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.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Not one of your witnesses is qualified to make the judgement you describe. I was hoping for some evidence. Bear in mind I'm only applying your standard.
Originally posted by Rigel Kent
In metallurgy, we heat steel to 650 degrees celcius for stress relieving purposes, at this temperature it does not fail structurally. you need to get above the upper critical temperature of carbon steel for it to become really malleable and that occurs at 950 C.
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
None of those would be accepted in a court of law as proof of CD.
Try again.
What do you mean by, "did not fail structurally"? MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar says that steel loses 50% of its strength at 650C (and he's only quoting the Natioanl Fire Protection Agency figures). Nowhere does he say it "failed structurally" or even "malleable".
For your test to be a one for one comparison to the events of the WTC, you will need to heat the steel to 650c-1000c (the estimated temperatures of the fires as per NIST), and they need to be heated UNEVENLY, as in one side of the steel hotter than the other side (to duplicate the random dispersal of the fires), while under a vertical stress load of 67000 tons (the estimated weight of the remaining building section above the plane impact area). If you haven't done this, then your test is an apples to oranges comparison and an invalid statement to be basing your judgement on.
Why don't the people that BELIEVE an airliner could do this want accurate data and just PROVE IT?
Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
None of those would be accepted in a court of law as proof of CD.
Try again.
Yes, the statements along with the evidence is enough to show reasonable doubt in the official story.
The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The thing is that when people start talking about these temperatures they hardly ever mention the CORE TEMPERATURE of the steel. If a piece of steel is 1 inch thick doesn't the temperature 1/2 inch below the surface have to rise to the specified temperature for it to weaken? But that brings up the subject of conduction. These columns were 36 feet long and connected to other columns by steel beams. So the heat would be spread around. So how did the CORE TEMPERATURES of enough columns rise enough to weaken IN LESS THAN TWO HOURS?
The south tower came down in less than ONE HOUR and the north tower in less than TWO HOURS. So this is not just about temperature it is about QUANTITY OF STEEL and conductivity. So why is this discussion going on and on and on without demands for the quantity of steel?
Originally posted by hooper
Those are great calcualtions!!
Now all I have to do is ignore the fact that not all the steel needed to fail in order to facilitate the collapse and pretend that there was nothing else in the buildings that could burn!
Mission accomplished!
Oh, and I love the little line in the calculations that tells you everyone else is lying.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
Whatever the quantity of steel was in the building or the amount of heat, the final calculation is equal to the amount required to cause what millions of people witnessed. The total catastrophic collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.
The end.
Originally posted by esdad71
We have evidence of planes and 3000 bodies.
There was a hole blown in the side of the Pentagon with another plane with parts that were recovered.
FDR from Flight 93. Where is reasonable doubt?
There is a paper trail going back more than 15 years to link the terror organizations that perpetrated 9/11.
Originally posted by REMISNE
There was a hole blown in the side of the Pentagon with another plane with parts that were recovered.
But what parts, what do they belong to?
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I think I can handle that question for you...here is an analysis by a group of aerospace engineers that show the wreckage did come from a Boeing 757.
Not that it matters, as so many eyewitnesses specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that struck the Pentagon that there is no more room for doubt and debate that it was in fact a passenger jet.
Originally posted by REMISNE
I do not see any real evidence. Still waiting.
So you also had people state that they did not know what hit the Pentagon, they were told later it was a 757.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Dude, you asked for evidence showign it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon and I have shown you a report by aerospace engineers that included photos of wreckage found at the Pentgon site, as well as their analysis that confirms the wreckage found at the site came from a 757.
If you're going to quote the crap those damned fool conspiracy web sites are feeding you then quote it correctly.
Originally posted by REMISNE
Sorry but the report is not actual evidence as stated, such as no serial numbers matching parts to the plane. Also the FBI and the NTSB are the only official investigating agencies for 9/11.
For one, i do not quote crap i quote the facts. You really should do better research.