A new assertion is not relevant to the disproof of a previous assertion; this is known as "shifting the goalposts." The prior assertions were proven untrue, using precisely the requested methodology: basic physics. <br> Ah, I see what you mean now (I think) - when you stated in another post that
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | A new assertion is not relevant to the disproof of a previous assertion; this is known as "shifting the goalposts." The prior assertions were proven untrue, using precisely the requested methodology: basic physics. <br> Ah, I see what you mean now (I think) - when you stated in another post that
Again, you lack the personal integrity to admit that you got what you asked for (analysis from the point of view of basic physics) and it was not to your taste. <br>I guess I hadn't read Andrew Johnson's post too closely....
When I read this, I thought Andrew Johnson was seeking any analysis from a physics perspective that shed light on the situation. I didn't think he or you particularly cared which one, as long as it was serious. I see now that his and your focus is much more narrow.
Well, I personally don't get hung up on "speed of fall" arguments, or those that look to figure out too many details. There's no need to, because the disparity in the energy budget is so decicisive.
I believe that the US Patent office rejects "perpetual motion" machines out of hand, as they contradict conservation of energy. At this point, I have a similar policy towards "explanations" of collapse. After I read only slightly beyond the 2nd chapter of the FEMA Fairy Tale, I saw there was no need to read any more.....
Andrew Johnson
16th October 2005 - 09:25 AM
Metamars,
Thanks for your posts - you have have done a much better job of addressing the energy calculations than I ever could (which, readers can note, was not the thrust of my original post, but is strongly related to it, of course).
Best Wishes
Andrew
a_ht
16th October 2005 - 10:34 AM
| QUOTE | Metamars,
Thanks for your posts - you have have done a much better job of addressing the energy calculations than I ever could <br>your doing quite a good job at insulting yourself.
someguy
16th October 2005 - 01:52 PM
QUOTE (a_ht+Oct 16 2005, 10:34 AM) | QUOTE | Metamars,
Thanks for your posts - you have have done a much better job of addressing the energy calculations than I ever could <br>your doing quite a good job at insulting yourself. I have a highschool diploma, and I am not as nice and respectful as Andrew is so *** YOU SHITHEAD. I hope you will realize the truth one day and wake up. If you are willfully trying tocover the truth of 911 up...then I hope you burn in hell for all eternity with the real criminals against the people.
a_ht
16th October 2005 - 03:09 PM
I put many people here on the same category as these people http://www.metacafe.com/watch/35327/who_sh...we_invade_next/PS Andrew is kind in words because he is insulting you in many other ways.
someguy
16th October 2005 - 03:21 PM
QUOTE (a_ht+Oct 16 2005, 03:09 PM) I put many people here on the same category as these people http://www.metacafe.com/watch/35327/who_sh...we_invade_next/ And you go under this category www.completeanduttertrash/brainwashed/ignorant/pussy/devoidofanykindofreason/warmongering/greedyfilthyswine.com
a_ht
16th October 2005 - 03:29 PM
Read my 6 first post, they all contributed something relevant and positive to this thread. It is only much after that I have became trashfull and irrespective of Andrew (Basically I gave him what he deserved)
Are you ever going to bring something positive to this thread or is your strategy just to be an *** from the start? please specify.
Guest
16th October 2005 - 03:32 PM
QUOTE (someguy+Oct 16 2005, 03:21 PM) QUOTE (a_ht+Oct 16 2005, 03:09 PM) I put many people here on the same category as these people http://www.metacafe.com/watch/35327/who_sh...we_invade_next/ And you go under this category www.completeanduttertrash/brainwashed/ignorant/pussy/devoidofanykindofreason/warmongering/greedyfilthyswine.com God will make sure the real enemies pay. Maybe not in this Lifetime...Have a good afterlife send Lucifer my regards. Wake up before it's too late! The truth is in the heart.
