...You don't have to turn it to liquid to weaken it.
All three towers were fireproof, period. You can't weaken that many core columns enough with just fire to bring any of it down. The towers were taken down by Bush Jr and his gang of thugs using military-grade thermate in order to garner public support for the illegal wars they started... period. Everything else is just you stupid patriotic sheep grasping at straws just so you can continue living your lie of a "society".
All three towers were fireproof, period. You can't weaken that many core columns enough with just fire to bring any of it down. The towers were taken down by Bush Jr and his gang of thugs using military-grade thermate in order to garner public support for the illegal wars they started... period. Everything else is just you stupid patriotic sheep grasping at straws just so you can continue living your lie of a "society".
__________________
ส็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็็ Down with the American Imperialist Army and their south Korean puppets!
All three towers were fireproof, period. You can't weaken that many core columns enough with just fire to bring any of it down. The towers were taken down by Bush Jr and his gang of thugs using military-grade thermate in order to garner public support for the illegal wars they started... period. Everything else is just you stupid patriotic sheep grasping at straws just so you can continue living your lie of a "society".
Fireproof buildings wouldn't be susceptible to thermite.
__________________
"Crazyass could be a disease ridden orphan with shit for genes but because he's white you instantly accept that his are superior to yours?" - FON
Unexpended thermate was found ALL OVER the site after the false-flag attack. The morning of the attack the Pentagon admitted they were running war games which involved flying airliners into the Trade Center towers. WTC7, a fireproof building, imploded into its own footprint at freefall speed even though only a small section of it was on fire. The passports of the so-called terrorists were conveniently found the same day as the attack even though the core columns were pulverized and everything else bigger than a cigarette pack were reduced to powder. All the evidence of the crime was immediately ordered to be hauled away overseas to be melted down the NEXT DAY after the attack, with special orders given to the drivers not to stop anywhere or let anyone examine it. Stock activity involving the troubled airline skyrocketed in the days just before the attack, with huge amounts still unclaimed by anonymous stockholders. On the morning of attack, all air traffic around the towers were halted, although air traffic records show this had NEVER happened before. The power and security systems to the towers were shut down just weeks before the attacks, everyone was evacuated, although this had never happened before in the history of the operation of the towers. Melted steel was reported by firefighters on scene to be still bubbling away in pools under the rubble WEEKS after the attacks. Witnesses reported explosions in the basement and lower floors even before the towers fell. Steel and concrete were discovered FUSED together. What more do you fucking need, you God-damned clueless automatons?? Are you all really THAT fucking stupid and blinded to your own corrupt and mass-murdering government? Are you really so blindly patriotic that you'll throw all this direct evidence out the window just so you can "take their word for it"? You're so pathetic it almost hurts.
Unexpended thermate was found ALL OVER the site after the false-flag attack. The morning of the attack the Pentagon admitted they were running war games which involved flying airliners into the Trade Center towers. WTC7, a fireproof building, imploded into its own footprint at freefall speed even though only a small section of it was on fire. The passports of the so-called terrorists were conveniently found the same day as the attack even though the core columns were pulverized and everything else bigger than a cigarette pack were reduced to powder. All the evidence of the crime was immediately ordered to be hauled away overseas to be melted down the NEXT DAY after the attack, with special orders given to the drivers not to stop anywhere or let anyone examine it. Stock activity involving the troubled airline skyrocketed in the days just before the attack, with huge amounts still unclaimed by anonymous stockholders. On the morning of attack, all air traffic around the towers were halted, although air traffic records show this had NEVER happened before. The power and security systems to the towers were shut down just weeks before the attacks, everyone was evacuated, although this had never happened before in the history of the operation of the towers. Melted steel was reported by firefighters on scene to be still bubbling away in pools under the rubble WEEKS after the attacks. Witnesses reported explosions in the basement and lower floors even before the towers fell. Steel and concrete were discovered FUSED together. What more do you fucking need, you God-damned clueless automatons?? Are you all really THAT fucking stupid and blinded to your own corrupt and mass-murdering government? Are you really so blindly patriotic that you'll throw all this direct evidence out the window just so you can "take their word for it"? You're so pathetic it almost hurts.
Yes, very pathetic for not believing the claims of someone over the Internet instead of the laws of science.
Jet fuel burning for hours would cause structural collapse of just about any material known to man, and since there is no further evidence of thermite or explosives, /argument
Also, I don't support what the government did after the attacks. The White House took advantage of the dead for its own gain, sure, but it didn't kill them first.
