Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
07-20-2010, 04:16 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-20-2010, 05:14 PM by JazzRoc.)
#46
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
(07-18-2010, 04:03 AM)triplesix Wrote: The top 20% of a building rolling off of the structure cannot cause the other 80% to collapse straight down.
I don't see "the top 20% of a building rolling off of the structure" at all.
I DO see the tower SWAY to and fro (as it's meeting core structure resistance, and overcoming it) as it progresses downwards.
But deny it, man, please. I love denial in the face of reality. Deny it, I love it.
Come to think of it, a single detached floor probably COULD pancake the rest. Impact loads may easily be powers of ten greater than static loads.
If you don't believe it you can sell me your hammers for a song. Here's one: "Hanging in the Air" LOL
Reply
07-20-2010, 06:11 PM,
#47
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
Quote:It's entitled "Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?"
The answer to which is "NO!" - with REASONS.

Since your answer to the OP is no, I wonder why you so eagerly lap up and defend all the bullshit that passes for the official story. More miracles in that than the bible.


“I'm not from earth. I'm here on a research project. I'm preparing a paper on the psychosomatic ailments of pre-Apocalyptic condominium dwellers.”
-Sappho, Ash Ock

The Mushrooms once said to me "You must have a plan. If you don't have a plan, you will become part of someone else's plan."
-Terence McKenna
Reply
07-21-2010, 10:28 AM,
#48
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
(07-20-2010, 06:11 PM)scaramanga667 Wrote: Since your answer to the OP is no, I wonder why you so eagerly lap up and defend all the bullshit that passes for the official story. More miracles in that than the bible.
I haven't needed to have the faintest interest (I certainly don't) in the "official story". I don't defend it, but can certainly explain it. They knew they had to cut the detail short in the "story" because it would be scrutinized by the general public, which has in it people like YOU, who think you know what you're talking about - in error. I'm sure they saw that the less they talked about anything, the less they would have to explain the physics of to an ignorant and propagandized public.
An ignorant and propagandized public is what you get if you believe it politic to close down socializing projects and education expenditure over forty years, which is what successive US governments have done. And ignorant AND propagandized is EXACTLY what you are.
I have NO interests in the US at all. It's the most dangerous country in the world, apparently run by a gangster clique. That's the way I have felt ever since JFK was ambushed.
Had it not been for witnessing the DIRECT MURDER of nearly three thousand people, I would have CHEERED the bloody arabs on. Brilliant. To blow US banking's two-fingered salute to the world completely away is to give hope to all people oppressed by US imperialism. And I hope it did.
But if you actually live there and believe that ignorant pack of dogs did it because you don't understand science AND you believe the lies you read or hear on the web, then you are a complete waste of time.
You have benefitted from hiding under the skirt of a massive imperial force and at the expense of the starving poor in other countries whom you have never had to think about, supersizing yourself and blanking out whatever remained of your sorry education, and are now promoting a VERY STUPID idea which serves those gangsters perfectly, being totally past its era, and NOT what the gangsters are doing NOW.
You think I'm something?
Now THAT is hutzpah.
Reply
07-21-2010, 01:51 PM,
#49
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
Quote:Come to think of it, a single detached floor probably COULD pancake the rest.

Actually it cannot. In fact the architecture of the building was designed specifically to avoid that scenario, among others.

Clearly you haven't done your homework on this so please, PLEASE.. do a little more research.
Reply
07-21-2010, 03:09 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-21-2010, 03:18 PM by JazzRoc.)
#50
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
(07-21-2010, 01:51 PM)52595 Wrote:
Quote:Come to think of it, a single detached floor probably COULD pancake the rest.
Actually it cannot. In fact the architecture of the building was designed specifically to avoid that scenario, among others. Clearly you haven't done your homework on this so please, PLEASE.. do a little more research.

Well, it may not in theory, but you're only talking one floor in theory.

In ACTUALITY, the structure's overall strength was greatly reduced. It may have been able to remain standing in this weakened condition indefinitely, but had a limited ability to resist additional loading, and a small earthquake or a high wind might easily have finished it off.

