9/11 facts - weigh in - OS VS others

Originally posted by REMISNE
But i would be able to tell if they were legit from an officil report.

Please look at numbr 2 and 3 of the following NTSB handbook, you will see that part and serial numbers are required.

The link you posted refers to the flight recorder only. It obviously wouldn't refer to serial numbers of any other component of the plane, which IS what you were asking for, after all.

So I will ask again- if someone supplied you a serial number for, say, an power supply from the landing lights that had been found at the Pentagon site, would you have any use for it? The reason I ask is that components with serial numbers HAVE been found at the Pentagon site, and HAVE been traced to AA77. What references do you have that can prove this component is a fake?

Photos of electrical power supply for landing lights from AA77

Serial numbers would be completely meaningless to you even if they were released to you, so it seems to me you conspiracy people are simply grasping at any available straw that allows you to continue on with your conspiracy charade. It's already been shown that hordes of eyewitnesses did in fact see that a passenger jet hit the Pentagon, so insisting on serial numbers seems superfluous to me to begin with. It's akin to demanding to know the license plane number on the Kennedy limosine before you agree that Kennedy was shot in the head.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The link you posted refers to the flight recorder only.

Yes, that is what i was refering to.

The reason I ask is that components with serial numbers HAVE been found at the Pentagon site, and HAVE been traced to AA77.

Please show sources for these components and how they were matched to AA77..

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Sorry, Dave....you know I "love" most of your posts, forthright and honest and logical....and full of facts....except this time.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg

Not a critique, just an observation, and trying to keep the conversation about THINGS I KNOW in perspective.

Much "hay" is made, usually by the "TM", about images, and usually WRONG!!!!

It is important, for BOTH sides, to not fall into that 'trap'...n'est pas???

OK, boilerplate over....THAT image (above) is NOT of a 'landing light'.

For pilots, the phrase "Landing Lights" means something entirely different, so forgive me for being so specific.

The 'bronzed/anodized/aluminum' housing from that photo was a component from WITHIN the cabin of the Boeing 757.

I will daresay....it may have been a 'cover' for part of the "Emergency Lighting System" (ELS) mandated back since at least the 1960s, and updated over the decades, by FAA mandate, after NTSB accident report recommendations, POST accident investigation....(You all may see them NOW as "aisle path lights"....but even BEFORE that requirement, 'emergency lights' were required, and they are designed to be powered by a SEPERATE system, indepentent of any onboard electrical supply ECXEPT FOR their internal batteries....which are charged, normally, BY the internal airplane's electrical system, in normal operations...

See why this is so difficult to explain???

There is more....depending on the airplane, certain fixtures couild be REMOVED, and used as flashlights (torches for our UK and Aussioe members), to include the regular flashlights that are installed by EVDER FLIGHT ATTENDANT jumpseat location!!! (THOSE flashlights are NOT part of the 'ELS'...they are just a hold-over from regualtions enacted decades ago....

Too much information?

I should stop, now.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Sorry, Dave....you know I "love" most of your posts, forthright and honest and logical....and full of facts....except this time.

No need to apologize in the slightest. If I'm incorrect then simply explain why I'm incorrect. In fact I'm begging people to show why I'm correct, so that I won't post it again.

My point is that these people are insisting the gov't needs to release whatever serial numbers they've recovered, but even if they did, such information will be completely worthless to them. Besides, if they're in such hard core denial that they even think someone ran out and planted all this wreckage on the front lawn in broad daylight without anyone noticing, they're certainly going to think the serial numbers were all faked and/or planted too.

The reason why they're insisting on obtaining such esoteric information is obvious- it's simply a game to demand something they know can never be given to them, so that they can pretend being open minded and reasonable while at the same time continue to push their own political agenda. I know this becuase the last time I posted that photo, these conspriacy people turned around and began demanding to know the name of the photographer who took the photo. How on Earth is THAT going to be helpful?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Please show sources for these components and how they were matched to AA77..

(Sigh) all right, I will ask ONE MORE TIME...why are you so hard core single mindedly obsessed in groping for serial numbers on the wreckage when we know from hordes of eyewitnesses that, yes, it really was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon? At best, all you're going to prove is that it was one of the other hijacked flights that had hit the Pentagon rather than flight 77, and we both know that is NOT what your goal is.

This is the is pure evidence that can be held in court, but there is no use of taking this to court. There is no use of making another investigation.

It is time to take action!

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by shieldedwolf

It is time to take action!

What do you mean by, "take action", exactly?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

4) Melting temperature of steel building frame is around 3000 degrees but airplane fuel and building materials only reach around 1100 degrees.

from what I read is that a uniform steel temperature of approximately
570 ºC would result in column failure.
that the cover plate weld would begin to yield at a mean temperature of 490 °C with a 200 °C gradient across the section.
so pretty well it would have been hot enough to cause major stuctural damage at those temperatures reached.

reply to post by redgy


No it wouldn't.