__________________
"Crazyass could be a disease ridden orphan with shit for genes but because he's white you instantly accept that his are superior to yours?" - FON
Yes, very pathetic for not believing the claims of someone over the Internet instead of the laws of science.
Jet fuel burning for hours would cause structural collapse of just about any material known to man, and since there is no further evidence of thermite or explosives, /argument
Also, I don't support what the government did after the attacks. The White House took advantage of the dead for its own gain, sure, but it didn't kill them first.
"It bent without almost a single crack in it. It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this."
"This is fused element of molten steel and concrete and all of these things all fused by the heat into one single element."
Note: And remember... concrete doesn't even melt... it explodes and crumbles to powder when exposed to thousands of degrees of flame... ONLY with a thermite/thermate reaction could concrete be fused to other materials in such a manner.
If we were to believe the fairy tales of the patriotically ignorant, it should be impossible to find these items on the scene of the attack, but they were indeed found. Hard facts vs Idiot fairy tales. Which would YOU rather believe?
Would the pulverising of the towers during the collapse (combined with the heat of the fires) cause any significant increase in temperature (with regards to friction and all that)?
__________________
Everything is acceptable, as long as house prices don't crash.
Yes, very pathetic for not believing the claims of someone over the Internet instead of the laws of science.
Jet fuel burning for hours would cause structural collapse of just about any material known to man, and since there is no further evidence of thermite or explosives, /argument
Also, I don't support what the government did after the attacks. The White House took advantage of the dead for its own gain, sure, but it didn't kill them first.
You do realize that the world trade centre tower had been on fire before, for a much longer duration that spread over several floors. Guess what? I didn't collapse. Jet fuel burned away in ten minutes according to popular mechanics that you referenced, so it wasn't "burning for hours."
All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. -Mein Kampf
There's no point in arguing 9/11 because no matter how much inconsistency you shove in peoples faces, they won't want to look at it. So they facepalm and say your crazy to believe that powerful leaders would orchastrate an attack on their own peoples, even though it's happened numerous times throughout history.
The following users say "It is so good to hear it!":
Within SECONDS of those passenger planes going off course NORAD was aware of it. And within NORAD there are protocols which MUST be followed in EACH AND EVERY SITUATION... and yet NONE of them were executed on that fateful morning. And that's because they were ordered not to by the United States government. The world watched on TV as the first tower burned for 30 minutes, NORAD already fully aware that a jetliner had hit it, and yet not a single jet appears on scene. Then a second passenger plane hits the second tower and the world watches it, but not a single jet arrives on scene. And this is over NEW YORK!... whose airspace is so closely monitored that if even a Cessna plane veered off course in that airspace it would be challenged by jetfighters within mere minutes and forced to land or be shot down. And yet the entire world watched the entire episode on their own TV's for over an hour and not a single military craft made any appearance whatsoever. Kinda tells you something, doesn't it? It was all planned right from the start, and the reason no military craft made an appearance at all is simply because they were ordered not to. Only a hopeless fool would think otherwise.
Would the pulverising of the towers during the collapse (combined with the heat of the fires) cause any significant increase in temperature (with regards to friction and all that)?
Short answer: yes.
Kinetic energy, like all energy, translates to a heat increase. Interestingly enough, dropping a sack of flour will raise its temperature very, very slightly. Not even due to friction in this case, simply the movement of the object excites the atoms and those vibrations are what we call heat. I don't recall the figures exactly, but if you drop it from very high up, around nine times, you'll actually raise the temperature of the bag of flour around one degree.
Hundreds of tons of burning steel falling would have a tremendous transfer of potential to kinetic energy. Tremendous. There would also be a domino effect as the top part began to collapse, the whole internal skeleton would be compromised, and it would come crashing down like, well...the World Trade Center.
You do realize that the world trade centre tower had been on fire before, for a much longer duration that spread over several floors. Guess what? I didn't collapse. Jet fuel burned away in ten minutes according to popular mechanics that you referenced, so it wasn't "burning for hours."
Do you understand anything about thermodynamics? Or even just how a thermometer works? Were these buildings you're referencing burning at the burning temp for jet fuel, as the WTC were? No. A low-temp fire could burn for years in one of those buildings and cause no discernible effect, because the equilibrium temperature is the highest the steel can reach. If the fire isn't hot enough to bring the equil. temp past a point that steel suffers loss of plasticity, then shit won't collapse.
WTC7 burned for hours, I was referencing that.