Spirit of Galileo
17th October 2005 - 05:51 AM
QUOTE (newguy+Oct 14 2005, 02:04 AM) ... a quick clip of George W. Bush lying through his teeth about the first plane crash on September 11th, then please visit the link below:
www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html
... Aside from the fact that there was no TV in the school, contrary to his claim, the video footage of the first plane hitting the towers wasn't even available until the following day. Let me know what you think. Thanks. I think that it, like some of the silliness I've seen in this thread, is outright disinformation. Using emotion as a gatekeeper to say, in effect, "Nothing to see here, citizen, move along; just Bush lying again." Where is the evidence that Bush was lying? (Or for that matter, when "Paul Thompson" of cooperativeresearch.org says that Bush's witness statement is "impossible"?) Just because it may, for some people, feel good to call Bush a liar or to think of him that way (or label him that way and let the label do their thinking for them!) does not make it right to label the statement as a lie without any supportive evidence. Just because it was impossible for you or I to have seen what Bush says he saw on "TV", when he said he saw it, does not mean that it was impossible for POTUS, who has access to what amounts to his own global video network. Click here for a somewhat keener analysis of Bush's incriminating 9/11 witness statements
metamars
17th October 2005 - 06:30 AM
| QUOTE | 3. Did you completely miss the fact that the top five stories of the building falling on the one below represents at least a thirty times overload of its ultimate failure strength, by the most conservative estimates, WITHOUT ANY WEAKENING OF IT WHATSOEVER? 4. Did you fail to understand what will happen when you overload something THIRTY TIMES BEYOND ITS ULTIMATE FAILURE STRENGTH? 5. Did you even READ the paper linked at the beginning of this thread, much less UNDERSTAND it?
<br>I hadn't read it recently, though I'm sure I took a look at it many moons ago.
However, I've now read it carefully, and I'm not impressed. Since I don't understand it completely (it is sketchy, it applies a method of analysis that doesn't seem useful, and doesn't fully justify the value given of a key parameter, viz. yield moment) I will reserve final judgement. In the mean time, before anybody states it's conclusions as gospel, please read on.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | 3. Did you completely miss the fact that the top five stories of the building falling on the one below represents at least a thirty times overload of its ultimate failure strength, by the most conservative estimates, WITHOUT ANY WEAKENING OF IT WHATSOEVER? 4. Did you fail to understand what will happen when you overload something THIRTY TIMES BEYOND ITS ULTIMATE FAILURE STRENGTH? 5. Did you even READ the paper linked at the beginning of this thread, much less UNDERSTAND it?
<br>I hadn't read it recently, though I'm sure I took a look at it many moons ago.
However, I've now read it carefully, and I'm not impressed. Since I don't understand it completely (it is sketchy, it applies a method of analysis that doesn't seem useful, and doesn't fully justify the value given of a key parameter, viz. yield moment) I will reserve final judgement. In the mean time, before anybody states it's conclusions as gospel, please read on.
"The energy dissipation, particularly that due to the inelastic deformation of columns during the initial drop of the upper part, may be neglected, i.e., the upper part may be assumed to move through distance h almost in a free fall (indeed, the energy dissipated in the columns during the fall is at most equal to 2πX the yield moment of columns, X the number of columns, which is found to be only about 12% of the gravitational potential energy release if the columns were cold, and much less than that at 800°C." <br>Note that they have nowhere clearly told us how they got their values for the yield moment of the columns, nor have they justified their use of "elastic dynamic analysis" to begin with. Perhaps all civil engineers "know" that this is perfectly valid, and this is why they don't justify it. However, I would like to see the details, and if anybody has them, please provide them. I am certainly no civil engineer.
Nevertheless, if their approach is valid, we should not be able to deduce any contradictions.
However....
First off, note that Zhou gives the mass of the "top" of the North Tower as 58·106 kg. So, they're either using a lighter building, or different floor, or both.
I am assuming collapse occurs on floor 73, and the top of the building falls freely through 5 floors above that. I include the weight of those 5 damaged floors in the weight of the "top".
According to Zhou, at the beginning of the collapse, .12 KE would be expended on cold support beams in making them buckle. So, work done in collapsing 1 floor, at the beginning of the collapse: W = (.12)#KE = F.y (y is height of 1 floor; # means delta, so #KE reads "delta KE")
so, the downward force which did the work in buckling floor 73 is approx.
