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.

 

Outside energy had to be introduced for the twin towers to collapse the way they did

page: 50
34
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



What utter rubbish? What holds up airplanes and what holds up skyscrapers?

Two different things.

So how could the amount of steel required to support 29 stories weaken in ONE HOUR regardless of the fire proofing?

Apply energy.

How could the amount of steel required to support 15 stories weaken in TWO HOUR regardless of the fire proofing?

Apply energy.

And then the physics profession does not demand to know the amount of steel on every level in TEN YEARS.

Its in the NIST report, read it.

I wish I was an alien just so I could laugh my ass off at the entire human race. Assuming aliens have asses of course.

Oh, just have a good laugh anyway. I know I am.




posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

They fail to realize those terms are relative,


Yes those terms are relative, and 7075 T6 aluminum kicks A36s ass in all relative terms. I work with both of these metals.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


If you wan't to know how fire heats steel, look up the experiments by NIST, Quintiere and others.


ROFL

I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report 4 years ago. I have it burned to DVD. They had Underwriter's Laboratories test 4 floor sections in furnaces. They did not FAIL!

Now the obvious thing to do is test them again without fire proofing but if they did that and they still didn't fail then they could not pretend that planes knocking the fire proofing off was the problem. 9/11 science is just so great.

You didn't mention the Cardington tests.

911research.wtc7.net...

psik



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


If you wan't to know how fire heats steel, look up the experiments by NIST, Quintiere and others.


Why do we need to look at institutions that have an interest in not telling you the truth when we can look at the real world around us, use common sense, and realise a room fire does not get hot enough in an hour to cause thousands of tons of steel to completely and suddenly fail?

Or better yet look at what temperature a room fire actually does create hmmm?...


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...

And maybe a little reminder about thermal exchange might also help...


Temperatures of objects

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...

Now let me hear you claim steel loses half it's strength at X temperature, I'm well ahead of ya buddy. Even IF all the steel in the tower lost 50% of it's strength, which we know of course didn't happen, how do you know it would still not be enough to hold itself up? Unless you know what the safety factor of the steel components were, you have no idea at which point anything would become unstable. If the building components as a whole had a safety factor of 2 (the minimum) what does that mean?


The factor of safety also known as Safety Factor, is used to provide a design margin over the theoretical design capacity to allow for uncertainty in the design process. The uncertainty could be any one of a number of the components of the design process including calculations, material strengths, duty, manufacture quality. The value of the safety factor is related to the lack of confidence in the design process. The simplest interpretation of the Factor of Safety is

FoS = Strength of Component / Load on component

If a component needs to withstand a load of 100 Newtons and a FoS of 4 is selected then it is designed with strength to support 400 Newtons...

www.roymech.co.uk...

If the towers overall had an FoS of 2, then 50% loss of strength would not cause the towers to collapse. So working against your hypothesis is the fact that less than 20% of any steel in the towers was ever in contact with fire and never all at the same time, and the FoS would be much larger than 2 for a combination of components that each had an FoS 2 or greater.

If you don't know the FoS of the components you can make any claim you want, but it is as useful as knowing whether the toilets flushed when the planes hit.

Does that help you understand my point?


edit on 10/24/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tower7WTF
why are you here ?


Silly Truther I'm here to tease you with facts. Like A36 is just plain old mild steel, nothing special.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



What utter rubbish? What holds up airplanes and what holds up skyscrapers?

Two different things.

So how could the amount of steel required to support 29 stories weaken in ONE HOUR regardless of the fire proofing?

Apply energy.

How could the amount of steel required to support 15 stories weaken in TWO HOUR regardless of the fire proofing?

Apply energy.

And then the physics profession does not demand to know the amount of steel on every level in TEN YEARS.

Its in the NIST report, read it.

I wish I was an alien just so I could laugh my ass off at the entire human race. Assuming aliens have asses of course.

Oh, just have a good laugh anyway. I know I am.


Oh yeah, APPLY ENERGY!

And what does the SPECIFIC HEAT of the material have to do with the amount of energy required. Oh, you have to multiply the specific heat times the MASS times the number of degrees you want to raise the temperature. And that assumes the heat is not conducted away to more steel outside of the fire.

Yeah that Propaganda Physics is so precise with APPLY HEAT.


psik



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Even IF all the steel in the tower lost 50% of it's strength, which we know of course didn't happen, how do you know it would still not be enough to hold itself up?


Because we saw it fall down. Its that simple. And unless you have direct evidence of some other contributory factor, plane impact and fire is the call.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Because we saw it fall down. Its that simple. And unless you have direct evidence of some other contributory factor, plane impact and fire is the call.


No it's not that simple. Just because it fell down it doesn't mean the official version of the events must be true.

Just the facts I have supplied in the last couple of posts proves you wrong, you just won't accept it.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



No it's not that simple. Just because it fell down it doesn't mean the official version of the events must be true.

Yes, it really is that simple. That's why a tenth of a century has gone by and not one word about "new investigations". We observed three things, plane impact, fire and collapse. They are related. Now if you have direct evidence of some other contributory factor, please come forward.

