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.

 

My beliefs have changed regarding 911

page: 22
15
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
To call the fires in the Twin Towers an 'open air fire' is not at all accurate.


An open air fire is any fire that is not in a closed sealed controlled situation. The amount of fuel and oxygen is not controlled and the fire cannot reach the max, as in the standard fire test. Fires temperature are not infinite, they have a max they reach, it is a known entity.

But even if the temps were maxed it's still not enough to cause thousands of tons of steel to fail.


BTW: Just what is jet fuel composed of? Any carbon in there? Yes, and hydrogen too!

A carbon fueled fire would be a fire fueled by carbon. Common carbon sources would be charcoal, coal, graphite and diamonds. Did they truck that stuff in there to fuel your carbon fire?


Semantics, I mean a simple room fire OK? Read it again as room fire.

And yes jet fuel burns cooler than a room fire will. Jet fuel is mostly kerosene, a type of diesel that ignites through compression rather than a spark.

The problem isn't the temperature of the fires, it's the ability of the fires to transfer it's heat to the steel. One hour is not long enough to cause steel to fail even if the fire temps were maxed.

Read this...
en.wikipedia.org...

Jet fuel max temp is around 800C...


Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. 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...

[edit on 6/24/2010 by ANOK]




posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

But even if the temps were maxed it's still not enough to cause thousands of tons of steel to fail.




Strawman.

NIST's explanation doesn't rely on heating the core steel all that much.

Just enough to cause high temp creep - 250C or so. And they have physical evidence of that.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc
 


To be honest, I have no clue. There will always be those who will not be satisfied with any answer an investigation turns up or the conclusion of such.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by ANOK

But even if the temps were maxed it's still not enough to cause thousands of tons of steel to fail.




Strawman.

NIST's explanation doesn't rely on heating the core steel all that much.

Just enough to cause high temp creep - 250C or so. And they have physical evidence of that.


Steel is not going to fail at 250C, nice try but huge fail. You are also once again failing to account for heat transfer, did ALL the steel get to 250C, even if it did do you really think it would create an instant global collapse? Even if the outside surface of columns reaching 250 it doesn't mean the whole piece of steel was that hot, the inside surfaces would be cooler than that because there was simply not enough time to transfer that heat to make columns heat up all the way through, there is not enough temperature in a room fire to transfer that quickly and efficiently. Too much steel not enough heat.

How hot does your oven get? It's not even made from construction steel, does it fail every time you use it. I can put my oven at 475(240) for hours.

You guys are reaching new heights in bullshiyte. Again joey you show your total lack of knowledge and I get accused of making things up...


Try again Joey, that's how many fails now? Are you learning anything yet, or are you just a troll here to argue with 'truthers' no matter what is said? I mean you come up with some new BS every time ignoring any points already covered.


[edit on 6/24/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
You say that WT7 had to be taken down due to safety. But how long does it normally take to demolish a building like that? I would say that it's impossible to do something like that on the same day of the attacks.

But I could be wrong, I'm no expert.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


The NIST report, if I remember correctly, made allowances for more than jet fuel. Jet fuel doesn't burn terribly hot, but it ignited alot of things that could have. Office furnature, computers, electrical equipment, ect. The question is, did anything in the building at the impact site have the potential to burn hot once ignited? Carpets, different types of plastics, metals, ect, all have different combustion points. Something that had the capability of burning hot could have been ignited by various means.

Still, the problem is the relatively short time frame of the burning. There was the impact and the added weight of the plane. It still does not seem like enough time needed to cause the sudden and total collapse that was so quick. One hour. The building was large, and there was alot of steel to transfer heat, and alot of floors beneath to slow any collapse.

It is not so much a matter of me being surprised that the buildings collapsed. They had taken heavy damage. It's the speed of the collapse that puzzles me, because I would have expected it to be slower, over several minutes or even hours, not seconds (whether at or over free fall speed is not the issue for me, even 17 seconds seems rather quick).



