fires, especially given that the Twin Towers had a more robust structural and more over-all steel supporting it (meaning more that would have to be heated up, ie more heat energy required) than many other extreme examples of steel skyscraper fires that resulted in no collapses.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


No, no - not skyscraper fires- they were just office fires. Just office fires.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


And finally, the firefighter in question was on the floor at the very bottom of the impact area. In other words, he was below the floors that were engulfed.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Sean48
 


And finally, the firefighter in question was on the floor at the very bottom of the impact area. In other words, he was below the floors that were engulfed.


Its late , Im tired . Going to "PULL a OS "


Prove it



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


Well its late here, and I'm tired as well (and basking in the Hawkeyes beating GT) so I will go ahead and just post a link for you to click on...

www.911myths.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

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


The equations involved to answer your question are so complex, with each answer being subject to a degree of error, that knowing the exact specs of the building would not enable an exact answer to your question. Only the actual event could do that.

Because of the high flexibility of the towers, a sudden impact would not cause a simple bend. Instead you'd have an indentation which rippled up and down the tower.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I already built a model to demonstrate the effect.

www.youtube.com...

The NIST has a graph of the oscillation of the south tower.

Skyscrapers must be designed to withstand the wind and distribution of mass and steel must be taken into account.

The idea that this is SO difficult with today's computing power and the decades of experience with skyscrapers is absurd. The BELIEF that an airliner could do this would be hilarious if so many schools weren't being so ridiculous.

The Purdue simulation doesn't have the core coulums moving.

MIT showed us this in 2002:

video.google.com...

The floor slabs could not drop in rectangular sections like that. They were poured to be one solid piece and the knucles of the trusses were imbedded into the concrete.

That wooden model is ridiculous too. The floor slabs were mounted to spandrels and even if a floor dropped there would still be spandrels all across the side of the building. And the core wold not let that twist occur either..

So MIT could not do this in EIGHT YEARS?

www.youtube.com...

After this much time a pretense must be maintained that this is complicated. The only alternative is looking really stupid. And people are supposed to pat $100,000+ for 4 years of education. LOL

psik



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by RipCurl
 

How did the firefightere break that 3'' thick glass?
OUTWARDS!!!!



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Hey all,actual blacksmith here.I know a bit about steel and fire,OK?Not everything.
There are various steels,with alloying elements,which effect hot and cold properties.I have a 'hack and snapper',for instance,used under a power hammer.This simple tool has two ends,both rather slender knives used to cut very hot steel.The steel I made it from is a special steel,very hard to forge itself,but maintains it's edge in very heavy duty use where it gets dull red hot being driven into white hot bars.I don't quench it to prevent embrittlement due to hardening.When it is past 1550*f,steel undergoes a phase shift where the carbon and iron and alloys go into solid state solution,the form is relatively rigid but the carbon is a form of gas within the body of the metal,either escaping from the surface or absorbing,depending on concentration of carbon in atmosphere surrounding.Like in a carefully sealed iron box filled with leather scraps,carbonized in the furnace.For HOURS per inch thickness.This is at heat treating temp's,not loosing much strength actually,but always remember steels are all different,some more susceptable to 'hot short',which is the purported loss in strength at elevated temp's,than others.It's complicated.

Now I will reveal a thing that seems to support the OFT,which is the 'blue brittle' phenom.Some steels are very weak at a very low temp,within a narrow range.This is caused by too much phosphorus in the alloy,lots of scrap is thrown into batches for cheap steel,rebar is notorious for seams and impurities,being made from crappy mtrl's and often exhibits this phenom.I think this is why all the fireproofing.But the beams in WTC are certified good steel,that's SOP.

I have used many fire sources from corn cobs to LP and believe me,when you want a hot fire,there are conditions to not only be met,but also MAINTAINED.Hence the original fireman,who could extinguish a fire,but that was secondary to maintaining the fire's fuel feed and air flow.Requiring constant attention to ensure correct fuel/air ratio,judging by flame color,sound and smoke.A hot fire makes little to no smoke.A smoky fire might even have the opposite effect to heating a huge mass of elements such as WTC as airflow will be induced by the upward draft and continue after the flames were out.Smoky fire,dull orange flame?Heating steel even to blue brittle state is highly doubtful for small sections like rebar,but impossible for anything over 3/4''

Final note is that a fire is a chemical reaction,an oxidation.Unless an oxygen source is feeding somehow,a fire will not have a hot,blue,flame within an orange ball of fire.The whole reaction zone is homogeneous.

So in summary,stating steel does this or that,without referencing what KIND of steel,it is fuzzy thinking and basically worthless except to gull the gullible.Shame on NITS and especially JOHN GROSS



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Sean48
 


Well its late here, and I'm tired as well (and basking in the Hawkeyes beating GT) so I will go ahead and just post a link for you to click on...

www.911myths.com...



Causing truthers to get their undies in knots since 2004


agenda, much? you might try hiding your intentions, to not look like a propaganda agent.

9/11 myths is crap, lke ALL the "debunking" websites. they base their "truth" on bold speculation sold as fact. luckily facts speak louder than BS.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by billybob
 


Not to mention those websites are ran by trolls from forums like JREF that have no credentials to speak of whatever.

If the official reports were so rock-solid you wouldn't need these websites, you could just post the evidence presented in these reports directly.

But there is no such evidence to speak of in those reports, which is why people have to pull out these joke sites to begin with.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join