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.

 

WTC construction manager speaks of the resilience of the twin towers

page: 24
16
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Lillydale

"Ventilated" or "Oxygen Rich?" There is a difference between feeding a fire oxygen and just blowing air past it, through it, whatever. Different type of building as well.


And despite your objections, fire engineers and fire fighters won't give your personal incredulity a second thought. Instead, they'll rely on this type of information.

Case in point - fire fighters will ventilate buildings that are on fire. Counterintuitive you might think, why would they give the smoke and oxygen poor heated air a way out, and let frsh air in. Wouldn't it increase the heat release rate? Yep. So why do they do it then? Cuz they know better and reject your wrong ideas.

Do you ever wonder why that is?

Or is that too scary to contemplate?


LOL, thanks for backing me up. There is a difference between ventilation and oxygen. The smoke shows oxygen starved fires. This means they were having trouble reaching max temp. Ventilating a burning building is a completely difference concept altogether. You will note that firefighters do not routinely open more airways for all types of fires but feel free to cling to any specifics you feel may somehow make a generalization true.

Ventilation does not necessarily equal oxygen. Two different things. Give up on that.

p.s. I did not make any objections. I asked you a question. I asked you a question that you still failed to answer. Well ventilated or Oxygen rich? There is a difference? Care to answer it this time? Check your source because I already have.

[edit on 1/27/10 by Lillydale]




posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
2- a falling object encountering some resistance, but less than required to arrest its momentum, will accelerate at less than freefall

3- a falling object encountering sufficent resistance to overcome its momentum will decelerate.?


I'm sorry but this proves your complete lack of physics knowledge that I just can't let go by.

2. You are talking about deceleration. "acceleration less than freefall" is by it's very definition deceleration.

3. You just said the same thing twice. An object encountering any resistance will decelerate.

I don't mean to be an ass but get it right please if you are going to chastise others.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

The smoke shows oxygen starved fires.



Are you absolutely sure of this?

It might be true, but is it right or is it wrong that petroleum based products, like carpeting, plastics, foams, etc, will produce copious amounts of black smoke if burned in the open?



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Well actually Nutter, he was right. Acceleration is the increase of velocity over time. The WTC collapse was accelerating, just not at the speed of free fall as so many claim. The debris that was already falling however WAS under freefall acceleration as it had practically zero resistance (not including the resistance of air). The building collapsing was also accelerating, just not at freefall speed.

deceleration is the decrease in velocity over time. And watching that collapse, it wasnt really slowing down.

en.wikipedia.org...


In physics, and more specifically kinematics, acceleration is the change in velocity over time.[1] Because velocity is a vector, it can change in two ways: a change in magnitude and/or a change in direction. In one dimension, i.e. a line, acceleration is the rate at which something speeds up or slows down. However, as a vector quantity, acceleration is also the rate at which direction changes.[2][3] Acceleration has the dimensions L T−2. In SI units, acceleration is measured in metres per second squared (m/s2).

In common speech, the term acceleration commonly is used for an increase in speed (the magnitude of velocity); a decrease in speed is called deceleration


Something can slowly accelerate, or rapidly accelerate. The WTC was slowly accelerating as it was collapsing downward.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Lillydale

The smoke shows oxygen starved fires.



Are you absolutely sure of this?

It might be true, but is it right or is it wrong that petroleum based products, like carpeting, plastics, foams, etc, will produce copious amounts of black smoke if burned in the open?


I asked you a specific question based on what you were trying to spread as some sort of fact when it was actually just another topic about a different building. You have failed twice now to answer my question. Thinking I will answer yours while you hide from mine is cute. Let me know how that works out for you.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


So is this tanker truck fire oxygen starved?





Sorry, but the WTC fires were not cool burning, or oxygen starved or anything. In fact, did you miss the big honking holes where the aircraft went through the building? Oxygen starved?



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Lillydale
 


So is this tanker truck fire oxygen starved?





Sorry, but the WTC fires were not cool burning, or oxygen starved or anything. In fact, did you miss the big honking holes where the aircraft went through the building? Oxygen starved?


Do you really need someone to say that not all fires are the same? Do you really need someone to explain there were no burning tanker trucks in the building that day? We can look at all kinds of fires and smoke that also DO NOT APPLY HERE. They were office fires but you seem to think I am insisting something when I was merely reminding it was put forward and then the attempted debunking was a complete distraction. Did you miss THE BIG HONKING HOLES IN THE LAST FEW EXCHANGES?

Since you claim to know...how hot exactly were those fires burning then and for how long?



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

I'm sorry but this proves your complete lack of physics knowledge that I just can't let go by.

2. You are talking about deceleration. "acceleration less than freefall" is by it's very definition deceleration.

3. You just said the same thing twice. An object encountering any resistance will decelerate.



No.

You appear to not have any physics knowledge either, so I'll try to explain it in terms that you hopefully will understand.

We'll use your car. And instead of gravity providing the force to move the object, it will be your engine.

1- freefall - your car can accelerate from 0-60 in 8 seconds. This is the baseline that we will use as zero resistance to its acceleration.

2-some resistance - now you hook a trailer to your car and go from 0-60 in 12 seconds. The engine is the same, right? It's producing the same power. But there is reduced acceleration. It's STILL accelerating - do you agree? But it is slower acceleration.

3- deceleration - you accelerate from 0-60 in 8 seconds - no trailer again - but while keeping you foot on the gas, you also stand on the brakes. The car quits accelerating, and slows down. This is deceleration. Same engine, same power. What causes it to decelerate? The brakes are strong enough to overcome the power of the engine.