F = (.12)#KE/y (yes, I am assuming a constant force over the course of this particular floor)
#KE < #PE = mg#h
m = m(top 38 floors ) = (38 / 111) x 450 x 10 ^ 6 kg = 1.546 x 10 ^ 8 kg
So, #KE = (1.54 x 10 ^ 8 )( 9.8 ) (5 * 3.79 m) = 2.86 x 10^10
So F = (.12) (2.86 x 10^10) / 3.79 m = 9.06 x 10^8
(I've ignored the fact that the beams were thicker on the bottom of the towers. However, their approximate analysis, which they are presenting seriously, shows no dependency on height in their Eq(1), so they are apparently ignoring strength gradients, as well)
Collapse of the first "sound" floor (floor #73) can't begin if this downward force is insufficient to buckle that same floor. More precisely, it can't begin if this downward force is insufficient to buckle the columns which support this floor, and which Zhou tells us is absorbing .12KE
So, it's weight exerts a downward force = m(38) g = (1.546 x 10 ^ 8) g
= 1.546 x 10 ^ 8 x 9.8 = 1.52 x 10 ^ 9
So, the additional downward force attributable to the kinetic energy of the mass is only an additional 60%.
9.06 x 10^8 / 1.52 x 10 ^ 9 = 60%
Well shucks, 60% of 38 floors = 23 floors. In other words, this is the weight that floor #50 was bearing day in, day out for 30 years or so, without collapsing. I don't doubt at all that floor #50 may have been built more solidly than floor #73, but I seriously doubt that the difference was so great as to allow collapse of floor #73 in this scenario.
More to the point, perhaps, my understanding is that is standard practice to build skyscrapers such that they can withstand 4 times the maximum anticipated sustainable load. Thus, floor 73 should have been able to withstand a downward force of at least 4 x ( 1.52 x 10 ^ 9 ) = 6.08 x 10 ^ 9 Newton.
The "force deficit" is easily:
1 - [ ( 9.06 x 10^8 + 1.52 x 10 ^ 9 ) / 6.08 x 10 ^ 9 ]
= 60%
Furthermore, the weight of the top that I have been using, m(38), represents the actual weight, not the maximum rated weight. And of course, the maximum weight capacity of a floor in the sense of how much you can put on the part of the floor used for people, office furnishings, etc. before that part of the floor collapses will likely be less than the maximum weight that the vertical load-bearing beams themselves would support.
I don't have good figures for these handy. However, I've never been in or atop a steel structure that couldn't support it's own weight many times over. If you stand on a lawnmower, e.g., you won't crush it, honest. Pack a Volkswagen Beetle inside and outside with with people, etc., etc.
Thus, I believe a more realistic "force deficit" can be obtained by doubling the denominator above, so we are probably talking closer to 80%.
I don't for a minute believe that Zhou's "dynamic elastic" equation is telling us anything useful, though an accurate approximation of "yield moment" would be of great interest. (That is, if "yield moment" means anything like what I think it is. )
Again, I'm not a civil engineer, so if anybody knows otherwise, please post. I think we need the civil engineers to weigh in here, not so much the physicists.
Since I can use Zhou's paper to contradict what he is trying to show, I don't think it's of much value. (If I've made an error, don't be bashful about pointing it out.) Furthermore, I'm very skeptical that his approach can even tell us anything useful.
I might reconsider this if somebody can show me why "dynamic elastic analysis" is a useful approximation. My guess is that it's only really useful in the sense that taking theta = sin(theta) is useful. If theta is small, you are OK. If a vibration is small (such as from a mild earthquake), then maybe dynamic elastic analysis is valid, also, in the study of steel-framed buildings.
========================== N.B.
I saw the result of a computer simulation over 25 years ago that modeled what would happen when a steel cube was struck at one corner. Next to the computer generated graphic, there was a real piece of steel that was used for the real world test. The two pictures looked nearly identical.
Let's not kid ourselves. If that was possible then, it's certainly possible now to model a steel frame of the WTC. These analytical exercizes are fun, but there really is a better way to settle the matter.