You are not considering thermal energy transfer.

Air temperatures do not correlate to steel temperatures.

This is why I constantly ask OS supporters to explain how thermal energy transfer works, because there is a huge common misconception on how it works. Like a lot of the other physics involved here...

In tests it takes 8 hours for a room fire to reach 1260C, how did the air temps get hot enough to be able to transfer enough of that thermal energy to thousands of tons of steel, in an hour, to cause it to instantly and globally fail? I'd love for someone to demonstrate that for me in a lab, if you can't then your argument fails, as there is no precedence to support it. And you do realize if you don't have precedence then you have to prove it by showing it right?

[edit on 2/24/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK


You are assuming, of course, that all of the subject steel was separate from the heat source by air? What if the flame was in direct contact with the steel as with a torch?

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK you forget the fact that light steel trusses are VERY susceptable to heat and fires, and can easily and quickly collapse when exposed to high temps. I would reccomend reading a few firefighting journals and reports about light steel truss constructions and the dangers they are to firefighting efforts.

www.postandcourier.com...
www.cdc.gov...

www.houstontx.gov...

Steel Construction:

Building codes generally classify steel buildings as "unprotected noncombustible. A further classification is "protected noncombustible". In this case, major columns and beams are protected to some degree. The term noncombustible for steel buildings gives a false sense of security. Noncombustible buildings can be and have been destroyed by fire in contents. The following are some problems that steel, used in construction, gives firefighters:

Elongation can take place in a steel member at ordinary fire temperatures. Heated to 1,000 degrees , a steel member will expand 9 ½ inches in 100 feet of length.
Expanding steel exerts a lateral force against the structure which restrains it. If restrained, as by a masonry structure, and the temperature of the fire is sustained in the 1,000 degrees range, the expansion of the steel may cause the displacement of the masonry, resulting in a partial or total collapse.
When steel is raised to temperatures above 1,000 degrees, it starts to lose strength rapidly.
Steel tendons, used for tensioned concrete and for excavation tiebacks, cannot be depended on above 800 degrees. Elevator cables falls in the same temperature range. Connectors, such as nails, screws, gusset plates, lag bolts, threaded bolts, joist hangers, dog irons, rods, wire and cable, struts, and ties, are all made of steel, and in a given fire, the fire characteristics of the steel may be of much more importance than the characteristics of the wooden members. The heat being absorbed by unprotected structural steel or by the metal deck roof is very probably the most important heat to be removed by the fire suppression water. This may require violation of another unthinking slogan: "Never throw water into smoke." It is certainly justified to throw water where you cannot see the target if you know the target is unprotected steel. Many fire texts speak of causing steel to collapse by cooling it. The author for "Building construction for the fire service, second edition, states that this is simply not true. The author maintains the following is the case: If steel is elongated due to heat, and cooled with water, the steel will contract to its original shape. If the steel has started to fail and is cooled, the steel will remain in the shape it has assumed. Literally, it will be frozen. When fighting fires in steel structures, firefighters must keep alert for signs of overheated structural steel and potential collapse of building.

www.sbcindustry.com...


What were the floors made of? Light steel trusses. How were the floor trusses connected at each end? Four 5/8" bolts holding the top cord of the truss to the seat of the external/internal columns. The seats themselves were only a few inches in size. Thin. Small. Now tell me, how much heat can transfer from a 60ft - 100ft long light steel truss through four 5/8" bolts and the seats in which the trusses and bolts connected to? Are you starting to get the idea?

first of a fire does not need to melt metal to cause damage and second I think your wrong about how long it takes for temperatures to reach certain degrees of hotness.

ww.aisc.org...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
(Sigh) all right, I will ask ONE MORE TIME...why are you so hard core single mindedly obsessed in groping for serial numbers on the wreckage when we know from hordes of eyewitnesses that, yes, it really was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon?

Why is it so hard for you to post the evidence i ask for? If the offical story is true you shold have no problem posting real, physical evidence and official reports?

Weedwacker,

Since you believe in the official story so much (and being a pilot) maybe you can explain why the EPA blamed the radiation found at the WTC and Pentagon on Depleated Uranium when you and i both know the 757 and 767 do not carry DU?