Quote:
All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. -Mein Kampf
There's no point in arguing 9/11 because no matter how much inconsistency you shove in peoples faces, they won't want to look at it. So they facepalm and say your crazy to believe that powerful leaders would orchastrate an attack on their own peoples, even though it's happened numerous times throughout history.
It's not that I would doubt that it'd happen. Evidence was clearly fabricated in the case against Iraq. If there was evidence that 9/11 was staged, I'd believe it in a heartbeat.
The issue is the complete lack of evidence in your claim. WTCs had a central column holding everything up instead of a cage structure. The plane tore straight through the flimsy window-wall and slammed, at around 450 mph, directly into this one central support. Let's do some math shall we?
Kinetic Energy of the Plane
A 747 has a mass of around 115,000 kg when fully loaded, and this one was traveling at 219 m/s when it struck. Therefore, its kinetic energy was around 2.758 gigajoules. That's about three times what a nuclear power plant produces every second. That's a shitton of energy. A metric motherfucking shit ton.
Wave Damage
When it struck, it had to do tremendous damage to the structure. Furthermore, the impact sent a longitudinal wave throughout the structure. Think about when you hit a metal pipe on the end, you know that ringing it does? Well the energy of your strike travels all the way down the pipe and back multiple times, vibrating, oscillating. Well, the central support was vibrating like the goddamn Jolly Green Giant's vibrator. All of that impact energy was pulsing back and forth. It probably felt like a fucking earthquake in that bitch.
Meanwhile, the steel was being fucked by the laws of physics like I fucked my girlfriend's best friend last night. It was receiving both compression and tension stress simultaneously from the wave. This devastated much of the structural strength. I have no doubt that it passed the steel's yield strength and that there were seriously deformed pieces found in the wreckage that came from the shock wave alone.
The Fire and Shit
From here, you had pretty massive secondary explosions which definitely didn't magically restore the steel back to its former glory. They probably didn't do that much either compared to the impact, but it unleashed a firey hell onto the floor where the plane struck. The already fractured central support was doused in burning jet fuel. Despite the fact that the impact alone was likely enough to make it collapse at some point, the fuel accelerated this, and when hundreds of tons of steel came crashing down on the rest of the already-fragmented structure, the thing went down like, well, a sack of flour.
You've just been physicked, bitch.
__________________
"Crazyass could be a disease ridden orphan with shit for genes but because he's white you instantly accept that his are superior to yours?" - FON
Last edited by crazzyass; 05-23-2012 at 09:44 PM.
The following users say "It is so good to hear it!":
Within SECONDS of those passenger planes going off course NORAD was aware of it. And within NORAD there are protocols which MUST be followed in EACH AND EVERY SITUATION... and yet NONE of them were executed on that fateful morning. And that's because they were ordered not to by the United States government. The world watched on TV as the first tower burned for 30 minutes, NORAD already fully aware that a jetliner had hit it, and yet not a single jet appears on scene. Then a second passenger plane hits the second tower and the world watches it, but not a single jet arrives on scene. And this is over NEW YORK!... whose airspace is so closely monitored that if even a Cessna plane veered off course in that airspace it would be challenged by jetfighters within mere minutes and forced to land or be shot down. And yet the entire world watched the entire episode on their own TV's for over an hour and not a single military craft made any appearance whatsoever. Kinda tells you something, doesn't it? It was all planned right from the start, and the reason no military craft made an appearance at all is simply because they were ordered not to. Only a hopeless fool would think otherwise.
Logs show that NORAD wasn't alerted until long after the planes had been hijacked. By the time they realized it wasn't an accident, it was too late. If I had to guess, I'd say they downed Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. If they're covering anything up, it's that. After all, a fighter was practically on top of them when they went down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reject
I don't understand how 2 towers were brought down and wtc7 by planes, when those are almost exclusively the only cases. All on the same day.
Back when the empire state was hit it just blew a hole in it and the engine went flying through.
A 747 hit the Empire State Building?
__________________
"Crazyass could be a disease ridden orphan with shit for genes but because he's white you instantly accept that his are superior to yours?" - FON
"It bent without almost a single crack in it. It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this."
"This is fused element of molten steel and concrete and all of these things all fused by the heat into one single element."
Both of these were likely from the kinetic energy of the impact, as I described. Like I just said in my previous post, I'm sure there were deformed pieces of steel found in the wreckage from the shock waves. That's what you're referencing. They didn't crack because they weren't bent by heat to begin with.