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Steel is not going to fail at 250C, nice try but huge fail.



You're right.

Aparently, only 150C would be necessary with the loads and time factored in.

www.civil.northwestern.edu...&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf

"But are high steel
temperatures really necessary to explain collapse?
Not really. The initial speculation that very high temperatures were necessary to explain
collapse must be now revised since tests revealed a strong temperature effect on the yield
strength of the steel used. The tests by NIST (2005, part NCSTAR 1-3D, p. 135, Fig. 6-6)
showed that, at temperatures 150C, 250C and 350C, the yield strength of the steel used
in the fire stories decreased by 12%, 19% and 25%, respectively. These reductions apply to
normal durations of laboratory strength tests (up to several minutes)."


Oops, it's starting to look bad for yet another truther.


"Since the thermally
activated decrease of yield stress is a time-dependent process, the yield strength decrease must
have been even greater for the heating durations in the towers, which were of the order of one
hour."


Oh noes, now it's getting all sciency and stuff. Definitely looking bad for Mr Unbacked Claims.


"These effects of heating are further documented by the recent fire tests of Zeng et al.
(2003), which showed that structural steel columns under a sustained load of 50% to 70% of
their cold strength collapse when heated to 250C."


There's the part I remember.


"Nevertheless, it can easily be explained that the stress in some surviving columns most likely
exceeded 88% of their cold strength 0. In that case, any steel temperature  150C sufficed to
trigger the viscoplastic buckling of columns (Baˇzant and Le 2008). This conclusion is further
supported by simple calculations showing that if, for instance, the column load is raised at
temperature 250C from 0.3Pt to 0.9Pt (where Pt = failure load = tangent modulus load), the
critical time of creep buckling (Baˇzant and Cedolin 2003, chapters 8 and 9) gets shortened
from 2400 hours to 1 hour (note that, in structural mechanics, the term ‘creep buckling’ or
‘viscoplastic buckling’ represents any time-dependent buckling; on the other hand, in materials
science, the term ‘creep’ is reserved for the time-dependent deformation at stresses < 0.50,
while the time-dependent deformation at stresses near 0 is called the ‘flow’; Frost and Ashby
1982)."


Wow, only 150C is needed.


"Therefore, to decide whether the gravity-driven progressive collapse is the correct explanation,
the temperature level alone is irrelevant (Baˇzant and Le 2008). It is meaningless and a
waste of time to argue about it without calculating the stresses in columns. For low stress,
high temperature is necessary to cause collapse, but for high enough stress, even a modestly
elevated temperature will cause it."


Modestly elevated temps is enough. Imagine that.


I suppose it would be a waste of time to ask for a scholarly paper that disputes this, right?


Oh well, your unbacked claims and sourceless statements obviously overrule any scholarly paper that agrees with reality, right?



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
i was feeling what you were saying, until you mentioned seeing pics of pentagon from unreleased and well should have copied it. like you said, most dramatic event, dont you think we deserve to see and not just take an authorities word?

how courteous



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


That is what is composed of a room fire, furniture, computers etc...

That is the fuel in a room fire, or office fire, so when the quote is for a typical room fire it includes those things, not an empty room, what would burn?

The temps are not going to get any hotter than the standard fire test, otherwise that test would be useless. You have to create the maximum result of what ever you are testing to get a useful result that can be confidently used in the real world. If real world fires got hotter than the test then a building designed behind that test would be useless and the whole process would be worthless.

Yes jet fuel would help ignite other fuel, furniture etc., I already covered that. We know the extent of the fires, there is no secret hidden fire somewhere caused by jet fuel that is not accounted for already. The fuel would not increase the temperatures of the fire above what we know the contents of a typical room fire to be according to the standard fire test.

People just assume because it's a fuel it must be super volatile, when with jet fuel the opposite is true, the gasoline you put in your car is far more volatile and burns at a far higher temperature. A Bic lighter burns hotter, a candle flame burns hotter...

