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.

 

Professional engineer Jon Cole cuts steel columns with thermate, debunks Nat Geo & unexpectedly repr

page: 80
420
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Have you ever considered the implications of changing NIST's own words when trying to argue on behalf of their report?

I wonder what a psychologist would have to say about that. I mean people don't normally resort to changing words in "scientific studies" to try to make some point do they?

Could you quote the source please? You can pop psych analyse me all you like for what I care.

Thanks.




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


The source is you on the last page trying to knock NIST's hypothesis up to the level of "theory" when even NIST admits all they had at the end was a hypothesis.

Then I pointed out the difference, and you said you didn't care.

All right here:


Originally posted by exponent

You do admit they still only had a hypothesis at the very end of all their work, right?

I think I would probably call it a theory.



Originally posted by exponent

That's not what NIST called it.

I don't care?



You really showed me.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The source is you on the last page trying to knock NIST's hypothesis up to the level of "theory" when even NIST admits all they had at the end was a hypothesis.

I mean your source for "NIST admits all they had at the end was a hypothesis" please.

Also I take it as you haven't found any specific disagreement, you agree with the points I posted to start with. I'm waiting for ANOK at the moment but I might take this to its own thread.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



This petition is a request for correction of information disseminated by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”). This Request for Correction (the “Request”) is being submitted by Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Dr. Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, AIA Architect, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (referred to herein collectively as the “Requesters”) under Section 515 of Public Law 106-554, the Data Quality Act (the “DQA”), the Office of Management and Budget’s (“OMB’s”) government-wide Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies (the “OMB Guidelines”), and NIST’s “Guidelines, Information Quality Standards, and Administrative Mechanism” (the “NIST IQS”).


911blogger.com...


We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.


www.911proof.com...

Hmmm but the OS supporters seem to think they can. What makes you OSers smarter than NIST huh? You think you're smarter than the experts who couldn't, and still can't, explain the actual collapse of the towers?

I thought collapse was inevitable once initiated? Yet they admit that they can't fully explain the collapses.

Maybe you OSers should actually read what NIST is saying, and ask questions, instead of trying to fill in the holes with BS.

Have you contacted NIST with your collapses hypothesis? I think they need some help right, or are we to continue filling in the holes with unprovable assumptions?

There is NO evidence, or explanation, whatsoever that the collapse (not the initiation) was caused by fire and plane impacts. Even IF the NIST collapse initiation was correct there is no reason it would have resulted in a complete global collapse, with debris ejecting in a 360d arc up to 600ft away.


edit on 4/13/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Hmmm but the OS supporters seem to think they can. What makes you OSers smarter than NIST huh? You think you're smarter than the experts who couldn't, and still can't, explain the actual collapse of the towers?

I thought collapse was inevitable once initiated? Yet they admit that they can't fully explain the collapses.

NIST was tasked with investigating the collapse of the building from the perspective of structural engineers. Once the collapse becomes inevitable, then there's not much more interest in terms of correcting building codes / enacting new procedures to prevent collapse.

It's pretty telling that you don't quote the previous paragraph of the letter

Your letter suggests NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution.


In fact 'OS believers' already know this, we refer to people like Bazant and papers like BLBG to explain the collapse post initiation.

Now, can we please get back to the points you raised? I pointed out tests from Cardington showing that you were definitely wrong, fires, and steel, can heat up to dangerous temperatures well within an hour. We can discuss collapse once we've discussed the events leading up to it.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

NIST was tasked with investigating the collapse of the building from the perspective of structural engineers. Once the collapse becomes inevitable, then there's not much more interest in terms of correcting building codes / enacting new procedures to prevent collapse.


But NIST claiming collapse was inevitable has nothing to support it. How can someone claim collapse was inevitable when there is no presidence or physics to explain it? NIST was tasked with explaining what happened, they admit they couldn't do that, not that they didn't have to.


Your letter suggests NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution.


So what does that prove? Nothing.


In fact 'OS believers' already know this, we refer to people like Bazant and papers like BLBG to explain the collapse post initiation.


Bazants paper fails on so many levels. First it starts with the assumption that NISTs collapse initiation hypothesis was true. Secondly it requires a large mass of the buildings to still be in their footprints, otherwise there is nothing to do any crushing. Floors can't crush other floors and then decide to eject themselves outside of their footprint. That takes more energy than what would be available from gravity.


