Reportedly a new FOIA 2010 Video: Firefighters discuss explosions on 9/11

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by MilzGatez

 

Yeah since Aluminum is a veryyy very strong meterial... it withstood the impact and everything else...geez they even beat steel

No it didn't go throught the steel - it pushed it out of the way

Exterior wall made of lattice of steel beams held together by spandrel plates and bolted in sections

Plane snapped the connections between beams at bolts and welds - plane pushed the broken sections out of
the way

Broken section in street

Why u even replying to this post when you didnt even reply to my other... again..you failed.. why must you reply to what i have to say ? .. you typing that information like if you an expert.. but of course, you an expert in every field.

let me put this out... that airplane was like an Aluminum soda can while the Towers were the bottom of my foot... what happens when you step on that Aluminum soda can? from the pressure of my foot landing on it, it will crush it.... now the planes and the towers are just like that but in a higher scale with a little more stronger mass then an Aluminum can and stronger than my feet... So now put it this way... If you threw an Aluminum can (airplane) as fast and as hard into a concrete wall (steel towers) ... the can will be all fuked up upon impact while the concrete wall just has a little scratch and imprint Surely it cant get into the concrete but if it did, it wouldnt travel in and out or go in as deep.....And there it goes... take it the way u wanna take it, its not stopping y'all from twisting things around.. but again, nice try

Originally posted by MilzGatez

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Reevster

 

Remember that the plane was made of aluminum... It didn't vaporize.

Yeah since Aluminum is a veryyy very strong meterial... it withstood the impact and everything else...geez they even beat steel

I'm pretty sure there wasn't enough energy to alchemically convert the aluminum, so even in a shredded state it was still there. We're not in magic land.


As for the landing gear, the picture doesn't explain the exact conditions at which it was recovered. It could have been lodged in an area without as much fire.

reply to post by Varemia

As for the landing gear, the picture doesn't explain the exact conditions at which it was recovered. It could have been lodged in an area without as much fire. [/ex

Landing gear struts are made of high strenght alloys not aluminium

Large pieces of debris including jet engines, landing gear survived the impact and exited the building

Here is piece of landing gear in street from WTC impact

[img]http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/7-69_landing-gear-tire_west-rector-s.jpg[/img

reply to post by MilzGatez


Why dont I reply to you

Simple I dont waste my time with blockheads

When presented with ASCE report , your flip dismissal and refusal to even read it told me not interested in exchanging information , but in pushing your conspiracy tales

Motto of ATS is "DENY IGHORANCE"

Yours seems to "REMAIN IGNORANT"

Seem to want to avoid any challenges to your conspiracy fantasy even when confronted with basic facts - ie
construction of WTC exterior

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by Alfie1

 

I would not be so quick to assume people have not come out to point the finger as you have stated. There has been many people including government officials that at the very least state the OS is not to be believed. Nor is there a shred of evidence to prove that there was not wireless controlled demolitions inside. I am not advocating the position that there was either. However, keeping an open mind about this event on 9/11 and not jumping to defend either side is probably the most patriotic thing a person can do. I advocate for a new investigation, do you?

If you are referring to people like John Farmer, senior counsel to the 911 Commission, who feels that not everyone who gave evidence to the Commission was telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth I would agree. There must be a large number of officials who felt " ffs, why did this have to happen on my watch ?". Inevitably there has been back covering and I think John Farmer understands that. He emphatically does not believe that the administration planned it.

However, what I am pointing to is the total lack of evidence from a single soul who was implicated in the alleged conspiracy. Not even a humble truck driver who has since said he drove explosives to the WTC. He didn't know why and his conscience has increasingly troubled him since. I think it is incredible that there could be so many conspirators, at so many levels, out there and no-one has breathed a word.

So far as a new investigation is concerned I do not have a view on that as I am a foreigner. If I was a US taxpayer I might wonder about the point.

It's stuff like this that makes me realize that people like you don't understand how compartmentalization works.

Most people involved in a conspiracy have absolutely NO idea that they were involved....

No one's going to go to a truck driver and say "Hey, non-decript truck driver, I want you to drive thes packages to the WTC, guess what though, they are filled with explosives and we're going to bring down the WTC bldgs in three months..."

Even the techs who placed the explosives wouldn't have HAD to know what they were actually placing.


I could pull something like this off with 25 people and only three of them knowing what was going on and ALL of those three would not be willing to come forward because of their invovlement....