[edit on 6/24/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


The part you remember?

You better fix your link to those tests....You expect me to trust your memory lol, I don't even trust your understanding of the subject in hand.



posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Oops.



heiwaco.tripod.com...

[edit on 24-6-2010 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Jun, 25 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


The temps are not going to get any hotter than the standard fire test, otherwise that test would be useless.

So in this test that you refer to, do they use an 80 foot stack above the room to create the kind of draft that would have been present at the WTC Twin Towers?


Yes jet fuel would help ignite other fuel, furniture etc., I already covered that. We know the extent of the fires, there is no secret hidden fire somewhere caused by jet fuel that is not accounted for already. The fuel would not increase the temperatures of the fire above what we know the contents of a typical room fire to be according to the standard fire test.

People just assume because it's a fuel it must be super volatile, when with jet fuel the opposite is true, the gasoline you put in your car is far more volatile and burns at a far higher temperature. A Bic lighter burns hotter, a candle flame burns hotter...

Give me a room, a steel beam, an eighty foot chimney and a big pool of DIESEL FUEL (less volatile than your jet fuel) and I can cause that beam to collapse under it's own weight in 45 minutes. Ever wonder how they make cast iron? The various components have to melt. Back in the iron age they used charcoal. Melting point???? Since cast iron approximates this composition, its melting point of 1,150 to 1,200 °C (2,102 to 2,192 °F) is about 300 °C (572 °F) lower than the melting point of pure iron. From here...

Now, how do they melt steel in order to cast and otherwise manufacture objects? Look on the internet and you will find sites that tell you how to melt steel with waste oil... much less volatile than even diesel fuel. Do you realize how much air is moved by a chimney that is eighty to one hundred feet tall?

Try this site:



Fire melts steel, that's how they make it.








[edit on 25-6-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

Your link is not leading to anything. Also, you cite government sources. Sure, lets have a bank investigate itself for fraud, that makes sense.... I glanced through after giving it several days. You are a disinfo agent, nothing more. "Official reports state fluoride is good for you in any quantity" so just go on drinking it, right? Government says it is, right? Fire makes just about ALL metals, but at what sustained temperature and in what controlled environment? Plenty of engineers disagree with NIST and other sources you cite. I can see corruption, and evil, but you insist on believing them over people who have nothing to gain financially from the lies. People who only want FREEDOM. Sad.

EDIT: Another example; a nuclear bomb can destroy an entire city (depending on size of city and yield of nuke). So, you'd argue if a firecracker were placed against a building, it would take out all beams, at the same time, then the city with it. "Smithing" which is what some friends I have do/have done, shows it takes extreme heat and then applied pressure to merely MOLD metals. People who worked in steel mills laugh at the "Fire makes it, so any fire can melt it" view. Duh, but like explosives; BIG difference in environment, application of heat, material limits, etc. You, JOEY, believe 50 pounds of TNT will be just as destructive as a nuke (ANY yield, lol) just because "Explosives destroy things, so it had to have been this." A candle fire can melt a steel beam, or iron beam, or ANY beam for that matter (other than wood or plastic) just like MOLTEN metal and basically human made molten lava metal can? Or, a candle (small/wax) will melt a beam just like the massive heat at a steel mill? Just sad, I am almost disgusted here.



[edit on 27-6-2010 by AdmiralX]

[edit on 27-6-2010 by AdmiralX]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdmiralX

Your link is not leading to anything.


Check the oops post.


Also, you cite government sources.



Plenty of engineers disagree with NIST and other sources you cite.


Yep. They're delusional and/or lying too.


I can see corruption, and evil,


You can see that from your basement?