Zhou's paper appeared only a couple of day's after 911, so they have an excuse for not making such a simulation. I understand NIST has done a lot of modeling, but, as Hoffman has pointed out:
| QUOTE | So we get detailed computer simulations of how the planes were shredded by the impacts, but when it comes to the collapses, the most quantitative thing we get is "tremendous energy of the falling building section." Why are there no calculations of the approximage amount of energy? <br>It doesn't take an Einstein to smell a rat.
metamars
17th October 2005 - 07:26 AM
| QUOTE | What on Earth are you blathering about? WHERE THE HELL IS THE ADDITION BACK INTO THE EQUATION OF THE HEAT ADDED TO THE CONCRETE BY GRINDING IT? <br>I don't know exactly how the grinding values were determined. Certainly, heat was created when grinding occured. Did the people who published the figures that Hoffman used include this heat or not? They may have performed these measurements inside a calorimeter, and subtracted out the heat energy. I don't know, and I don't think you know, either.
Suppose the claimed value is 1 Joule per kg
Case 1 - heat was subtracted from the published figures ==================================== Then you know you need at least 1 Joule to get 1 kg of powder. You may need 1.1 J, or you may need 100 J, you really don't know.
In either case, if this was the method used, Hoffman need not concern himself, because the energy sink that the heat represents has not been debited from the KE energy source.
Case 2 - heat was not subtracted from the published figure ====================================== Put 1 Joule into your system, and you will get 1 kg powder (give or take) However, your waste heat may equal .9999 J, or it may equal .0001 J. You don't know, a priori. If it's .0001 J, it's negligible, and even if Hoffman ignores it, you are beating him up over nothing.
If it is .9999 J, then you have every right to be concerned, if Hoffman is indeed ignoring it.
However, (and I'm going on memory, here; feel free to double check me) , for the purposes of his calculation, I believe Hoffman ignored the energy needed to grind concrete in a quantitative way, anyway. What he said is that given a bunch of powder (not just concrete, if I recall), how much energy does it take to expand this "gas" the way that was observed. He then mentions, in passing, that it would take such and such energy to grind the concrete. *
As I recall, the energy he quotes for grinding concrete is something like 5% of the energy sink represented by the expanding dust cloud, anyway. Thus, you are raising a stink over nothing. If my memory is correct in this regard, it certainly doesn't change the conclusion.
Oh, you really should stop creating a stink over energy sinks!
Since the phrase "stikes me as deceptive" offends you, consider it retracted, and substitute the hopefully less antagonistic phrase "unclear or mistaken".
* Actually, I'm convinced that in a "collapse" scenario, the energy necessary to create powder from concrete far exceeds what it takes to produce it in a grinder, but I'll omit my essentially intuitive arguments.
Schneibster
17th October 2005 - 09:19 PM
QUOTE (metamars+) I don't know exactly how the grinding values were determined. Certainly, heat was created when grinding occured. Did the people who published the figures that Hoffman used include this heat or not? |
You've completely missed the point. He states that the concrete has to be heated without ever stating that it would have already been hot; look for yourself. He puts the heating of the concrete on the debit side, and never mentions it would already have been hot from being ground up into powder. If he had, his cute little piece of accounting at the bottom would have included the fact that the energy spent grinding the concrete gets put back in as energy that heats it up. QUOTE (metamars+) They may have performed these measurements inside a calorimeter, and subtracted out the heat energy. |
Yo, numb nutz, they don't have to measure anything in a calorimeter, ENERGY IS CONSERVED and however much energy gets put into griding up the concrete, that much energy will get put INTO the concrete. The specific heat of the concrete will determine how much this energy heats it up- in other words, the the concrete's average temperature. Go look up "specific heat." Better yet, go look up "James Prescott Joule" and find out about the experiments he ran where he showed that stirring a pot of water with a paddle heated the water up. If you don't see the relevance of that to the problem at hand, you're not bright enough to tie your shoes by yourself. QUOTE (metamars+) I don't know, and I don't think you know, either. |
Speak for yourself; just because you're dumb enough not to know what CONSERVATION OF ENERGY means, doesn't mean I am.
I will point out that this is the THIRD TIME I am telling you EXACTLY THE SAME THING, and you STILL DON'T GET IT. That's because you're dumb.