Jaden

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by MilzGatez

 

Why dont I reply to you

Simple I dont waste my time with blockheads

When presented with ASCE report , your flip dismissal and refusal to even read it told me not interested in exchanging information , but in pushing your conspiracy tales

Motto of ATS is "DENY IGHORANCE"

Yours seems to "REMAIN IGNORANT"

Seem to want to avoid any challenges to your conspiracy fantasy even when confronted with basic facts - ie
construction of WTC exterior

Just shhh the only ignorant ones are you and your little girlfriends .. evidence was provided, you refuse to look into it, you refuse to accept any reality of this life.. By all means... go follow the officials... maybe they can take care of you.

reply to post by thedman


ok i know about landing gear being stronger....i worked for 3yrs as a ground handler for PWA around 737,s

the thing i am saying is this...that gear would have been closed up in the lower belly of the plane just behind the cockpit area...in the area where the big hole in the side of the tower...now it is intesteresting to me it is lodged in a part of the external steel mesh which frankly does not appear that bent....I find the a bit strange as that is where most of the impact would have occured....now i would have to assume that is a forward landing gear...the reason you you might ask....cause the gear under the wings rest inside in a sideways position...please dont make me show you,

so back to my point...why is the landing gear embedded into the external steel mesh it such a fashion.... does it make sense to others?.

reply to post by thedman

Steel heated to 1800 F has only 10 % or original strenght, also at that temp steel is plastic and will deform
easily under load......

Before making outlandish and absurd claims of knowing how much strength is retained in steel at this temperature why don't you CITE A SOURCE!

.....plus you claim steel is PLASTIC AT THIS TEMPERATURE?


Hello, are you for real, your post is beyond of failure of logic, its idiocy!

Please by all means show me a source, before I use this quote for my signature for the next year!



My god how sad....

reply to post by theability


Stop being ignorant. By plastic, he meant the state of the material, not that it actually became a plastic. Ever heard of plasticity? Thought not. It's hard to think when you refuse to listen.

reply to post by Varemia

Stop being ignorant. By plastic, he meant the state of the material, not that it actually became a plastic. Ever heard of plasticity? Thought not. It's hard to think when you refuse to listen.

WHOA now stop being so reactive!!! And no need to insult me!

Now speaking of ignorance...... Now MR I have all the answers show me where in the definition of plasticity it speaks ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEAT! Plasticity

In physics and materials science, plasticity describes the deformation of a material undergoing non-reversible changes of shape in response to applied forces.[1] For example, a solid piece of metal or plastic being bent or pounded into a new shape displays plasticity as permanent changes occur within the material itself. In engineering, the transition from elastic behavior to plastic behavior is called yield.

It doesn't have anything to do with heat, it has to do with PRESSURE and applied force to deform metals or fracture crystals.

Now what was that insult for again? :shk:

reply to post by theability


well stated about plasticity...cause that is exactly what plasticity in steel is about....it is what the buckling is refered to as it becomes plastic due to the stresses which in turn could lead to global collapse ot the said structure....the point of fire being the initiator of the start of the failure in the structure in whcih caused the mass above the points of impact to come down upon the main structure cause the structure below to become plastic.
There you go Verm once again shot yourself in the foot.
The whole story of the building undergoing global collapse was presented by the Bhou's and Zant report which was full of falsities....as not all info was taken into account.
once again it is good to see people who look at things objectively....

Thanks Theability

reply to post by Varemia


Ohh and BTW:

The plasticity issue of steel was decreased by adding Molybdenum to the steel in order to decrease the brittleness of the crystalline structure of steel, decrease weight and increase resistive effects introduced by heat and loads.

Imagine that, those guys with Ph.d's might know what they are doing.

I can have a cold piece a steel and smash the heck out of it with TONS of weight and it will deform, again, plasticity has nothing to do with thermal dynamics.

Ohh and one last thing, why do you talk to me like you have told me to listen before about issues regarding 9/11, I have never to this date ever posted a reply to you, so please to not tell me that I DO NOT LISTEN, or insult me again.

reply to post by theability


Well, I apologize. I didn't realize that heat meant nothing and that steel doesn't deform when there is heavy heat on one side, and not on the other side while being pressured by a building above while many columns are displaced. I didn't realize that plane crashing into buildings do absolutely nothing to structures. I didn't realize that everything that happened that day means nothing if you believe the government was involved.

