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 Thermo Klein
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Thermo Klein
I have a pretty fair knowledge of science - if you mix FeS and FeO the S (sulfur) is used for gaining heat, the O (oxygen) is used for oxygenating the fire, and the iron is the fuel."
I provided the quick version of a reaction thinking you would understand what I meant - but since you think the rest of the world thinks my idea of a reaction is wrong, then you should know why I said it.
The heat, fuel, oxygen formula is standard... it's not MY idea against the rest of the world, you just haven't had hands on experience in the matter.
When you heat the explosive substance found in the world trade center dust (FeS + FeO), as I said before, the Sulfur is the heat, the iron is the fuel and explosivity, and the Oxygen is the oxygen. It takes about 420 C to get the reaction started, once the reaction begins it jumps to around 1600 C (if I recall correctly).
Originally posted by ANOK
Not sure if WTC 7 was like that but it doesn't matter if it was.
Are you talking about WTC 7 or the towers? Better check your info
WTC7 didn't have a core structure, it was a conventional building with columns throughout.
How does damage to one side of a building and sporadic fires cause a whole floor to be removed?
And how does removing a floor reduce the load capacity of a column
where did you get 9 times from, and what does IIRC mean?
I have better things to do than address every failure of yours to debunk anything I've said.
Originally posted by iamcpc
Originally posted by ANOK
.
Air is not always the path of least resistance if the object falling can overcome the resistance it meets.
So finally we agree! We finally agree
Originally posted by iamcpc
Originally posted by Doctor Smith
What you should be realizing and how scary it is for me that you haven't is the true facts.
The girl injured the trampoline so why didn't the whole trampoline collapse? It has a big gash in it but it is still standing. I bet you could set that trampoline on fire and the steel legs would still be there.
I'm not talking about fire, i'm talking about the path of least resistance.
It's a very simple thing. Object A (pick an object any object) falls with X newtons of force. It impacts with Obect B (pick an object any object) that can support 1/1500th X newtons of force then the path of least resistance will be through object B.
In this case object A was the girl and object B was the fabric of the trampoline.
If a trampoline fell, onto that same trampoline with 15thousand time the force that the trampoline would support then it both trampolines would be crushed into a pile of debri.
In the collapse of the twin towers Object A (the top portion of the building) fell with X netwons of force on top Object B (the lower portion of the building) that can support 1/15000th X.
The path of least resistance is straight down.
Originally posted by Doctor Smith
Due to the (kinetic energy) Ek = mv2. If an object is already moving with sufficient velocity it could punch a hole through another object. Like a bullet through a wood board for example. The Building 7 collapse started from 0 mph velocity.
Because steel frame buildings are so strong they tend to simply toppled over towards the weakness if anything.
Originally posted by NightGypsy
An expert's testimony wouldn't be necessary if people would just acknowledge the fact that Larry Silverstein already admitted the building was brought down in a demolition. End of story. . . (at least you'd think it would be).
Originally posted by Doctor Smith
reply to post by Joey Canoli
Science is based on experiments. All the experiments prove it is impossible. Therefore if their is absolutely no scientific evidence of a global collapse of a steel frame building in the history of mankind without CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, I conclude that it was demolition.
And I know I'm right as no one can come up with any example of a total global collapse of a steel frame building without controlled demolition. When I see it I'll believe it.
Windsor Tower. The upper part of the building, which was steelframed, collapsed spectacularly. Fortunately, the lower part of the building, as well as the core, had been construced with reinforced concrete , which resisted the fire and prevented a total collapse.
Originally posted by benoni
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/46b1d215714b.jpg[/atsimg]
Do you really really believe what you write???
Who actually are the whack jobs I ask....???
Scary...
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
Here's a woman standing, un-burned in the exact location of the airplane strike - and the people who believe the original story have the audacity to say the building collapsed because of heat... unimaginably ignorant.
That woman was murdered that day, it was the last day of her life. I truly look forward to justice being realized.
Originally posted by benoni
This is not a total collapse, nor spectacular as you call it by any stretch.....
Preliminary findings suggest that a combination of the upper technical floor and the excellent passive fire resistance of the tower's concrete columns and core prevented total building collapse
Dr. Pal Chana of the British Cement Association demonstrated the relative likelihood of floor collapse in a steel versus concrete framed building, using the vivid example of the Madrid Windsor Tower fire which raged over 26 hours on 14-15 February 2005. This former landmark office block of 30 storeys featured a concrete core throughout, but with concrete columns up to the 21st floor and steel columns between the 22nd and 30th floors. Remarkably, despite the intensity and duration of the fire, the concrete floors and columns remained intact however, the steel supported floors above the 21st floor collapsed, leaving the concrete core in-situ and exposed.
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
alright... I'm done with the FeS+FeO / paint chip / thermite / "phases of steel" debacle... we all clearly have no idea what we're talking about at any provable level.
Since I use science as my guide and not blog posts I'll accept that I don't have enough to prove there was thermite there.
Originally posted by Thermo Klein
alright... I'm done with the FeS+FeO / paint chip / thermite / "phases of steel" debacle... we all clearly have no idea what we're talking about at any provable level.
Since I use science as my guide and not blog posts I'll accept that I don't have enough to prove there was thermite there. The "explosive" (rapid heating from 400 to 1600 degrees C) substance in the Jones et al article was not thermite, according to the wiki definition. I find it slightly curious that the Jones article hasn't been followed up and more people haven't gotten into this argument.
By the way, the line "We also have information from another source of Jones' chips namely a chip that has also had SEM and EDS analysis performed on them." means absolutely nothing and could mean they studied something entirely different than the Jones substance. It is also based on blog posts without appropriate scientific rigor or peer review. If anyone actually cared to look further the French article can EASILY be translated using Google Translate - I personally don't care, enough of my time has been wasted.