It was already off-centre due to partial collapse and sagging of the stricken face of the building, and ALL IT NEEDED was for the progressive softening and consequent buckling of the remaining overloaded core columns and outer skin caused by a restrained fire at a ceiling line.

The inevitable pancake was ably assisted by many floors more than a single floor...

Thanks for the egg-suck.
Reply
07-21-2010, 03:50 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-21-2010, 04:54 PM by 52595.)
#51
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
(07-21-2010, 03:09 PM)JazzRoc Wrote:
(07-21-2010, 01:51 PM)52595 Wrote:
Quote:Come to think of it, a single detached floor probably COULD pancake the rest.
Actually it cannot. In fact the architecture of the building was designed specifically to avoid that scenario, among others. Clearly you haven't done your homework on this so please, PLEASE.. do a little more research.

Well, it may not in theory, but you're only talking one floor in theory.

In ACTUALITY, the structure's overall strength was greatly reduced. It may have been able to remain standing in this weakened condition indefinitely, but had a limited ability to resist additional loading, and a small earthquake or a high wind might easily have finished it off.

It was already off-centre due to partial collapse and sagging of the stricken face of the building, and ALL IT NEEDED was for the progressive softening and consequent buckling of the remaining overloaded core columns and outer skin caused by a restrained fire at a ceiling line.

The inevitable pancake was ably assisted by many floors more than a single floor...

Thanks for the egg-suck.


Thanks for the egg-suck? Is that supposed to be the finalizing exclamation mark on your witty retort? Swing and a miss, old chum.

The structure's "overall integrity" may have been reduced but not to nearly the amount of what would have caused the integrity of those steel columns to weaken and collapse. If you had actually spent 5 minutes researching this you'd know this. Instead you're more interested in starting arguments here. Dodgy

Quote:
The inevitable pancake was ably assisted by many floors more than a single floor...

Again, take 5 seconds from your response from this and actually do a little research with it. It'll benefit you, unlike responding with another grade-school-esque assertion.

The maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520° F (825° C)- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C. Sure, it may have reduced structural integrity marginally on the floors fire burned on. But not below. The buildings were made that way. Look it up.

Further, when the World Trade Center collapsed fires would have been deprived of oxygen and their temperatures would have significantly decreased. Why was the temperature at the core of "the pile" nearly 500° F hotter than the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel a full seven days after the collapses?

Oh, that's right - we're ignorant and propagandized for asking. Good call.

And finally, your earlier explanation of why the official 911 commission report wasn't comprehensive and complete is toilet paper.

Quote: They knew they had to cut the detail short in the "story" because it would be scrutinized by the general public, which has in it people like YOU, who think you know what you're talking about - in error. I'm sure they saw that the less they talked about anything, the less they would have to explain the physics of to an ignorant and propagandized public.

Did you write the report? Of course not. Do you know personally the individuals who were assigned to the commission? No. So just how do you think you can presume to know this? Do we need to query the definition of ignorance?

Because the public would scrutinize the report is why they omitted ALL THE PROOF of their assertions?

hahaha

I love the irony in your comment - you're actually criticizing people for their ignorance when you can't actually substantiate any of your claims yourself.

Good job. Clap
If you'd like to discuss this in further I'd be happy to via PM. I don't see why an argument should be publicized here.

Cheers
Reply
07-21-2010, 04:54 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-21-2010, 05:18 PM by JazzRoc.)
#52
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
(07-21-2010, 03:50 PM)52595 Wrote: The maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520° F (825° C)
And that has NOTHING to do with it. Steel softens at the temperature aluminum melts at. That's at 450 C and aluminum was plainly seen "leaving the building".
Being SOFT means NOT BEING STRONG. I'm telling you this because it seems to have slipped by you.
May I offer this to you from my viewpoint as an experienced metal-worker and blacksmith? We always got our steel cherry red before we started hammering it, but we could continue for some time as the steel lost its color into plain oxide black before we reheated it. It's rather like working toffee.