Now, can we please get back to the points you raised? I pointed out tests from Cardington showing that you were definitely wrong, fires, and steel, can heat up to dangerous temperatures well within an hour. We can discuss collapse once we've discussed the events leading up to it.


But that doesn't prove the failure of a few trusses can lead to a complete global collapse with the debris ejecting outside of the footprint.

NIST found no evidence of heating as high as the Cardington test used, their thermal expansion tests were based on traditional column and beam structures, that's not how the WTC was constructed. They used higher heat, and smaller steel beams than the WTC in a controlled situation that makes sure the constant heat is directly on the steel. They had steel glowing red before it failed, no steel in the WTC was seen glowing red.


The Cardington Fire Tests

There are good reasons why fire-ravaged steel buildings typically do not collapse. In a series of fire tests completed in 1996 at the Cardington Lab in the UK the Building Research Establishment (BRE) showed that even unprotected steel frame buildings have large reserves of stability during extreme fire events.[83] In physical tests lasting 2-4 hours–––considerably longer than the fires of 9/11–––lab scientists subjected steel beams, columns and composite steel/concrete floors to fires that at times exceeded 1,000°C. In test after test the unprotected steel beams or columns bowed, buckled and sagged, but not a one of them collapsed.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...


edit on 4/13/2011 by ANOK because: 911wasaninsidejob



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
NIST was tasked with explaining what happened, they admit they couldn't do that, not that they didn't have to.

NIST was tasked with explaining how the WTC collapsed, not with explaining the specific physical interactions once it was collapsing, the point is to ensure buildings don't collapse at all, not that they can arrest a collapse in progress.

The reason I quoted the previous paragraph in the letter was to show that they could not provide this level of detail, as the modelling technology they use cannot continue after a certain point in the collapse.

With regard to Bazant's paper, we can discuss it at a later date, it's pointless unless we agree on earlier parts.



Now, can we please get back to the points you raised? I pointed out tests from Cardington showing that you were definitely wrong, fires, and steel, can heat up to dangerous temperatures well within an hour. We can discuss collapse once we've discussed the events leading up to it.


But that doesn't prove the failure of a few trusses can lead to a complete global collapse with the debris ejecting outside of the footprint.

NIST found no evidence of heating as high as the Cardington test used, their thermal expansion tests were based on traditional column and beam structures, that's not how the WTC was constructed. They used higher heat, and smaller steel beams than the WTC in a controlled situation that makes sure the constant heat is directly on the steel. They had steel glowing red before it failed, no steel in the WTC was seen glowing red.

I agree, it certainly doesn't prove it, and it's quite probable that elements in the Cardington tests were hotter than the WTC, but the criteria I listed were:
  • WTC workstations would readily burn and produce temperatures significant enough to damage steel
  • These temperatures were maintained for a long enough period to affect the steel
  • Steel with damaged insulation would heat up very quickly
  • Insulation damage was very likely

I believe I have shown that #1, #2 and #3 are true, as NIST burned similar workstations and got similar temperature curves to Cardington, and both NIST and Cardington confirmed that unprotected steel elements will heat up quite quickly.

I would like to move on to #4, but I want to make sure we're on the same page about these facts first.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 




NIST was tasked with explaining what happened, they admit they couldn't do that, not that they didn't have to.


Did you even bother to read what you wrote?

”NIST was tasked with explaining what happened” That would include before, during, and after the collapse. It in no way implies NIST was only charged with “explaining what happened” up to the point of the beginning of the collapse. That would be virtually impossible;

It’s like the police finding a elderly man lying dead on his kitchen floor. They immediately discover from family that he suffered from high blood pressure. They quickly end the investigation concluding the man died of a stroke. Unfortunately, the police failed to consider the obvious evidence showing the front door was forced opened, the man’s head was surrounded by a pool of blood and there were numerous bullet holes in the side of his head.

Why would you believe NIST’s report when there is no science supporting their findings which not only means that they did not explain what happened on 911 but they certainly would have no possible information from this event that would as you claim “ensure buildings don't collapse at all, not that they can arrest a collapse in progress.”


edit on 13-4-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

NIST was tasked with explaining what happened, they admit they couldn't do that, not that they didn't have to.


Did you even bother to read what you wrote?

I didn't write that.


It’s like the police finding a elderly man lying dead on his kitchen floor. They immediately discover from family that he suffered from high blood pressure. They quickly end the investigation concluding the man died of a stroke. Unfortunately, the police failed to consider the obvious evidence showing the front door was forced opened, the man’s head was surrounded by a pool of blood and there were numerous bullet holes in the side of his head.