EDIT: Another example; a nuclear bomb can destroy an entire city (depending on size of city and yield of nuke). So, you'd argue if a firecracker were placed against a building, it would take out all beams, at the same time, then the city with it. "Smithing" which is what some friends I have do/have done, shows it takes extreme heat and then applied pressure to merely MOLD metals. People who worked in steel mills laugh at the "Fire makes it, so any fire can melt it" view. Duh, but like explosives; BIG difference in environment, application of heat, material limits, etc. You, JOEY, believe 50 pounds of TNT will be just as destructive as a nuke (ANY yield, lol) just because "Explosives destroy things, so it had to have been this." A candle fire can melt a steel beam, or iron beam, or ANY beam for that matter (other than wood or plastic) just like MOLTEN metal and basically human made molten lava metal can? Or, a candle (small/wax) will melt a beam just like the massive heat at a steel mill? Just sad, I am almost disgusted here.



God, but it's funny when truthers go on a rant, and try to make a point and fail....



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


My son is not even two years old yet, but conversations with him are more intellectually stimulating than reading your MSNBC talking points. What I said makes perfect sense. You are using bank statements to prove the BANK did not commit fraud. If you look back at all of my posts, I KNOW for certain it was an inside job. Instead of names, places, etc; I stick to the visible evidence. These are people who whisper something to me then it comes true 10 months later. Some have done this since I was about 5 years old.

As such, I can browse media, and see which part they are in on (or aware of). Some out there give PARTS of truth, sometimes they get a little melodramatic. However, they are on the right track. I am not saying, "On 9/11, this is going to be carried out" then I did not warn people. NO, I would have. However, it all ties into meetings JFK had, and what happened to him. Also, I suggest you research the Federal Reserve, every "President" since JFK, then an Eisenhower speech. I could not get details, just the overall MACRO plan. Such as, "Rights will be attacked, income levels will fall, USA needs to go down, rest of the world needs to move up so they are on the same level." Like on TV, Obama said, "Move forward, lets not move backwards." That is like saying, "The car you were in was okay, needed some TWEAKING, however we flattened the wheels and want to move toward a Socialistic World Government now." That is what he is TRULY talking about. I'd watch him more closely also before you continue drinking his Koolaid, you conformist you
My own gut feeling sees the AC. He speaks, speaks well, but watch his ACTIONS. He, and those before him, have had a plan, and it is continuing. When you no longer can post the propaganda they feed you on here, and you are in a cage with the rest of us (or worse), you'll HOPEFULLY remember this post here and know it was wisdom being offered to you. Satan is not your friend, a FEW more things need to happen, but I am about 80% certain Obama is the AC. Or, the false prophet...time will tell....



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdmiralX

My son is not even two years old yet, but conversations with him are more intellectually stimulating than reading your MSNBC talking points. What I said makes perfect sense. You are using bank statements to prove the BANK did not commit fraud. If you look back at all of my posts, I KNOW for certain it was an inside job. Instead of names, places, etc; I stick to the visible evidence. These are people who whisper something to me then it comes true 10 months later. Some have done this since I was about 5 years old.

As such, I can browse media, and see which part they are in on (or aware of). Some out there give PARTS of truth, sometimes they get a little melodramatic. However, they are on the right track. I am not saying, "On 9/11, this is going to be carried out" then I did not warn people. NO, I would have. However, it all ties into meetings JFK had, and what happened to him. Also, I suggest you research the Federal Reserve, every "President" since JFK, then an Eisenhower speech. I could not get details, just the overall MACRO plan. Such as, "Rights will be attacked, income levels will fall, USA needs to go down, rest of the world needs to move up so they are on the same level." Like on TV, Obama said, "Move forward, lets not move backwards." That is like saying, "The car you were in was okay, needed some TWEAKING, however we flattened the wheels and want to move toward a Socialistic World Government now." That is what he is TRULY talking about. I'd watch him more closely also before you continue drinking his Koolaid, you conformist you
My own gut feeling sees the AC. He speaks, speaks well, but watch his ACTIONS. He, and those before him, have had a plan, and it is continuing. When you no longer can post the propaganda they feed you on here, and you are in a cage with the rest of us (or worse), you'll HOPEFULLY remember this post here and know it was wisdom being offered to you. Satan is not your friend, a FEW more things need to happen, but I am about 80% certain Obama is the AC. Or, the false prophet...time will tell....