__________________
"Crazyass could be a disease ridden orphan with shit for genes but because he's white you instantly accept that his are superior to yours?" - FON
B-25. So not an insignificant cessna or some shit.
No, but the B-25 is much smaller, flies much slower, and would have had an impact energy orders of magnitude lower than a Boeing 747.
Furthermore, it has a smaller range and carries less fuel, which means the fire wouldn't burn as long or as hot.
__________________
"Crazyass could be a disease ridden orphan with shit for genes but because he's white you instantly accept that his are superior to yours?" - FON
Also, after reading the details of the incident, the B-25 seemed to disintegrate on impact. Like you said, one engine flew through the building and hit another building a block away.
The 747, however, maintained a surprising amount of structural integrity, staying mostly intact until hitting the central beam. This means most of the kinetic energy it came with was transferred directly to the beam. The Empire State Building probably absorbed this energy over the span of several floors due to the disintegration.
__________________
"Crazyass could be a disease ridden orphan with shit for genes but because he's white you instantly accept that his are superior to yours?" - FON
You can argue all you like but 9/11 was clearly bullshit, false flag attack by either America or Israel.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was Israel, they have a track record of attacking US forces to goad them into fighting their wars.
So you're going to ignore the laws of physics to further your own fragmented political views?
The proper refutation to a shitload of math proving you wrong isn't "that's bullshit."
__________________
"Crazyass could be a disease ridden orphan with shit for genes but because he's white you instantly accept that his are superior to yours?" - FON
__________________
"Crazyass could be a disease ridden orphan with shit for genes but because he's white you instantly accept that his are superior to yours?" - FON
...The issue is the complete lack of evidence in your claim. WTCs had a central column holding everything up instead of a cage structure. ...
That's not true. There were DOZENS of core columns, all of them pulverized into nothing more than dust, which would be impossible to achieve with just jet fuel and burning office materials. Nope. Can't melt dozens of core columns into pools of melted steel with just jet fuel and burning building materials either, and yet the NY firefighters reported pooled liquid steel under the rubble WEEKS after the collapses.
That's not true. There were DOZENS of core columns, all of them pulverized into nothing more than dust, which would be impossible to achieve with just jet fuel and burning office materials. Nope. Can't melt dozens of core columns into pools of melted steel with just jet fuel and burning building materials either, and yet the NY firefighters reported pooled liquid steel under the rubble WEEKS after the collapses.
I've already addressed all of this. I'm not responding until you actually read the post.
__________________
"Crazyass could be a disease ridden orphan with shit for genes but because he's white you instantly accept that his are superior to yours?" - FON
You know it may have not been the government who set the bombs in the building, they could have used the 1993 bombings as a coverup to plant explosives in the buildings, and they could have hit the pentagon so it would throw the government's track off
__________________
Chemistry... The funnest science
You know it may have not been the government who set the bombs in the building, they could have used the 1993 bombings as a coverup to plant explosives in the buildings, and they could have hit the pentagon so it would throw the government's track off
Read my in-depth explanation above of why you and your brethren are full of shit.
Hypotheticals don't mean anything. Could have used the bombings? Yeah, no shit they could have. Too bad they didn't, because there's no goddamn evidence of it.
__________________
"Crazyass could be a disease ridden orphan with shit for genes but because he's white you instantly accept that his are superior to yours?" - FON
__________________
"Crazyass could be a disease ridden orphan with shit for genes but because he's white you instantly accept that his are superior to yours?" - FON
I've been trying to find other videos or photos of WTC 7 leaning, there's a vid of a firefighter explaining that WTC 7 is leaning, and is going to collapse. If anyone knows of any pictures I would be extremely grateful.
I've been trying to find other videos or photos of WTC 7 leaning, there's a vid of a firefighter explaining that WTC 7 is leaning, and is going to collapse. If anyone knows of any pictures I would be extremely grateful.
Couldn't find any pictures, but I wouldn't doubt the firefighter. If there was a conspiracy, the everyday responders had no knowledge of it and no reason to lie.
__________________
"Crazyass could be a disease ridden orphan with shit for genes but because he's white you instantly accept that his are superior to yours?" - FON
THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.
"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:
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.
"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).
Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.
Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."
Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."
Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."
Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.
Summarizing:
We have assumed 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 perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.
Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).
Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.
It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).
Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.
Conclusion:
The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.
Physicked, bitch.
