Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Cutter Charges in the North Tower


  • Please log in to reply
560 replies to this topic

#541    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 March 2010 - 11:33 AM

View PostSolarPlexus, on 12 March 2010 - 01:32 AM, said:

thought id post this ...



The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers were the largest buildings ever conceived, in 1960.[2] This meant that there was a considerable amount of planning:
With the methods available at the time, the sort of detailed impact analysis that NIST did wasn't possible, so any calculation was probably done on a much cruder basis (the original calculations don't appear to exist any more).  However, it is worth noting that both towers withstood the initial impacts.  What they didn't withstand was the combined effects of impact damage and fire.  In the light of this, perhaps this quote from Leslie Robertson is relevent:
We designed the towers to resist the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land. The impact of the Boeing 767s, commandeered by the terrorists, even though larger and flying much faster, was still unable to bring down the towers. The fire-resistive systems, however, did not and could not have contemplated the subsequent fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
http://www.lera.com/sep11.htm

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#542    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 March 2010 - 11:40 AM

View PostSolarPlexus, on 12 March 2010 - 12:37 AM, said:

One more thing... please emphasize your branch, as you should... you are an astronautics engineer correct?
Aerospace is the actual word for my speciality, however my engineering education was fairly broad, incuding structures.

Quote

If you have a background in structural components and structural systems as well, then youll debunk the above observable facts with ease...
They have already been debunked, in an open letter by one of AE911T's own:
http://www.cool-plac...RichardGage.pdf
For some reason, in over a year AE911T have seen fit to reply to this.

Quote

While were at it, here is a list of aviation professionals at pilotsfor911truth.org
Perhaps you could ask Q24 for his opinion of that organisation.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#543    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 March 2010 - 01:32 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 12 March 2010 - 11:12 AM, said:

Obviously a lower temperature and a smaller scale in my photo compared with the WTC2 cascade, but what else is significantly different?
Show us a photo with a higher temperature which matches the WTC2 cascade.

And what else is significantly different is that it looks nothing like the stuff pouring out of the WTC.

View Postflyingswan, on 12 March 2010 - 11:12 AM, said:

As to your video (incidentally the guy appears to be a prof at BYU, not NIST), he was obviously using aluminium at too low a temperature.  
The guy may well be a BYU professor but he is obviously contracted by the NIST to do work with them, as he has done with previously with the NIST.

And the temp of the aluminium was at melting point, so even if we assumed that the metal flowing out of the WTC2 was aluminium, then the temp was much higher than it's melting point for it glow like it did.

View Postflyingswan, on 12 March 2010 - 11:12 AM, said:

The final attempt to raise the temperature with a blow-torch would obviously not increase the bulk aluminium temperature by anything like what is needed for a good comparison.
But wait a minute, you was arguing that the temps were not that high, now you are arguing they were high enough to make the Alumiunium glow orange??

View Postflyingswan, on 12 March 2010 - 11:12 AM, said:

Check again, Scott G quotes Jones as saying:  We see from the photograph above that solid metal from the WTC rubble existed at salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approx. 1550 - 1900 oF, 845 - 1040 oC.) and he quotes the temperature that steel melts at as: Structural Steel ~2750 [F] ~1510 [C]
He is talking about what the photographic evidence shows us about the beam temperature and he is not suggesting the temperatures didn't exist to form molten steel.

Hence if you read previously, he states.
Jones = "The hottest portion of the chunk is the lower portion, which was deepest down in the slag, and the metal is seen to be yellow-hot, certainly above cherry-red hot."

The heap it's come from is more than likely hotter because whatever is getting the beam to that temperature is hotter than the beam itself.

Then he cites your quote and concludes it's either iron or a thermite reaction or both.

View Postflyingswan, on 12 March 2010 - 11:12 AM, said:

All this has been covered ad nauseam.
Handwaving away doesn't actually address those point I'm afraid. You demand evidence that it is molten steel, yet it appears you need none to prove it was aluminium.

View Postflyingswan, on 12 March 2010 - 11:12 AM, said:

Find me one reference to someone examing the molten metal after it has re-solidified.
So if that is your opinion, how can you conclude it is molten aluminium.  

View Postflyingswan, on 12 March 2010 - 11:12 AM, said:

People say "molten steel" or "molten metal", but there is not one single piece of evidence yet presented that shows that anyone was doing anything other than guess the metal was steel.
Well that is why you should be supporting a new investigation to establish to what was because there is not even one singe piece of evidence yet presented shows that there was molten aluminium seeing, not even people who were there.