God, but it's funny when truthers go on a rant, and try to make a point and fail....



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


There actually isn't much difference between the burn temps of gasoline and kerosene, so to speak. Far greater difference with diesel. Still, if they are using the type of jet fuel in airliners that we used in the military, the burn temp is around the same.

What the NIST report didn't clarify was what made the fires burn so hot. Open air fires have different burn temps, depending on what source of fuel they are using. Somethings can burn much hotter than the accelerant used. Magnesium, for starters, can ignite at aborund 500 F, or somewhere around there, and magnesium burns VERY hot. I am also wondering about electrical fires, and if any role was played there as well.

Again, I am wondering most about the collapse time.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Again, I am wondering most about the collapse time.




The speed of the collapse doesn't depend on the increasing strength of the columns as you go lower in the building.

Stuff falls onto horizontal structures. They're called floors. The only thing that matters is the strength of the floors and their connections to the columns.

In terms/scale that most people can understand, think of it like this:

Say you're building a table to use in your garage for.... doing whatever. The heaviest object that you can see working on will weigh.... 200 lbs.

So you use 2x4's for legs. You use 1/2" plywood for the top.

It supports 200 lb easily.

But then one day, one of these 200 lb objects you work on falls out of the rafters and onto the table. The plywood breaks and the object falls to the floor. The legs fall over cuz they no longer have the top to hold them aligned.

So, does it matter how strong the legs are, if the plywood broke? Would going to 4x4's help? 4x6's? Probably not, right?

What would happen if you made the top heavier. Say, 1" plywood? Or 2x12's? Maybe it wouldn't have collapsed, right?

And if on closer inspection, you see that the plywood didn't break. You just didn't nail it very good and pulled them out. Better connections might have prevented the collapse, right?


This is the nature of engineering problems.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


But it's not an entirely apt anaology. Mainly because the twin towers are nothing like a table. It's flawed the way Richard Gage's box-boy demonstration is also flawed. The design priciples are very different.

The towers did not have heavy things dropped down on top of them, they had big high speed objects flown into their sides, higher up in the structure. The lower parts of the structures were undamaged by the impact, beyond reports of cosmetic damage regarding broken windows and marble slabs, most likely a result of shock from the hit. But beyond that, their structural integrity was not affected by the hit.

When the damaged floors started collapsing, I can understand where the anaology might fit, regarding dropping a 200 pound object on a plywood table. Except there was bar more than a single floor and 4 columns holding it up. I'm not saying that it would have never collapsed. But I think that 50+ undamaged floors should have at least offered more resistance than they did, making the collapse slower and sloppier, in terms of falling.

Like I said, the speed of the collapse was alot quicker than what I would have expected. I don't care if it was 9 or 19 seconds, since I'm not placing any bets on controlled demolition theories or space beams or whatever. But NIST's report falls rather short for my liking on the matter.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

When the damaged floors started collapsing, I can understand where the anaology might fit, regarding dropping a 200 pound object on a plywood table. Except there was bar more than a single floor and 4 columns holding it up.


And I said I would explain it using objrcts we're all familiar with. Hence the table, with the point being, that objects fall on the floors(plywood) and so it matters not what the strength of the columns(legs) are, if the floors are overwhelmed.

Since you get this, then you can understand it.

It points out the red herring that truthers employ when thye keep making statements of how it should have fallen slower, yada yada.


But NIST's report falls rather short for my liking on the matter.


NIST goes into great detail about the initiating events. But nothing about the physics and engineering after that. This is true.

Look into some of Bazant's papers instead for explanations about collapse propagation.




top topics



 
15
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join