My theory ... only a theory

Operation Failsafe:
Maybe the owners of the WTC Complex had a failsafe mechanism in
place should the need ever arise. The reason operation failsafe was
put into play was because if there ever was a future terrorist attack
on the WTC complex and the buildings were gonna fall, the owners
wanted to make sure the buildings would collapse into it's own
footprint instead of toppling over onto adjacent buildings like
dominoes and cause even more damage. The failsafe was to PROTECT
adjacent buildings and structures downtown Manhatten in case the
towers WERE to topple. When the terrorists slammed those planes
into the towers, that fuel ignited the failsafe and they used the
thermate already present against us. The fires caused the chain
reaction and the ignition of the failsafe. That's why they came down in
their own footprint. Yes they were control demolitions. But they were
there as a failsafe which the terrorist used against us. That's why the
thermate was there. THE OWNERS PUT IT THERE as a safeguard and
had no idea it would be used against us. That's why Silverstein said
"Pull It". He knew about operation failsafe. And he used the failsafe
on Bldg 7. That's how the thermate got into the building long before
the planes ever left the runways. Notice Bin Laden and Shiek
Mohammad both said they didn't expect the towers to fall. Maybe they
didn't. It might have been sheer LUCK that the terrorists ignited the
failsafe cuz they attacked it high up this time instead of the basement.
And nobody wants to admit putting operation failsafe into
play cuz it would make them an accessory to mass murder. Operation
failsafe must have been designed to use the thermate to bring the
bldgs down AFTER they had been evacuated. But the fires started the
failsafe BEFORE folks got out. Notice that Bldg 7 was evacuated
BEFORE it came down which is how the failsafe was designed
to work in both towers.

Do we even know how much anti-terror planning
and protocols are implemented in high security areas?
Every building I know has a fire exit strategy, a bomb threat
strategy, a tornado strategy, who says they can't have a failsafe in
the event of a terrorist attack which could do structural damage to a
building?

Maybe this was an counter-measure safety feature gone terribly
wrong or implemented prematurely due to uncontrollable fire.

We also do not know how old the thermate could have been or
how long it had been in place as a failsafe to safeguard surrounding
structures. It may have already been in place when Silverstein
got the lease. But I'm sure it was thought about intensely after
the first bombing in 93 just what damage could be done if the towers
toppled over from the bottom where the first blast occurred.

Just a theory folks

reply to post by redgy


Is that right...

The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.

www.doctorfire.com...

Not enough heat to transfer enough thermal energy to cause thousands of tons of steel to globally fail. Remember for the collapse to have been symmetrical and global there was NO resistance, which means all the steel would have had to fail, not just the floor joists at the point of fire.
If there was only the slightest resistance in the collapse it would not have been symmetrical. For your hypothesis to work all the floors had to have fallen onto lower floors with all 4 corners at the same time all the way through the collapse wave to get the result we see with all 3 buildings, symmetrical global collapse. No one side, or corner, lagged behind or fell faster than another, within seconds, throughout the collapse waves.

This is simply impossible from an uncontrolled chaotic event. You can argue that claim if you wish but it's an argument you simply can't win, you have no precedent to argue from and basic physics already proves you wrong.

All you have to support your argument is the claims of authority with a good motive to lie and confuse you.

reply to post by GenRadek


You can show me the temps steel fails at all day I KNOW, but it is irrelevant. You are just waving something around that you don't understand does not explain the problem. A big F.

First you have to show how, in an hour, those fires could transfer enough heat to the steel to cause it to lose any strength, let alone cause the whole building to dramatically fail. (pls see my last post for more detail)

Beams can bend and sag all day, it doesn't mean the whole building is going to collapse symmetrically and globally through the path of most resistance.

It doesn't work in the simple black and white way you seem to want to think it does. If it did then every steel building that ever had a fire would have been in danger of collapse, and the material would have been considered unsafe and something else would have been used. You seem to think engineers are stupid or something?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by GenRadek

You can show me the temps steel fails at all day I KNOW, but it is irrelevant. You are just waving something around that you don't understand does not explain the problem. A big F.

Translation: I am more than adequately equipped to ignore what I don't want to know.

First you have to show how, in an hour, those fires could transfer enough heat to the steel to cause it to lose any strength, let alone cause the whole building to dramatically fail. (pls see my last post for more detail)

So, in you world heat, regardless of intensity, has no effect on metal until 60 minutes has passed. Interesting.

Beams can bend and sag all day, it doesn't mean the whole building is going to collapse symmetrically and globally through the path of most resistance.

Please, please, tell me you have nothing to do with building construction or design in the real world, and if you do, please list the buildings you were involved with so I can stay the hell out of them.

It doesn't work in the simple black and white way you seem to want to think it does. If it did then every steel building that ever had a fire would have been in danger of collapse,

Every building that ever had a fire WAS in danger of collapse. Doesn't mean they will collapse but the danger is always there. Why do you think they cover steel structural elements with fire retardant?

and the material would have been considered unsafe and something else would have been used. You seem to think engineers are stupid or something?

It is not engineers that are stupid.

reply to post by hooper



if you are so confident , why don't accept his challenge and attempt to debunk him?