So the steel theory is still winning in the possibility stakes.

View Postflyingswan, on 12 March 2010 - 11:12 AM, said:

The photographic evidence and the NASA ir satellite data all show temperatures too low for molten steel.
Sorry but the NASA photos show us the heat from surface temperature which is covered in rubble therefore cooler than what is underneath it, it's a good estimate but it would be much hotter lower down in the rubble to the source of the heat.

Edited by Stundie, 12 March 2010 - 01:42 PM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#544    SolarPlexus

SolarPlexus

    Warrior of Light

  • Banned
  • 4,200 posts
  • Joined:28 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Serbia

  • .....This moment contains all moments.....

    ...You dont have a Soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.....

Posted 12 March 2010 - 10:43 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 12 March 2010 - 11:40 AM, said:

They have already been debunked, in an open letter by one of AE911T's own: http://www.cool-plac...RichardGage.pdf

While you want to perceive it as a 'debunk' its just constructive criticism ... Gregory Urlich is pointing out some issues for the purpose of AE911T credibility, as he clearly states himself at the bottom of the document

EDIT:

Flyingswan, will you address my previous post in entirety?

View PostSolarPlexus, on 12 March 2010 - 01:32 AM, said:

The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers were the largest buildings ever conceived, in 1960.[2] This meant that there was a considerable amount of planning:

“The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure.  The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings… The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure.”[3]

In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the WTC Towers to be “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.”[4]

Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage.  According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.”[5] As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”[6]

In the planning of the buildings the designers considered potential attacks, and the WTC towers were designed to survive them.  Between Early 1984 and October 1985 it was reported that:

“The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks, spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability…”O’Sullivan consults ‘one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane.’ He is told there is ‘little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.’”[7]



1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.

  Posted Image


The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1   Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.

property      Boeing 707-320 Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity........23,000 gallons.....23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight...328,060 lbs........395,000 lbs
empty weight.........137,562 lbs........179,080 lbs
wingspan.............145.75 ft..........156.08 ft
wing area............3010 ft^2..........3050 ft^2
length...............152.92 ft..........159.17 ft
cruise speed.........607 mph............530 mph

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

To summarize the aircraft:

The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.
The Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.

Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.

The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.
The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.

In all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.

In conclusion we can say that if the twin towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.



Statements by Engineers

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2   Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

John Skilling

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3  
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4  
The Richard Roth Telegram

On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5  

THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.

Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. [6]  Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.


Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. [7]   Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and [3] times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited below, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. [8]  Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." [9]






Posted Image





Sources:

Boeing 707-767 comparison

WTC Design Parameters


Edited by SolarPlexus, 12 March 2010 - 10:58 PM.

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Galileo Galilei
Posted Image
"Who never walks save where he sees men's tracks makes no discoveries."J.G. Holland


#545    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM

View PostStundie, on 12 March 2010 - 01:32 PM, said:

Show us a photo with a higher temperature which matches the WTC2 cascade.
It isn't easy to find any pictures of molten metal in daylight, that was the best I could find.  However, the point isn't the temperature, it's the fact that the Al isn't silvery.

Quote

And what else is significantly different is that it looks nothing like the stuff pouring out of the WTC.
I'm not the one claiming the stuff is Al, I thing lead from the battery room is more probable.  I am not clear what you think is significantly different apart from the higher temperature and the much larger scale of the WTC2 cascade.  If the Al in my picture was hotter and dropping a much greater distance so that the flow broke up into lumps rather than being a stream, I think it would look pretty similar.

Quote

And the temp of the aluminium was at melting point, so even if we assumed that the metal flowing out of the WTC2 was aluminium, then the temp was much higher than it's melting point for it glow like it did.
Quite, the temperature is so very different from the WTC2 cascade that I wouldn't expect much similarity.

Quote

But wait a minute, you was arguing that the temps were not that high, now you are arguing they were high enough to make the Alumiunium glow orange??
I have no problem with a fire, or even better a battery room explosion, producing such temperatures.  Orange is about 950 deg C.

Quote

He is talking about what the photographic evidence shows us about the beam temperature and he is not suggesting the temperatures didn't exist to form molten steel.

Hence if you read previously, he states.
Jones = "The hottest portion of the chunk is the lower portion, which was deepest down in the slag, and the metal is seen to be yellow-hot, certainly above cherry-red hot."