Quote:Further, when the World Trade Center collapsed fires would have been deprived of oxygen and their temperatures would have significantly decreased.
The TOP of the fire is where the highest temperatures are to be found, and we now know that the blast removed the rather friable insulation. So the BRUNT of the temperature rise would be trapped on the underside surfaces. The decks would expand and push outward, bowing the external wall and adding to the lateral buckling movements of the core steel. That steel especially had fewer heat paths leading away from it. It was being HELPED to buckle. That probably means little to you, but buckling is what engineers fear most.

Quote:Why was the temperature at the core of "the pile" nearly 500° F hotter than the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel a full seven days after the collapses?
Because COLLISION energy had heated it and melted it. It probably even BOILED off a small portion of the steel. See my previous work here.

Quote:Oh, that's right - we're ignorant and propagandized for asking. Good call.
No, you're ignorant and propagandized for ASSERTING. You could have asked any time. PM or here.

Quote:And - unconstructive - my a$$ with it.
Thanks.

Quote:So just how do you think you can presume to know this? Do we need to query the definition of ignorance?
You're defining it right now. There's no longer any need for presumption on my part.

Quote:you're actually criticizing people for their ignorance when you can't actually substantiate any of your claims yourself.
I've substantiated the "pit claim" above. You don't seem to have noticed.

Quote:If you'd like to discuss this in further I'd be happy to via PM. I don't see why an argument should be publicized here.
That appears to be AFTER publicizing insults here.
Is there a LINE you draw, like:

HYPOCRISY HERE > < NO HYPOCRISY HERE ?

If there IS, then I'm sorry - I cannot see it.
Reply
07-21-2010, 04:55 PM,
#53
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
As per your sig, Jazz, I'm trying really, really hard NOT to attribute malice to some of your replies, but of course you know what that leaves me with ...


“I'm not from earth. I'm here on a research project. I'm preparing a paper on the psychosomatic ailments of pre-Apocalyptic condominium dwellers.”
-Sappho, Ash Ock

The Mushrooms once said to me "You must have a plan. If you don't have a plan, you will become part of someone else's plan."
-Terence McKenna
Reply
07-21-2010, 05:08 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-21-2010, 05:13 PM by 52595.)
#54
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
And I assume jet fuel was the cause of 'softening' over 80 floors of steel structure?

You can heat up a small piece of steel at 450c maybe, but according to wikipedia carbon steel forging temperatures run in at 1230c.

Regardless, you mention you have some experience with metal work so I wonder what your thoughts are on the following and if you can attribute the label of ignorance to it as easily as you had to others:


""The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:

CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

will release 10,850 x 44,000,000 = 477,400,000,000 Joules of energy.

This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
Nitrogen 1,038
Water Vapor 1,690
Carbon Dioxide 845
Lightweight Concrete 800
Steel 450

Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
1,400,000 x 800 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that

1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) = 477,400,000,000
1,857,653,675 x T - 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000

Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).

So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world. "

BTW here is the source:

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm
Reply
07-21-2010, 05:37 PM,
#55
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
(07-21-2010, 04:55 PM)scaramanga667 Wrote: As per your sig, Jazz, I'm trying really, really hard NOT to attribute malice to some of your replies, but of course you know what that leaves me with...
It's good the you are looking around a little.
I was thinking of mooching around JREF to find if you had written anything there. Stupidly, of course.
Malice? Do I feel it? Only when stupidity emits an insult.
Reply
07-21-2010, 05:52 PM,
#56
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
I'm quite certain you've already spent a good deal of time mooching around JREF. That's where all your arguments come from.


“I'm not from earth. I'm here on a research project. I'm preparing a paper on the psychosomatic ailments of pre-Apocalyptic condominium dwellers.”
-Sappho, Ash Ock

The Mushrooms once said to me "You must have a plan. If you don't have a plan, you will become part of someone else's plan."
-Terence McKenna
Reply
07-21-2010, 06:04 PM,
#57
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
(07-21-2010, 05:08 PM)52595 Wrote: And I assume jet fuel was the cause of 'softening' over 80 floors of steel structure?

That is the most ludicrous idea I have heard.

"ALL IT NEEDED was for the progressive softening and consequent buckling of the remaining overloaded core columns and outer skin caused by a restrained fire at a ceiling line" is what I SAID.

What part of that don't you understand?

Hence your follow-up has no relevance.