I can't make it any simpler. If you fail to understand the difference between slower acceleration and deceleration, then there's zero hope for you.......



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Lillydale

The smoke shows oxygen starved fires.



Are you absolutely sure of this?

It might be true, but is it right or is it wrong that petroleum based products, like carpeting, plastics, foams, etc, will produce copious amounts of black smoke if burned in the open?


I asked you a specific question


Yep, you sure did.

And I asked you a question meant to make you think about what you believe, You avoided it. Fine by me.

So to your point, experts agree that the color of the smoke - black - is a useless way to evaluate the heat release rate inside the buildings.

Other than that I don't know what kind of an answer you're looking for. To put it simply, the smoke means nothing. It is irrelevant.

However, a poorly ventilated building will have its contents burn longer, and inside gets hotter. This is a fact.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 




Untrue. Anything that is falling under gravity is decelerating (unless in a vacuum of course). Even us. We are just decelerating at such a degree that we are still.

I am talking in physics terms, not the "common" use of the terms.

Use a vector sometime and see what I mean.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
But there is reduced acceleration. It's STILL accelerating - do you agree? But it is slower acceleration.


The very definition of "reduced acceleration" is deceleration - do you agree?



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Well hold on, looking at the WTC fires, I see lots and lots of black smoke. All the time. How are they "oxygen starved"? How can anyone say they are "oxygen starved" by just looking at the smoke?

Ok, here is a video of a large warehouse fire. Is it "oxygen starved"?



Is this tower under construction on fire "oxygen starved" as well?


Your very own sentence:

The smoke shows oxygen starved fires.

Did you not state this yourself? So you are stating that the according to smoke the fires were oxygen starved.
No burning tanker trucks? Did you miss the fueled aircraft that impacted it?


Ah now you are asking me how high the temps were? Well according to those that studied the fires, it was about 1800F maximum.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Wait wait wait.
Nutter, are you saying that if I drop a ball right now, its going to slow down and its not accelerating downward?? I hope not


[edit on 1/27/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
2- a falling object encountering some resistance, but less than required to arrest its momentum, will accelerate at less than freefall


This whole quote does not make any sense at all.

An object can not do both accelerate and encounter resistance.

The very definition of resistance proves I am correct.


A force that tends to oppose or retard motion.


dictionary.reference.com...

But, I remember our discusions about the definition of explosives so I doubt I'm going to get far.



[edit on 27-1-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
But there is reduced acceleration. It's STILL accelerating - do you agree? But it is slower acceleration.


The very definition of "reduced acceleration" is deceleration - do you agree?


Nope.

Reduced acceleration, when the force acting upon it remains the same, is accomplished by resistance greater than zero.

I find it sad that you are unable to grasp this.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Yep, you sure did.

And I asked you a question meant to make you think about what you believe, You avoided it. Fine by me.


LOL. Dude, you are not fooling anyone. Whoever the show is for, I am the one having this exchange. Do you think you are tricking me? I can just read the old posts. You ducked a question first. Until you answer it, you cannot call me out for anything. I never dodge a question but I will not play "nothing for tat" with you. If you want to dodge my question because you cannot answer it and then try and pretend me not answering you AFTER the fact is why, go for it. The only person you are fooling is you and anyone that only reads your posts. Have it your way. When I get my answer, you will get yours. Do not play kid games, I can just put you on ignore. Either you actually care and will answer my questions as you demand I do yours, or you are just here to cause trouble. Let me know so I can just put you on ignore if you are not really interested in an adult discussion.


[edit on 1/27/10 by Lillydale]



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter


The very definition of resistance proves I am correct.


A force that tends to oppose or retard motion.





Opposing motion does not mean that it will overcome the force acting upon an object.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Nutter
 


Wait wait wait.
Nutter, are you saying that if I drop a ball right now, its going to slow down and its not accelerating downward?? I hope not


[edit on 1/27/2010 by GenRadek]


That's not what I'm saying and you know it. The resistance of air decelerates the ball so that it is not at freefall acceleration.

Yes, in the common sense it is still accelerating because it is gaining speed versus time, but it is still also decelerating because of the air resistance.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Lillydale
 


Well hold on, looking at the WTC fires, I see lots and lots of black smoke. All the time. How are they "oxygen starved"? How can anyone say they are "oxygen starved" by just looking at the smoke?

Ok, here is a video of a large warehouse fire. Is it "oxygen starved"?


Did you not state this yourself? So you are stating that the according to smoke the fires were oxygen starved.
No burning tanker trucks? Did you miss the fueled aircraft that impacted it?


Ah now you are asking me how high the temps were? Well according to those that studied the fires, it was about 1800F maximum.



I am sorry I was not listening. What temperature did you say those fires were burning at again? I see you learned how to answer questions from Canoli. I will not play this game with you either. I am sick of you debunkers dodging questions and moving on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

I asked you a specific question too. Now you want me to just ignore the fact that you pretended I did not and answer to you? Who do you two think you are, anyway?

The more you people try to distract and derail, the more clearly I see what little you add to the discussion. Thank you for that.



posted on Jan, 27 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Nutter


The very definition of resistance proves I am correct.


A force that tends to oppose or retard motion.





Opposing motion does not mean that it will overcome the force acting upon an object.


The very fact it is opposing the motion means it is decelerating.




top topics



 
16
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join