The heap it's come from is more than likely hotter because whatever is getting the beam to that temperature is hotter than the beam itself.

Then he cites your quote and concludes it's either iron or a thermite reaction or both.
In other words, he just assumes that there is a hidden area that is much hotter.  The visible evidence doesn't support molten steel, as it is still dripping at the lower temperature.

Quote

Handwaving away doesn't actually address those point I'm afraid.
It wasn't handwaving, it was a reference to the whole of this thread, where the issues have been discussed.

Quote

So if that is your opinion, how can you conclude it is molten aluminium.
To repeat, if you have molten metal and the colour shows it not to be hot enough to be molten steel, then it must be molten something else.  What do you think it could be?  Al, Pb, Zn, Cu?  

Quote

Well that is why you should be supporting a new investigation to establish to what was because there is not even one singe piece of evidence yet presented shows that there was molten aluminium seeing, not even people who were there.
Hardly needs an investigation, the other metals were present and the temperatures were hot enough to melt them, no problem.

Quote

So the steel theory is still winning in the possibility stakes.
No, steel is ruled out because the molten metal isn't hot enough to be steel.

Quote

Sorry but the NASA photos show us the heat from surface temperature which is covered in rubble therefore cooler than what is underneath it, it's a good estimate but it would be much hotter lower down in the rubble to the source of the heat.
Well, the maximum NASA temperature was about 750 deg C, the metal being lifted is around 1000 deg C.  That's your "much hotter lower down" right there.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#546    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 March 2010 - 03:46 PM

View PostSolarPlexus, on 12 March 2010 - 10:43 PM, said:

While you want to perceive it as a 'debunk' its just constructive criticism ... Gregory Urlich is pointing out some issues for the purpose of AE911T credibility, as he clearly states himself at the bottom of the document.
Indeed, he points out that they haven't made a case for controlled demolition when they claim that they have.  That certainly has an effect on their credibility.
My conclusion is that there is no claim favoring the controlled demolition hypothesis over NIST’s
impact/fire/gravitational collapse hypothesis.


Quote

Flyingswan, will you address my previous post in entirety?
What more do you want me to say?  I agree that the towers were designed to withstand an aircraft impact, I pointed out that they did in fact withstand the impacts, and I posted a quote from one of the designers pointing out that they hadn't designed the towers to withstand the post-impact fires.

Edited by flyingswan, 13 March 2010 - 03:51 PM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#547    peterene

peterene

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 49 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2010

Posted 13 March 2010 - 05:11 PM

I'm back!!! You sir, are an **EDIT**. Thank you.

No wonder China will eat you alive, if america produces engineers like that.

**Don't know where you where, but why don't you go back until you can post like a civil adult?**

Edited by aquatus1, 13 March 2010 - 11:16 PM.


#548    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 March 2010 - 06:20 PM

[quote name='flyingswan' date='13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1268494902' post='3328278']It isn't easy to find any pictures of molten metal in daylight, that was the best I could find. [/quote]It is very easy to find molten metal in daylight conditions especially steel, it's just not that easy to find molten aluminium, probably because the stuff pouring out of the WTC was not aluminium.
[quote name='flyingswan' date='13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1268494902' post='3328278']However, the point isn't the temperature, it's the fact that the Al isn't silvery. [/quote]Al is silvery at melting point in daylight, that is why you can't find a picture which matches the photo evidence of the stuff pouring out of WTC 2 before it collapses.

In other words, it wasn't aluminium.
[quote name='flyingswan' date='13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1268494902' post='3328278']I'm not the one claiming the stuff is Al, I thing lead from the battery room is more probable.  [/quote]The only people who claim it was Al is debunkers.

And now the Al claim is being shot down, you want to change it too the lead from the battery room?? lol

Can you provide evidence that there were batteries on that floor because even if it was lead, it still shouldn't have been at that temperature to glow as it did.
[quote name='flyingswan' date='13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1268494902' post='3328278']I am not clear what you think is significantly different apart from the higher temperature and the much larger scale of the WTC2 cascade. [/quote]Errr...Everything! It's like comparing chalk to cheese! lol
[quote name='flyingswan' date='13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1268494902' post='3328278']If the Al in my picture was hotter and dropping a much greater distance so that the flow broke up into lumps rather than being a stream, I think it would look pretty similar.[/quote]Sorry but if you have no evidence of Al at the temperature to match the WTC photo, then chances are it is not alumiunium.