I really don't have any clue how you'd like me to respond to that. It's utter nonsense in that you can't even tell me how the building collapsed in your own theory, so claiming it's as if all the evidence was right in front of them is just silly.


Why would you believe NIST’s report when there is no science supporting their findings

Because that is incorrect, there is plenty of science behind it. For example, I posted a whole list of references a couple of pages ago, and 4 very specific facts that nobody seems to be interested in learning about. NIST also made a whole series of recommendations in order to reduce the likelyhood of these events in the future, and these have been mostly accepted by industry associations.

If you want to discuss any aspect, i'm more than happy to do so, but lets focus on the 4 points I listed first, and move onto other issues after that.
edit on 13/4/11 by exponent because: future/past/i am quite tired



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



Did you even bother to read what you wrote?

I didn't write that.


I see I have made a mistake.


It’s like the police finding a elderly man lying dead on his kitchen floor. They immediately discover from family that he suffered from high blood pressure. They quickly end the investigation concluding the man died of a stroke. Unfortunately, the police failed to consider the obvious evidence showing the front door was forced opened, the man’s head was surrounded by a pool of blood and there were numerous bullet holes in the side of his head.

I really don't have any clue how you'd like me to respond to that. It's utter nonsense in that you can't even tell me how the building collapsed in your own theory, so claiming it's as if all the evidence was right in front of them is just silly.


It is called an “analogy.” This was an example of how NIST did their investigation and their report.
I am not here to swap theories to what I think happened to the WTC. I am here to support the scientific facts of what did happened and what did not happened.
I want the Truth I don’t support pseudo science. What do you support science or theories?


If you want to discuss any aspect, i'm more than happy to do so, but lets focus on the 4 points I listed first, and move onto other issues after that


Ok lets discuss your aspect from the fraudulent NIST report, shell we.



  • WTC workstations would readily burn and produce temperatures significant enough to damage steel


  • Not in “one hour” from jet fuel and office fires. It is impossible to weaken this kind of steel from the cause fires in only an hour.


  • These temperatures were maintained for a long enough period to affect the steel


  • If this is your opinion then that is all it is, it is not a fact. Not in one hour, it is scientifically impossible if we are to believe office fires and jet fuel weaken all that steel in one hour and brought down the WTC including WTC 7.


  • Steel with damaged insulation would heat up very quickly


  • Not in an hour.


  • Insulation damage was very likely


  • This is not a fact; this is an assumption, nothing more. Please show your science to support your opinion.

    Do not waste your time presenting NIST pseudo science with me; I have no problem exposing it and this along will show your theories are wrong.

    You want a theory? Try looking at the visual evidence.



    posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:32 AM
    link   
    Even if you consider the worst possible scenario, all the steel in the top section failed due to heat, it would still not automatically lead to global collapse, that is the lie that is being spread. You have to explain the collapse OSers, it's a cop out to say it was inevitable and expect it to be left at that. You all struggle when you have to step outside of the NIST report box and actually think about something. This is why you make the mistake of supporting Bazants paper, because you can't think for yourselves, you need an authority to tell you. Any will do as long as it says what you want it to.

    The hypotheses fails in that it does not account for the laws of motion. Particularly equal opposite reactions, and momentum conservation, and how they work together. I have heard that equal opposite reaction only applies to elastic collisions such as billiard balls, and that momentum conservation means something in motion stays in motion regardless of resistance. How can you debate with people who think like that? It's hard to debate physics when you don't know if the person you're debating with even understands. This is what you get from people who can only parrot what they hear from others without really understanding what they're supporting. People who claim to be engineers and can't answer simple physics questions.

    People can yap on all day about whether a room fire could weaken a steel truss, because even if it could, and even IF it did in the WTC, you still have to take into account the laws of motion. What IF the trusses did sag, what IF they completely failed and collapsed? It would still not lead to complete failure of the buildings. The only argument I ever hear from OSers is you must be stupid to think it wouldn't collapse, where is your science?

    YOUR science, not Bazants. I'm not here to debate Bazant through a proxy. I want an explanation of how the laws of motion allowed the towers to collapse themselves, from you resident OSers, using sources not taken from any 911 damned fool conspiracy websites, such as 911myths. Use real physics sites to make your points, not someone else's opinion. I don't want a bunch of convoluted maths that starts with an assumption, and ends with a conclusion that doesn't match what actually happened.