I have seen similar "engineering" calculations with similar irrelevances.
There must be something in the "truther" make-up that ABSOLUTELY COMPELS them to avoid science.

But for a plain and in-your-face rebuttal I call the TONS of molten duralumin seen pouring out of the building.

Compare it with this statement: "So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added 257° C to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed."

And with this: Example composition HIDUMINUM R.R.56 Melting point 635°C Density 2.75
Composition: Copper 2.0% Nickel 1.3% Magnesium 0.8% Iron 1.4% Titanium 0.1% Silicon 0.7% Aluminium 93.7% - WIKI
Reply
07-21-2010, 07:55 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-21-2010, 08:07 PM by 52595.)
#58
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
What then are your thoughts on building 7's collapse?
Reply
07-21-2010, 08:07 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-21-2010, 09:26 PM by JazzRoc.)
#59
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
(07-21-2010, 05:52 PM)scaramanga667 Wrote: I'm quite certain you've already spent a good deal of time mooching around JREF. That's where all your arguments come from.
You won't believe me, but I only mooched round that the one time when I decided there was nothing for me there.
You forget I'm the same age as Randi.
(07-21-2010, 07:55 PM)52595 Wrote: What then are your thoughts on building 7's collapse?
It took a big hit off a tower. Fires broke out in several places.
Like the other two buildings it was ALSO NOT a classical multiply-redundant frame building.
Instead it was built over a bridge beam.
One corner of that beam was susceptible to a fire, and when its support point failed (DUE TO SOFTENING - AGAIN) the building fell THROUGH it.
Normal demolition charges produce a powerful audible crackle, so there weren't any of them.
Thermite charges are silent but aren't predictable as to when or even if they will function. Nor could they have been laid in the time available.
No "truther" has ever been able to explain to me how anyone would have been able to lay ALL the charges it would have been necessary to lay, yet produce a convincing collapse emanating precisely from the stricken part of the buildings BEFORE the planes hit the buildings, and yet AFTER a massive explosion and fire in each case..
More to the point, no "truther" even understands my question.
Only a "truther" would waste so much time in this fruitless and pointless exercise.
And me, of course, but what I would really like is for you to find out what the bastards are doing now.
Perhaps if you forgot all this shit you could do something really useful. But it's been nine years and you're still banging on....
Quote:according to wikipedia carbon steel forging temperatures run in at 1230 C
But that isn't "softening temperature", which is around 600 C for that grade of civil structural steel, I believe.
Carbon steel forging temperature is a BRIGHT YELLOW, and is the temperature at which you can still pick up a billet of steel with tongs without having it instantly FLOP DOWN or SQUISH OUT each side of the tongs. It's a practical temperature, if you understand me. The hydraulic forge press will then fashion that crankshaft, say, in a single stroke. Being that close to a billet at that temperature can give you quite a suntan... Smile
Reply
09-06-2010, 08:33 PM,
#60
RE: Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
Jazz wrote:
"And that has NOTHING to do with it. Steel softens at the temperature aluminum melts at. That's at 450 C and aluminum was plainly seen "leaving the building".
Being SOFT means NOT BEING STRONG. I'm telling you this because it seems to have slipped by you.
May I offer this to you from my viewpoint as an experienced metal-worker and blacksmith? We always got our steel cherry red before we started hammering it, but we could continue for some time as the steel lost its color into plain oxide black before we reheated it. It's rather like working toffee."


Im sorry but up with this i will not put. aluminium? where? what? from the building? you are the great expert in hitting hot metal as you contend. can you tell me how hot you needed to get aluminium before it glowed red? did you have much experience with aluminium?

btw i think your spellchecker is in american.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Information Power and Control: The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement - Leveraging the Japan Tsunami and Other Disasters FastTadpole 37 10,899 01-23-2014, 01:51 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Signs Of The Times Blog: An Inconvenient Truth FighterFromAfar 0 405 04-07-2007, 10:31 PM
Last Post: FighterFromAfar
  When Did The Spraying Start ? (maby The Truth Is In The Movies) lando 3 786 03-18-2007, 09:54 PM
Last Post: Karl292

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)