Sorry I had you guys pegged wrong. You seem super intelligent to me now.

reply to post by Varemia


This report was written after obtaining further info under the FOIA

it might be a bit of a tough read... for you Verm but please give it your best shot.

Table 1. Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required
Process and material °C °F
To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur)
in steel
1,000 1,832
To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) 1,450 2,652
To melt iron (spherule formation) 1,538 2,800
To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) 1,565 2,849
To vaporize lead 1,740 3,164
To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) 2,623 4,753
To vaporize aluminosilicates 2,760 5,000


4.6 Maximum temperatures associated with the WTC fires

Finally, we consider the temperatures reached in normal building fires, jet-fuel fires and in the World Trade
Center buildings. Maximum temperatures due to fires in the WTC of around 1,000 C are argued by Thomas
Eagar:
The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and
many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially
with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not
unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame,
and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but
flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within
the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames
generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature
increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to
melt steel at 1500 °C.

notice the temp required To vaporize aluminosilicates which was present in the WTC dust

This is not a battle of intelligence Verm...it is about seeking answers to explain what did not occur in the OS.

reply to post by Varemia



When I read this I thought of the ATS motto once again, especially after reading your posting history...

DENY IGNORANCE!

Well, I apologize. I didn't realize that heat meant nothing and that steel doesn't deform when there is heavy heat on one side, and not on the other side while being pressured by a building above while many columns are displaced. I didn't realize that plane crashing into buildings do absolutely nothing to structures. I didn't realize that everything that happened that day means nothing if you believe the government was involved.

Sorry I had you guys pegged wrong. You seem super intelligent to me now.

Your patronizing attitude is duly noted.


Now do you have anything useful to add, or should I file you with the rest of 9/11 forum trolls?

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Varemia

 

This report was written after obtaining further info under the FOIA

it might be a bit of a tough read... for you Verm but please give it your best shot.

notice the temp required To vaporize aluminosilicates which was present in the WTC dust

This is not a battle of intelligence Verm...it is about seeking answers to explain what did not occur in the OS.

edit on 043131p://f29Thursday by plube because: link wording

I know the steel didn't melt from the fires in the towers. I'm sure I can quote myself saying that a number of times now. I've heard testimony from others that it very well can once it gets buried under rubble.


I would also very much like to add that if the OS says that the fire did melt steel in the towers before the collapse, then I definitely do not believe the OS. I also find that a plausible solution for the vaporization of the metals found in the dust would be explained by the thermite page that I found. It's in my signature.

Originally posted by doer_of_deeds
Let's say there were explosives pre-planted in each tower that resulted in their collapse. Is it within the realm of possibility that the explosives were pre-planted by the terrorists before 9/11?

If not, please explain why.

Thanks.

I was thinking something along these lines just this morning. For some reason I had a fleeting thought that maybe those explosives were planted there ahead of time. They wanted to bring those buildings down thats for sure. It just didn't jive with tower 7 though. Also, why not just blow the towers with the explosives? Why ram planes into them, then blow the towers?

I stick by my guns that they had no choice but to bring them down. Tower 7 was brought down because they didn't have anyone else to fight the fires. The video in this thread proves that. Those two firefighters weren't going back into any buildings on that day. Or that week or month.

Again, I just don't see how they could have put 1 and 2 out any other way than to bring them down. No way could they let those buildings sit and burn for weeks. The whole city would have burned down.

They found tons of aircraft debris from those buildings. Why didn't it melt? If I recall correctly, they found one of the hijackers driver's license or something.

I would think if a room is hot enough to melt steel it would be hot enough to melt leather. But we see no melted steel at the impact point. We see melted steel at the corners where the most steel would be. Point being this..

If there was a raging fire then it must have existed at the corners of each building. Because none of the plane was melted.

reply to post by theability


(SFPE) Society for Fire Protection Engineers, NFPA (National Fire Protection Administration),

Society of Fire Protection Engineers. (1988). SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering.

Gives formula for calculating yield strength of steel as temperature increases

www.wpi.edu...

Check page 22-23 for graphic representation

reply to post by Come Clean

They found tons of aircraft debris from those buildings. Why didn't it melt? If I recall correctly, they found one of the hijackers driver's license or something.

They found tons of debris from Space shuttle COLUMBIA which disintergrated at 200,000 ft going Mach 12
(12,000 mph)

Among the objects recovered were video/audio tapes still playable, papers and experiments including dishes
of worms