    Most of the OSers don't even understand the laws of motion, yet they think they're experts on how buildings collapse. This is not a lie or an insult, ATS has it on record. I have already proven it in this thread.



    posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 06:52 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by ANOK
    YOUR science, not Bazants. I'm not here to debate Bazant through a proxy. I want an explanation of how the laws of motion allowed the towers to collapse themselves, from you resident OSers, using sources not taken from any 911 damned fool conspiracy websites, such as 911myths. Use real physics sites to make your points, not someone else's opinion. I don't want a bunch of convoluted maths that starts with an assumption, and ends with a conclusion that doesn't match what actually happened.


    It seems to me this has been explained more than enough times, but you either just don't get it or don't want to get it.

    A very simplistic model:

    The top section falls 4 meter, it is accelerated by gravity and potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy. The floor it hits fails, as the dynamic load by far exceeds the safety margin. The top section+collapsed floors falls another 4 meter, it is again accelerated by gravity. The floor it hits again fails as the kinetic energy is even greater (both mass and velocity increased).

    Maybe this helps hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

    But then you come with irrelevant remarks like "impossible because of conservation of momentum". You totally ignore that momentum (mass times velocity) of the falling stuff is constantly increased because gravity is accelerating it. This doesn't break any laws of physics, as conservation of momentum is only valid for closed systems. But we have gravity acting on it. Gravity is a constant external force, which accelerate things that fall. If you want to have conservation of momentum, you need to include the complete earth in your model, then you get a closed system.

    I really don't see what it is that is so hard to understand. The thing that could have arrested the collapse is the resistance of the floors. But Bazant proved it was not enough, in the most optimistic (and unrealistic) scenario for arrest. Then you come with these stories that nearly all the mass disappeared, without any explanation how this happened nor any proof that it did happen. Even after I showed that the debris pile in the footprint is more than 70 feet higher than outside it, the idea is still cherished. I understand why, but it makes people who base their position on evidence frown.

    Anyway, there seems to be an invincible shield around truthers. It doesn't seem to matter what you write. When subject a is debunked, within a split section the topic is already shifted to subject b. Then there is the idea that anyone that does not hold the same believes isn't intelligent and doesn't understand physics. It remains an interesting phenomena.



    posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:47 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by impressme
    I see I have made a mistake.

    Not a problem.


    It is called an “analogy.” This was an example of how NIST did their investigation and their report.
    I am not here to swap theories to what I think happened to the WTC. I am here to support the scientific facts of what did happened and what did not happened.
    I want the Truth I don’t support pseudo science. What do you support science or theories?

    I know it's an analogy, but it was an awful one. I support science and theories, as the two are one and the same.


    Ok lets discuss your aspect from the fraudulent NIST report, shell we.

  • WTC workstations would readily burn and produce temperatures significant enough to damage steel

  • Not in “one hour” from jet fuel and office fires. It is impossible to weaken this kind of steel from the cause fires in only an hour.

    The Cardington test + NISTs tests disagree with you as I have shown.


    If this is your opinion then that is all it is, it is not a fact. Not in one hour, it is scientifically impossible if we are to believe office fires and jet fuel weaken all that steel in one hour and brought down the WTC including WTC 7.

    Unprotected steel was rapidly heated in both NIST and Cardington's tests.


    Not in an hour.

    Once again, it took around 10 minutes in the Cardington tests, are these tests not accurate, and if so, why not?


    This is not a fact; this is an assumption, nothing more. Please show your science to support your opinion.

    Do not waste your time presenting NIST pseudo science with me; I have no problem exposing it and this along will show your theories are wrong.

    You want a theory? Try looking at the visual evidence.

    I will certainly use the visual evidence later on, but I want to make sure we agree on fire temperatures and steel heating before I start going through tests and discussing energy levels.

    Please let me know why you disagree with the Cardington tests, and if there are any tests of steel structures behaviour in fire you agree with.



    posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:51 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by ANOK
    You have to explain the collapse OSers, it's a cop out to say it was inevitable and expect it to be left at that. You all struggle when you have to step outside of the NIST report box and actually think about something. This is why you make the mistake of supporting Bazants paper, because you can't think for yourselves, you need an authority to tell you. Any will do as long as it says what you want it to.

    I'll gladly get to that, but again you are ignoring the questions I put forward. Are they correct or incorrect? The Cardington tests show that both fire and unprotected steel rise rapidly in temperature to above 800C, which would definitely result in weakening the steel significantly.