Just the facts I have supplied in the last couple of posts proves you wrong, you just won't accept it.

Sorry, nothing you presented is anything other than your opinion. Do you have direct evidence of some other contributory factor? Incredulity is not direct evidence. It is only your subjective doubt.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Why do we need to look at institutions that have an interest in not telling you the truth when we can look at the real world around us, use common sense, and realise a room fire does not get hot enough in an hour to cause thousands of tons of steel to completely and suddenly fail?


Because this kind of simplistic approach is getting us nowhere.


Now let me hear you claim steel loses half it's strength at X temperature, I'm well ahead of ya buddy. Even IF all the steel in the tower lost 50% of it's strength, which we know of course didn't happen, how do you know it would still not be enough to hold itself up? Unless you know what the safety factor of the steel components were, you have no idea at which point anything would become unstable. If the building components as a whole had a safety factor of 2 (the minimum) what does that mean?


I do not know this. Though I find it perfectly plausible that the columns failed as result of redistribution of load as result of the plane crash (which also damaged the fireproofing) and the subsequent heating from the fires.

Let me return the question, how do you know that the columns would not fail? That is probably even harder to prove than proving they could fail.


Does that help you understand my point?


If your point is that we will probably never know what exactly happened, I agree. If your point is that the columns could not have possibly have failed, then I disagree.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK
 


Buildings also collapse, some without anything out of the ordinary happening to them. What you are showing here is a falacy called special pleading.

And comparing high rise building to chain link fences is just silly.
edit on 24-10-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


You really do have comprehension problems. I can't believe you didn't understand what I meant. No wonder you believe the OS.

Yes buildings collapse, but look genius unless you haven't realized it yet the three buildings on 911 did not 'just collapse', now did they?

And I wasn't comparing anything to a fence, I was making an analogy, which you obvioulsy didn't get.


Should I even bother explaining it to you? Nah, you wouldn't bother reading that through and comprehending it either.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


If you have read the reports, then why did you require me to point out where to find an image of the horizontal beam layout in the core? I have absolutely no confidence in that you have read and comprehended the NIST report.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Buildings also collapse, some without anything out of the ordinary happening to them. What you are showing here is a falacy called special pleading.


Must be hitting a nerve. Keep it on-topic, mr potential energy pushing up.


You really do have comprehension problems. I can't believe you didn't understand what I meant. No wonder you believe the OS.


I already pointed out a major difference between the two, making your analogy pretty much useless. But no reply to that. Instead you come with the usual personal attack.


Yes buildings collapse, but look genius unless you haven't realized it yet the three buildings on 911 did not 'just collapse', now did they?


True, they had planes slammed into them or burned for hours and hours.


And I wasn't comparing anything to a fence, I was making an analogy, which you obvioulsy didn't get.


Should I even bother explaining it to you? Nah, you wouldn't bother reading that through and comprehending it either.


Analogies are only useful when they add to the understanding of something. Your did not at all. In fact, it made some false suggestions.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


If you have read the reports, then why did you require me to point out where to find an image of the horizontal beam layout in the core? I have absolutely no confidence in that you have read and comprehended the NIST report.


I didn't ask you for that worthless image. If you compare that to an accurate diagram of the positions of the core columns you will see that its positions were not even correct because it gave the impression that too many columns were lined up straight.

I am talking about something that would let you figure out the length and thickness of the horizontal beams to find how much they weighed. About all that did was confirm that horizontal beams existed. ON THAT LEVEL. For all we know there could only have been horizontal beams on every other level. You are trying to make a big deal of something that just gives vague impressions.

That is why Lon Waters shows nothing on his site for horizontal beams in the core.

psik



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Must be hitting a nerve. Keep it on-topic, mr potential energy pushing up.


Yes because you never listen to what anyone says, and you make comments based on assumptions without correctly comprehending what is being said, you misinterpret what is being said Mr.Electrical engineer.

You have a nerve to say keep it on topic lol. Only when it suits you.

You really can't comprehend that the bottom floors would push back against the falling floors with equal force can you? It destroys your whole OS nonsense.


I already pointed out a major difference between the two, making your analogy pretty much useless. But no reply to that. Instead you come with the usual personal attack.


What two? You failed to understand my analogy completely, and made comments that were nothing to do with my point. I was making a point about your reasoning with Concorde and what people claim. You focused on the world 'fence' and somehow completely missed the rest. No personal attack, just the truth PLB. Pointing out someones dishonesty in a debate is not a personal attack.


True, they had planes slammed into them or burned for hours and hours.


The first tower to collapse was on fire for less than an hour, not hours and hours. Planes impact did not effect the buildings integrity, even NIST admitted that much. Have your forgotten already what your precious OS actually states? Why do you need to lie LPB?


Analogies are only useful when they add to the understanding of something. Your did not at all. In fact, it made some false suggestions.


Analogies are only useful when you can actually read them and comprehend them.

You never bring any actual evidence or science to this debate PLB, all you do is repeat the same debunked nonsense over and over and try to discredit people.


edit on 10/24/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I'm just checking in to see if the truthers had their scientific, anti-NIST papers reviewed and published.......