London to SF
18th October 2005 - 12:18 AM
Schneibster
It seems like you're pulling your hair out!
Maybe you would appreciate a break from the physics debate of WTC1 and WTC2 collapses, and would care to give us your opinion on what happened with WTC7?
I say "maybe", because you're possibly just as likely to insult and belittle me just for having asked this "non-physics" question of you... ...but try not to if you can help it...(insult and offend that is...).
metamars
18th October 2005 - 01:51 AM
| QUOTE | You've completely missed the point. He states that the concrete has to be heated without ever stating that it would have already been hot; look for yourself. <br>OK, I'm looking. Here is Hoffman's energy budget:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | You've completely missed the point. He states that the concrete has to be heated without ever stating that it would have already been hot; look for yourself. <br>OK, I'm looking. Here is Hoffman's energy budget:
KWH source or sink + 111,000 falling of mass (1.97e11 g falling average of 207 m) - 135,000 crushing of concrete (9e10 g to 60 micron powder) ignoring water vaporization - 400,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 1020 K) - 11,300,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 1020 K) assuming water vaporization sink was not supply-limited - 1,496,000 vaporization of water (2.38e9 g water) - 41,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 373 K) - 1,145,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 373 K) <br>Certainly, the only energy source listed above is the 111,000 due to falling mass. This is insufficient to even complete the grinding of the concrete, which tells you immediately that there's something wrong , since, as you keep reminding us, energy must be conserved, and all the rest of items are deficits.
Let's suppose that ALL of the 135,000 KWH concrete grinding energy sink represents heat energy. In other words, let's pretend that concrete is '100% fragile' - a ludicrous assumption, especially considering it's status as a building material, but is as close as we can get to justifying your concern. So just heating it causes it to fall apart into 60 micron powder.
So, we now have 9e10 g concrete powder which you say is very hot, and the amount of heat added to the concrete equals 135,000 KWH. There really wasn't enough KE in the falling mass to even get us this far, but let's pretend that there was. (Let's assume that Hoffman undercounted the mass, e.g.)
How hot did we make this concrete?
avg specific heat of concrete is .925 J / g . deg Celcius ( ref: http://www.cement.ca/cement.nsf/0/fec0c794...ocument&Click=)
So delta T = (1 / .925 ) (135, 000 KWH) ( 3600000 J per KWH ) ( 1 / 9e10g) = 1.081 x 5.40
= 5.84 degrees Celcius
Taking the temperature of the concrete before crushing/heating to be 68F, this is 293 Kelvin.
So after crushing/heating, we are up to a whopping 299 kelvin.
Now consider the lower limit value of concrete heating of the energy sinks that Hoffman listed (i.e., not the much higher one that assumes that "water vaporization sink was not supply-limited"):
- 1,145,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 373 K)
Note that his base point is 300K. So, he does not "owe you" any heat energy. (Actually, you owe him 1 deg K, but who's counting? )
Adding this sink and
- 400,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 1020 K)
you are in deficit by 1,545,000 KWH.
How many collapsing towers is this worth?
1,545,000 / 111,000 = 13.92
Since we all agree that there was not this many WTC towers, and since you believe in conservation of energy, please tell us where this energy comes from.
Bearing in mind, of course, that according to your own calculations, the kinetic energy of the plane plus the chemical energy of the jet fuel was about equal to the PE of a single building.
| QUOTE | Speak for yourself; just because you're dumb enough not to know what CONSERVATION OF ENERGY means, doesn't mean I am.
I will point out that this is the THIRD TIME I am telling you EXACTLY THE SAME THING, and you STILL DON'T GET IT. That's because you're dumb. <br>I think it's generally quite obvious who is dumb and who is not, just by giving a fair reading to the posts. Your shrill tone and insults may obscure the untenability of your position, but you certainly don't fool me.
Has it even occurred to you that you can communicate without being obnoxious?