    The hypotheses fails in that it does not account for the laws of motion. Particularly equal opposite reactions, and momentum conservation, and how they work together. I have heard that equal opposite reaction only applies to elastic collisions such as billiard balls, and that momentum conservation means something in motion stays in motion regardless of resistance. How can you debate with people who think like that? It's hard to debate physics when you don't know if the person you're debating with even understands.

    Uh, I hate to say it here but this is utter rubbish. You're mixing up the difference between Momentum and Kinetic Energy. One is indeed conserved, and one is indeed lost in an inelastic collision.

    Even so, this is further on than what I want to discuss, and will only lead to us getting distracted.


    Most of the OSers don't even understand the laws of motion, yet they think they're experts on how buildings collapse. This is not a lie or an insult, ATS has it on record. I have already proven it in this thread.

    In my experience, most truthers believe they understand the laws of motion, but are severely deficient in this regard. Take backinblack, who I debated over Apollo hoax theories, he was aggressive in his condemning of others, but it turns out he did not even understand how to calculate the effect of gravity, or the difference between weight and mass.

    I hope you will prove that in fact you do know what you're talking about, and you will be able to conduct a proper debate on the subject, that would be nice and refreshing.



    posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:42 AM
    link   
    That's one thing I've been interested in about the collapses of the towers: why didn't they run detailed models for the towers like we got for WTC 7? I don't know much about the software, but just comparing their numbers for their Aircraft impact model and their WTC 7 model it seems their may have been enough capacity to do this. Why'd they choose SAP2000 which, going by their numbers, seems to be a much rougher approximation of the towers?



    posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:08 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by NIcon
    That's one thing I've been interested in about the collapses of the towers: why didn't they run detailed models for the towers like we got for WTC 7? I don't know much about the software, but just comparing their numbers for their Aircraft impact model and their WTC 7 model it seems their may have been enough capacity to do this. Why'd they choose SAP2000 which, going by their numbers, seems to be a much rougher approximation of the towers?

    In the case of WTC7 they didn't carry their analysis that much father than with WTC 1 and 2, and it took 6 months to run some of the models. I don't know enough to specifically tell you why they pick LS-DYNA, ANSYS and SAP2000 for various sections.

    It's an interesting question, I have a friend who deals with FEA of structures so I will see what I can get from him.



    posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:18 AM
    link   
    I think it's ridiculous exponent is still going on like he can prove something when he's already realized NIST has only a hypothesis at best.


    If the most thorough "investigation" to date has resulted in only a hypothesis, and only of the initiation and totally ignoring 99% of the actual collapse, then what else does he think he's really going to prove by himself?

    The fact that people are even here trying to defend the official reports at all is pitiful.



    posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:30 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by bsbray11
    I think it's ridiculous exponent is still going on like he can prove something when he's already realized NIST has only a hypothesis at best.

    I take it you still haven't found the quote supporting that then.

    Please don't post what is essentially trolling, if you want to disagree with something specifically then please do so.



    posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 04:43 PM
    link   
    Here they admit they don't support the “pancake theory” or "progressive collapse". The same "theory" that OSers want to argue happened.

    They go on to claim the sagging trusses hypothesis pulled the columns inwards. The floors did not fall progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon. So how did they collapse NIST? We know the sagging trusses hypothesis is as nonsense as pancake progressive collapse.


    NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

    wtc.nist.gov...

    How can the NIST report be anything but a hypothesis? For it to be a theory it would have to be testable and repeatable in a lab, it isn't.


    In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

    However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.


    If they recorded air temps of 1000C then why do they assume the steel reached 1000C in an hour?


    It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.

    www.doctorfire.com...

    They are ignoring thermal transfer. They are ignoring all the steel that wasn't in direct contact with fire, only steel in direct contact with flames will significantly heat up, and still no where near the fire temps, that would take hours. They are ignoring the actual collapses and the laws of motion.

    Also they admitted that only three pieces of steel showed signs of heating to 600C and the others only to 250C.
    Anything else is speculation. No proof, no theory.


    edit on 4/14/2011 by ANOK because: 911insidejob



    posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 04:46 PM
    link   
    reply to post by ANOK
     


    So are you going to address the points I put forward, or just post endless copy and paste that you clearly haven't read enough to understand?

    If not I guess I will start another thread for people who are willing to discuss points in order.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    420
    << 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

    log in

    join