However, it could be steel seeing as it looks like molten steel.
[quote name='flyingswan' date='13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1268494902' post='3328278']Quite, the temperature is so very different from the WTC2 cascade that I wouldn't expect much similarity. [/quote]It doesn't look similar because it is not Aluminium.
[quote name='flyingswan' date='13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1268494902' post='3328278']I have no problem with a fire, or even better a battery room explosion, producing such temperatures.  Orange is about 950 deg C.[/quote]Which is still hotter than a hydrocarbn fire in ideal conditions, so what raised the temperature to 950oC??
[quote name='flyingswan' date='13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1268494902' post='3328278']In other words, he just assumes that there is a hidden area that is much hotter. [/quote]No he doesn't just assume it at all, it is obvious that whatever heat source caused that beam to be glowing that hot, would need to be hotter than the steel itself.
[quote name='flyingswan' date='13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1268494902' post='3328278']The visible evidence doesn't support molten steel, as it is still dripping at the lower temperature.[/quote]Yes it does, look at the photo closely, you can see white hot metal dripping from it and eyewitness accounts confirm this.

The visible evidence certainly doesn't support Aluminium.  :w00t:
[quote name='flyingswan' date='13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1268494902' post='3328278']It wasn't handwaving, it was a reference to the whole of this thread, where the issues have been discussed. [/quote]No, it is handwaving, you seem to think that out of the 2 competeting theories, that the steel theory requires evidence while your aluminium theory doesn't.

You told us what is required to prove it was steel, yet aluminium doesn't require the same stringent tests.
[quote name='flyingswan' date='13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1268494902' post='3328278']To repeat, if you have molten metal and the colour shows it not to be hot enough to be molten steel, then it must be molten something else. [/quote]Not necessarily so.
[quote name='flyingswan' date='13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1268494902' post='3328278']What do you think it could be?  Al, Pb, Zn, Cu? [/quote]Probably steel!
[quote name='flyingswan' date='13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1268494902' post='3328278']Hardly needs an investigation, the other metals were present and the temperatures were hot enough to melt them, no problem.[/quote]That's not very scientific espeically when you have not established whether it was steel or another metal, for all you know the temperatures may have been hot enough to melt steel as those at GZ seem to suggest.
[quote name='flyingswan' date='13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1268494902' post='3328278'][quote name='flyingswan' date='13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1268494902' post='3328278']No, steel is ruled out because the molten metal isn't hot enough to be steel. [/quote]No it is not ruled out at all, considering that most of the evidence supports the molten steel.
[quote name='flyingswan' date='13 March 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1268494902' post='3328278']Well, the maximum NASA temperature was about 750 deg C, the metal being lifted is around 1000 deg C.  That's your "much hotter lower down" right there.[/quote]All the NASA photo shows us is the heat radiating at the surface, not the temps underneath.

And the beam shows us a temp of around 1000oC so chance are that the heap/slag it was pulled from was a lot hotter and certainly hot enough to melt the steel.

Edited by Stundie, 13 March 2010 - 06:21 PM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#549    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 March 2010 - 06:24 PM

Posted Image
Look at this? What temperature do you think this molten aluminium was??  :lol:

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#550    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 14 March 2010 - 10:29 AM

View PostStundie, on 13 March 2010 - 06:24 PM, said:

Posted Image
Look at this? What temperature do you think this molten aluminium was??  :lol:
Hardly daylight.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#551    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 14 March 2010 - 10:51 AM

View PostStundie, on 13 March 2010 - 06:20 PM, said:

It is very easy to find molten metal in daylight conditions especially steel, it's just not that easy to find molten aluminium, probably because the stuff pouring out of the WTC was not aluminium.
Al is silvery at melting point in daylight, that is why you can't find a picture which matches the photo evidence of the stuff pouring out of WTC 2 before it collapses.

In other words, it wasn't aluminium.
Just to point out that I did in fact find a picture of Al above its melting point in daylight, and it was glowing pink, not silver.  Are you claiming that it would go back to silver if it was even hotter?

Quote

Can you provide evidence that there were batteries on that floor because even if it was lead, it still shouldn't have been at that temperature to glow as it did.
This isn't my theory, it's from an Italian forensic engineer, Enrico Manierei.  He queried NIST about the battery room and got confirmation:
Modifications were made in 1999 to floor 81 in an area of the floor occupied by Fuji Bank to accommodate the weight of an uninterruptible power supply.
http://11-settembre....or-of-wtc2.html

Quote

Errr...Everything! It's like comparing chalk to cheese! lol
Now who's handwaving?  Surely it can't be too difficult to descibe the differences if they are that obvious?