Schneibster
18th October 2005 - 11:48 PM
Sigh. Look, sport, it violates the conservation of energy. I'll try to explain it a FOURTH time. I'll stick to 1 WTC for my figures; that's American Airlines Filght 11. I already showed that the FEMA potential energy calculation (which Hoffman accepts, but I do not) was too low by a factor of four. Go read it. I showed it two different ways, in case you hadn't noticed- both as potential energy and as kinetic energy. And they both gave very close to the same answer; within 1%, in fact. So instead of 111,000kWh, you got more like 450,000kWh as the correct figure for the total potential before a tower fell, or the kinetic energy created by its fall. Remember, this doesn't include the sizeable energy of impact of the plane, nor the energy released by the burning fuel, nor by the burning paper, wood, plastic, and cloth in the two or three floors that burned. Nor does it include the contents of the towers that burned as a result of being subjected to high temperatures developed by friction during the collapse, an energy source involving literally thousands of tons of fuel. Let's see how much energy is involved. First, there is the impact of the plane. The plane weight was somewhere near 150t, including fuel and passengers. It was going 790km/h when it struck, and its kinetic energy was: KE = mv^2/2 = (150,000kg * (219.4m/s)^2)/2 = 3,610,227,000 or about 3.6GJ; about 1,000kWh. So this is negligable in terms of the total energy budget. How about the fuel? The 767-223 was carrying some 75,000l of fuel. This has an energy content of about 35MJ/l, giving it a total energy content of 2,625,000,000,000J, or 2.625TJ. This is 730,000kWh. Almost all of this vast supply of energy was dumped inside the building; unlike the 2 WTC impact, the 1 WTC impact was almost straight-on to the face of the building, against the long side of the center column. The energy involved in the jet fuel was nearly twice the energy available from the kinetic energy of the collapse. But there is yet another source of energy, and it outdistances all the others by an order of magnitude. How about the contents of the three floors that burned? We know that the loading was around 50lbs/sqft, and that the area inside the floor was about 2/3 of the area (the other third is taken up by the center column); that gives us 1,428,300lbs. Of that, perhaps 2/3 was metal; the remaining 1/3 would be primarily paper, wood, plastic, and cloth. That's about 230 tons per floor. This pageshows that the energy content of garbage is about 1/4 that of coal; garbage is going to be comparable in energy content to the paper, plastic, wood, and cloth on those floors. Using the same site's energy calculator on the 57 tons of coal that is the equivalent of that comes out to about 1.2TJ, or an additional 346,000kWh per floor, or some 1,020,000kWh for three floors. Obviously, at least half of this material was incinerated during the collapse, due to the elevated temperatures caused by the release of the kinetic energy of the fall. 55 floors gives us 68,645,935,050,000J- 69TJ, or 19,068,315kWh! And that's if only half of it burned. This energy is far, far beyond any of the estimates Hoffman makes of the energy necessary to expand the pyroclastic cloud- his estimate for the pyroclastic cloud if all of the concrete were heated to 744C is only 11 million kWh, here we have over 19 million kWh. And that assumes that only half of the material burned! Now, as regards energy conservation: Hoffman shows +111,000kWh for the collapse, then subtracts -135,000kWh for the crushing of the concrete. He then goes on to talk about the heat to expand the cloud- never mentioning that that 135,000kWh expended in crushing the concrete would already have heated it. Which I have now told you no less than four times. Look at it again; read his whole paper. For this reason alone his paper is bunk. But beyond that, I have shown above that he has missed a very obvious energy source that accounts for energy nearly twice that necessary to produce every effect he mentions; that is, nearly twice his most radical estimate. So again, it's bunk, and he knows nothing of energy conservation, and neither do you.
London to SF
19th October 2005 - 12:03 AM
QUOTE (Schneibster+Oct 18 2005, 11:48 PM)
How about the fuel? The 767-223 was carrying some 75,000l of fuel. This has an energy content of about 35MJ/l, giving it a total energy content of 2,625,000,000,000J, or 2.625TJ. This is 730,000kWh. Almost all of this vast supply of energy was dumped inside the building; <br> Your quote of "almost all" is vague, at best. The definition of almost all would be, what, 85%, 90%, 95%?? How could the plane (and its contents, including its fuel) be ignited, and explode in a huge fireball, and yet still manage to retain "almost all" of its fuel load, to then damage the structure of the towers?