One of the towers got hit at the 92nd floor. How can that small amount of concrete and steel pulverize the entire still structurally sound 80% of the building below? Falling at the rate it did, physicists argue whether or not a significant amount of the structure of the buildings had to be compromised in order for them to fall so fast and straight down on themselves. Was thermite used?
[DOI: 10.2174/1874412500902010007] Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
Too bad that analysis is a red-herring. Why? Read it carefully. Its whole argument is that the jet-fuel wouldn't burn hot enough to heat all the steel and concrete that made up an entire floor to such high temperatures.... Except the fire does not have to heat every single nook and cranny of an entire fucking floor, it only has to heat the support columns. It's the support columns that matter, and it's the support columns that were hit with fire.
"As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
...
"However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.
It would be impractical to design buildings to withstand the fuel load induced by a burning commercial airliner. Instead of saving the building, engineers and officials should focus on saving the lives of those inside by designing better safety and evacuation systems.[/i]"
--Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation.
"Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next - a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member. The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building - paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained.
[DOI: 10.2174/1874412500902010007]
[i]Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31
....
Suck my physickes, bitch!
Except that report contains major flaws, and worse yet it does not conclude that thermite was found but instead suggests more study would need to be done. For instance:
a. The samples used in the study were collected by laymen following no scientific protocol for their collection or storage, and were examined 6 years after the collapse of the towers.
b. The study itself cannot rule out contamination. Indeed it states:
"The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sul-fur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wall-board material in the buildings."
c. It's analysis stops short of being able to conclude whether it was thermite:
"The existence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide leads to the obvious hypothesis that the material may contain thermite. However, before concluding that the red material found in the WTC dust is thermitic, further testing would be required. For example, how does the material behave when heated in a sensitive calorimeter? If the material does not react vigorously it may be argued that although ingredients of thermite are present, the material may not really be thermitic."
Oh, and it also ignores the fact that the materials in the building contain the necessary components for thermite (i.e. metals + oxidizers ).
__________________
"If Slavoj Žižek and Richard Dawkins had a baby, and Friedrich Nietzsche and Charles Manson had a baby, and those two babies met up and had a baby, and their baby went to prison, that would be Rust." -- Snoopy
THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.
"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:
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.
"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"
Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).
Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.
Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."
Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."
Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."
Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.
Summarizing:
We have assumed 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 perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.
Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).
Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.
It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).
Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.
Conclusion:
The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.
Physicked, bitch.
One of the towers got hit at the 92nd floor. How can that small amount of concrete and steel pulverize the entire still structurally sound 80% of the building below? Falling at the rate it did, physicists argue whether or not a significant amount of the structure of the buildings had to be compromised in order for them to fall so fast and straight down on themselves. Was thermite used?
[DOI: 10.2174/1874412500902010007] Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
Suck my physickes, bitch!
You didn't read my post. Please read it first. I addressed all of this shit already.
I already said the burning jet fuel played only a small part in the collapse and that the longitudinal wave from the the impact + jet fuel explosion compromised the structure. How did the floors above 92 bring it down? You realize that for any structure to support a load, it has to support its own weight, right? It might surprise you, but that's the main challenge in constructing a building. After having a tremendous amount of energy coursing through it, I'm frankly surprised it stood for as long as it did.
That paper has been debunked over and over again and many of its authors stripped of their teaching and research positions. Not as some conspiracy, but because the paper is shit. The methodology is fucked. The samples were collected by "a manhattan resident" so there is no evidence that the samples even came from the site, in other words, and no ACTUALLY verified samples exhibit these alleged properties.
Furthermore the particles were on the micro scale, not nano, and exhibited no unique properties. Pulverized rust and aluminum, the two components of thermite, would be found in any building collapse. There have been refutation after refutation of that shitty paper. It was made by people who already made their minds up and who then looked for evidence to support their view, instead of using evidence to constitute a view.
And you're doing the same thing. If you were using a scientific method, you would consider other theories. But you're sold on conspiracy.
__________________
"Crazyass could be a disease ridden orphan with shit for genes but because he's white you instantly accept that his are superior to yours?" - FON
You didn't read my post. Please read it first. I addressed all of this shit already.
I already said the burning jet fuel played only a small part in the collapse and that the longitudinal wave from the the impact + jet fuel explosion compromised the structure. How did the floors above 92 bring it down? You realize that for any structure to support a load, it has to support its own weight, right? It might surprise you, but that's the main challenge in constructing a building. After having a tremendous amount of energy coursing through it, I'm frankly surprised it stood for as long as it did.