Quote

Sorry but if you have no evidence of Al at the temperature to match the WTC photo, then chances are it is not alumiunium.

However, it could be steel seeing as it looks like molten steel.
It doesn't look similar because it is not Aluminium.
Which is still hotter than a hydrocarbn fire in ideal conditions, so what raised the temperature to 950oC??
You haven't read this thread, I've already posted a link showing that ordinary office fires get hotter than this:
http://www.interactf...legislation.asp

Quote

No he doesn't just assume it at all, it is obvious that whatever heat source caused that beam to be glowing that hot, would need to be hotter than the steel itself.
It isn't steel because the metal is dripping and 950 deg C isn't hot enough to melt steel.

Quote

Yes it does, look at the photo closely, you can see white hot metal dripping from it and eyewitness accounts confirm this.
On the contrary, I've been over the picture in a photo editor and the hottest temp colour corresponds to around 1000 deg C, and Steven Jones is in agrreement with me on this point.

Quote

The visible evidence certainly doesn't support Aluminium.  :w00t:
No, it is handwaving, you seem to think that out of the 2 competeting theories, that the steel theory requires evidence while your aluminium theory doesn't.

You told us what is required to prove it was steel, yet aluminium doesn't require the same stringent tests.
Not necessarily so.
Probably steel!
That's not very scientific espeically when you have not established whether it was steel or another metal, for all you know the temperatures may have been hot enough to melt steel as those at GZ seem to suggest.
You mistake my argument.  I am not claiming that it is definitely Al, I am claiming that it definitely isn't steel because the evidence shows it is not hot enough.  It is therefore some metal that melts at the temperatures observed, of which Al is one example, plausible in the circumstances because it was plentiful.

Quote

All the NASA photo shows us is the heat radiating at the surface, not the temps underneath.

And the beam shows us a temp of around 1000oC so chance are that the heap/slag it was pulled from was a lot hotter and certainly hot enough to melt the steel.
Once again, you want it to be but you don't have the evidence.  The surface temp was 750 deg C max, the highest measured undersurface temp was around 1000 deg C.  Anything else is just guessing on your part.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#552    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 March 2010 - 03:04 PM

Stundie, Flyingswan never advocated aluminum.  He believes it was lead (which, if I recall, melts at even lower temperatures than Aluminum.


#553    peterene

peterene

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 49 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2010

Posted 14 March 2010 - 06:27 PM

The chart of em. is the same for all metals (..) lead will glow light orange at 1000C. Of course, every mole of metal needs about the same energy to get to certain temeprature, as engineer could know.

It means that you need about the same energy to make 1l of light orange/yellow glowing Pb as to make 1l of glowing aluminium. The problem number one: the volume of the spill was at least 100l. That makes over a ton of lead.
Problem number two: lead melts at about 330C, now any discharge would not heat the lead to this point BECAUSE the lead would have flown away (330-1000C...). There are other problems but for me it seems impossible to get a ton of molten lead to 1000C in some kind of discharge, which would occur just minutes prior to the collapse ..


#554    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 March 2010 - 08:25 PM

Wasn't the floor on fire?  Why is the discharge being isolated?


#555    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 15 March 2010 - 11:03 AM

View Postpeterene, on 14 March 2010 - 06:27 PM, said:

It means that you need about the same energy to make 1l of light orange/yellow glowing Pb as to make 1l of glowing aluminium. The problem number one: the volume of the spill was at least 100l. That makes over a ton of lead.
Problem number two: lead melts at about 330°C, now any discharge would not heat the lead to this point BECAUSE the lead would have flown away (330-1000°C...). There are other problems but for me it seems impossible to get a ton of molten lead to 1000°C in some kind of discharge, which would occur just minutes prior to the collapse ..
As I said earlier, the battery theory isn't mine, but the originator is an engineer with experience of such systems, and his words are that shorting a room-full of batteries would have "unimaginable thermal effects".

I have never claimed that it is entirely molten lead at that temperature, nor that there is enough energy in the batteries to produce it.  I am suggesting that there is enough molten lead to entrain a lot of the already burning building contents, and that the fluid material is initially contained by the walls/floor of the room which eventually give way.  I think this covers your problem list.  

However, on your own estimate there is something like ten times more energy in the batteries that in your postulated thermite charge, so you have even more of a problem with your scenario.

Edited by flyingswan, 15 March 2010 - 11:19 AM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users