..............

.........

......Nope...ten years and the same old empty arguments. ....blah blah... I know Newtonian Physics....blah blah...super duper therm*te.....blah blah ....never in history.....blah blah.... free- fall speed....BLAH!

Get out from behind your computer you geniuses and write a paper refuting the facts contained in the many papers already published....
i didn't think you would.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

No, It collapses. Just like the buildings.


LOL someone else who doesn't get it.

I said make a hole, not pull the damned thing down. I wasn't comparing a fence to the WTC which is the assumption you're all making.

Regardless forget it, I'm now more interested in the fact that you seem to disagree that a chain link fence would not collapse from having a hole in it, or am I reading you wrong?





It is well known that that kind of structure can have holes in it and still not collapse. That is why that design is used, it's not an accident of design.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
A post full of irony, thats why truthers are fun. Lets expose it.


Originally posted by ANOK
Yes because you never listen to what anyone says, and you make comments based on assumptions without correctly comprehending what is being said, you misinterpret what is being said Mr.Electrical engineer.


Again, futile attacks on my person.


have a nerve to say keep it on topic lol. Only when it suits you.


If you want it so badly, by all means, keep talking about me and my personality.


You really can't comprehend that the bottom floors would push back against the falling floors with equal force can you? It destroys your whole OS nonsense.


You don't really know what I comprehend or not, you are full of misconception about what I think. Very recently you claimed that I said that the floors remained intact as the building collapsed. I dared you, but as expected nothing but silence.

I know however that you have a bad understanding of the involved physics. Phrases like "potential energy pushing up" are cute but of course complete nonsense. This is not a baseless personal attack like the ones you come with, it is something you actually said.


What two? You failed to understand my analogy completely, and made comments that were nothing to do with my point. I was making a point about your reasoning with Concorde and what people claim. You focused on the world 'fence' and somehow completely missed the rest. No personal attack, just the truth PLB. Pointing out someones dishonesty in a debate is not a personal attack.


So what you are saying now is that the fence was not an actual analogy of the WTC but was meant to get another point across? Or what is it you are trying to communicate here? Talking about dishonesty.


The first tower to collapse was on fire for less than an hour, not hours and hours. Planes impact did not effect the buildings integrity, even NIST admitted that much. Have your forgotten already what your precious OS actually states? Why do you need to lie LPB?


You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I used the word "or" and I used it for a reason. There is not a tiny bit of lie in what I wrote, especially because even if it is wrong (which it isn't), it would not have been my intention. Lying is about intention, not about something being correct or false. You are again trying to attack my person with these false accusations.


Analogies are only useful when you can actually read them and comprehend them.


Then what exactly did your analogy explain that was not already well known by anyone here? Prediction: this will go unanswered. Dishonesty?


You never bring any actual evidence or science to this debate PLB, all you do is repeat the same debunked nonsense over and over and try to discredit people.


Irony.

Anyway, I don't think the staff here like this kind of conversation so feel free to remove it. Don't forget to remove Anoks nonsense too though.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Again, futile attacks on my person.


No you did that, go back and read through the posts again. No personal attack just facts.


If you want it so badly, by all means, keep talking about me and my personality.


I never mentioned your personality, just your lack of knowledge and claims that are nonsense.


You don't really know what I comprehend or not, you are full of misconception about what I think. Very recently you claimed that I said that the floors remained intact as the building collapsed. I dared you, but as expected nothing but silence.


I have been reading your posts long enough now to fully understand what you comprehend and what you don't.
You don't even realise that when I ask you certain questions, that you refuse to answer, you completely expose yourself.


I know however that you have a bad understanding of the involved physics. Phrases like "potential energy pushing up" are cute but of course complete nonsense. This is not a baseless personal attack like the ones you come with, it is something you actually said.


There is nothing wrong with that statement. Yes I said it and I'll say it again. It might not be the best way to express the equal opposite reaction law, but it is still technically correct.


So what you are saying now is that the fence was not an actual analogy of the WTC but was meant to get another point across? Or what is it you are trying to communicate here? Talking about dishonesty.


No, I was making an analogy about your claims of what people said about Concorde and the Titanic. I am not being dishonest, you misinterpreted what I said from the beginning. Why am I getting Déjà vu here PLB, this is not the first time a long discussion with you started with you completely missing my point, and me trying to explain it while you continue to twist what I said.



The first tower to collapse was on fire for less than an hour, not hours and hours. Planes impact did not effect the buildings integrity, even NIST admitted that much. Have your forgotten already what your precious OS actually states? Why do you need to lie LPB?



Then what exactly did your analogy explain that was not already well known by anyone here? Prediction: this will go unanswered. Dishonesty?


You can't read it and figure it out?


Anyway, I don't think the staff here like this kind of conversation so feel free to remove it. Don't forget to remove Anoks nonsense too though.


Oh yes you would love to remove the evidence that you completely misunderstood my point. In fact you are simply trying to defuse my point by pretending not to understand, you've done this many times PLB.

And yes you lied, the towers were not on fire for hours. You said the planes made the towers collapse.




top topics



 
34
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join