That paper has been debunked over and over again and many of its authors stripped of their teaching and research positions. Not as some conspiracy, but because the paper is shit. The methodology is fucked. The samples were collected by "a manhattan resident" so there is no evidence that the samples even came from the site, in other words, and no ACTUALLY verified samples exhibit these alleged properties.
Furthermore the particles were on the micro scale, not nano, and exhibited no unique properties. Pulverized rust and aluminum, the two components of thermite, would be found in any building collapse. There have been refutation after refutation of that shitty paper. It was made by people who already made their minds up and who then looked for evidence to support their view, instead of using evidence to constitute a view.
And you're doing the same thing. If you were using a scientific method, you would consider other theories. But you're sold on conspiracy.
You're a sheeple, idiot. The unexpended thermate was tested to be military grade thermate and could, and still can, only be acquired through military sources. It's easy to say, "Duhhhh... we found aluminum and rust! *slobber/drool*" like a clueless fuckwit, but that's not what they found and tested. They found a LOT of unexpended military-grade nano-thermate spheres throughout the site of the false flag attack, not rust and aluminum.
The unexpended thermate was tested to be military grade thermate and could, and still can, only be acquired through military sources. It's easy to say, "Duhhhh... we found aluminum and rust! *slobber/drool*" like a clueless fuckwit, but that's not what they found and tested.
Bullshit. The study itself - ignoring it's huge flaws - says they can't even conclude it's thermite before further study. and yet there you are claiming they found military grade thermate:
"The existence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide leads to the obvious hypothesis that the material may contain thermite. However, before concluding that the red material found in the WTC dust is thermitic, further testing would be required. For example, how does the material behave when heated in a sensitive calorimeter? If the material does not react vigorously it may be argued that although ingredients of thermite are present, the material may not really be thermitic."
__________________
"If Slavoj Žižek and Richard Dawkins had a baby, and Friedrich Nietzsche and Charles Manson had a baby, and those two babies met up and had a baby, and their baby went to prison, that would be Rust." -- Snoopy
Bullshit. The study itself - ignoring it's huge flaws - says they can't even conclude it's thermite before further study. and yet there you are claiming they found military grade thermate:
"The existence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide leads to the obvious hypothesis that the material may contain thermite. However, before concluding that the red material found in the WTC dust is thermitic, further testing would be required. For example, how does the material behave when heated in a sensitive calorimeter? If the material does not react vigorously it may be argued that although ingredients of thermite are present, the material may not really be thermitic."
The FEMA-sponsored Building Performance Study of 2002 contains evidence of melted steel caused by sulfidation and oxidation. This is found in the "Limited Metallurgical Examination" written by Professor Jonathan Barnett. The NIST report, however, fails to address the evidence of sulfidation found in the structural steel from the WTC. Barnett examined two pieces of melted steel: one from the WTC 7, the other from the Twin Towers . About the first piece, Barnett wrote: "The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to the combination of oxidation and sulfidation." This was done by "a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel," he concluded. Barnett found the same sulfidation in the piece of melted steel from the Twin Towers. "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event," Barnett wrote. "No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."
Professor Jones points to Thermate, with 2 percent sulfur, as being the most likely culprit. The oxidation and sulfidation of the steel requires the oxygen and sulfur being "intimately in contact with the metal at high temperature," Jones said.
You're a moron. That's the same article that Psych referenced, and where I got my quote from. The same article that suffers from the fundamental flaws crazyass and I already pointed out, and that you have failed to address. At no point in time does that article conclude "military-grade thermate/thermite" was found. That's a bold-face lie.
Quote:
[Unattributed copy+pasta]
As for this, there's nothing really to respond to. It basically repeats Jones (one of the author's of the study above) claim that there was thermate. It offers no evidence, does not refute the explanation from Professor Jonathan Barnett, nor does it explain why none of the byproducts of thermate reaction were found.
__________________
"If Slavoj Žižek and Richard Dawkins had a baby, and Friedrich Nietzsche and Charles Manson had a baby, and those two babies met up and had a baby, and their baby went to prison, that would be Rust." -- Snoopy
__________________
"If Slavoj Žižek and Richard Dawkins had a baby, and Friedrich Nietzsche and Charles Manson had a baby, and those two babies met up and had a baby, and their baby went to prison, that would be Rust." -- Snoopy
The following users say "It is so good to hear it!":
Re: 9/11
Re: 9/11
Oh no! Physicked!
You didn't read my post. Please read it first. I addressed all of this shit already. 