Schneibster
19th October 2005 - 12:17 AM
London, you seem to have missed the fact that the energy of the contents of the building exceeds all other energy sources by a factor of ten. Who cares whether it was 85% or 95% of the jet fuel that burned inside the building? Or even only 50%? 1. The amount of energy represented by the burning contents of the building is sufficient to account for the expansion of the cloud; add in the energy of the collapse and the energy of the jet fuel, and there is more than plenty. 2. The amount of energy represented by 50% of the fuel plus 50% of the burning contents of a single floor is more than sufficient to explain a single floor's collapse due to metal creep under the influence of the fire. I'll prove this as well if you like; that much energy applied to that small an amount of steel will raise it to temperatures where creep is documented to occur. 3. The force represented by the top five stories of the building falling one floor is more than sufficient to explain the next floor's collapse. 4. As the collapse continues, the force increases as the mass above accelerates under the force of gravity, and the mass increases as each floor collapses and is added to the falling mass, easily accounting for the collapse of the remaining portion of the building. Once it was moving, nothing was going to stop it. 5. There is sufficient energy to account for the cloud, sufficient energy to account for the powderized concrete, sufficient energy to account for the floor failures, and plenty left over to account for the pools of molten metal found underneath the rubble afterward.
What more do you need?
Foxx
19th October 2005 - 03:11 AM
Hi Guys, Interesting discussion you have going. I don't know too much about numbers myself, (apart from that they should be based upon true figures). It seems to me that FEMA determined that ...the Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel ... fully loaded. 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. FEMA said- "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"... Source : http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf (Section 2.2 1.2 [Fire Development] ) If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed... or not? Something doesn't seem right here. Where did you get your figure of 75,000L of fuel available for input to the equation ??? 75,000L = approximately 17 - 18000 gal of fuel ! Where did all that extra fuel come from ??? metamars...Nice stuff on the Bhazant-Zhou theory. Andrew... nice start  Cheers http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch2.htm
Foxx
19th October 2005 - 03:30 AM
Hmmmm , seems you can't edit posts here for 'corrections'.
I missed the most important part that FEMA determined in its 'Final' report...
quote: "based on information compiled from Government sources... each aircraft contained about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel upon impact into the buildings".
Now we have to subtract from that number, the gallons expended in the fireball, so I seem to come up with the number of 3500 - 4000 gals. Not 17,000. Please help if my math isn't as sharp as it used to be. Thanks
metamars
19th October 2005 - 02:27 PM
| QUOTE | So instead of 111,000kWh, you got more like 450,000kWh as the correct figure for the total potential before a tower fell, or the kinetic energy created by its fall. <br>I don't have time for a detailed look/reply, but a quick observation.
If you take a larger energy source due to converted PE of the mass of the buildings, you will end up with more mass to expand, which presumably you have to heat to about the same temperature. (is this correct? I really don't remember much of my chemistry.) In fact, the relationship between mass and PE is linear. So, again, even if you ignore the energy needed to "grind" the other solids into 60 micron dust, you may have made the deficit larger, not smaller.
Also, playing devil's advocate, how justified is it to use the ideal gas law in this situation? I don't recall Hoffman fully justifying the whole approach, though I may have missed it. Here is where we could use the input of chemists. Certainly the dust cloud LOOKS like a gas, but I'm not sure this justifies treating it like one.
It may turn out that using the ideal gas law is as valid an approximation as "elastic dynamic analysis". For that matter, it may turn out that you need MORE energy to expand a dust cloud than a correspondingly large gas cloud.
Regarding creep: please explain exactly what that is and why we should be concerned about it.
a_ht
19th October 2005 - 02:30 PM
QUOTE (metamars+Oct 19 2005, 02:27 PM) Regarding creep: please explain exactly what that is and why we should be concerned about it. HAHAHAHAHA. That makes the whole thread worth reading.
brian
19th October 2005 - 04:00 PM
WTC collapses due to controlled demolition Steven E. Jones Professor of Physics/BYU http://www.leftgatekeepers.com/articles/WT...StevenJones.htm
Foxx
19th October 2005 - 06:10 PM
QUOTE (Schneibster+Oct 18 2005, 11:48 PM)
How about the fuel? The 767-223 was carrying some 75,000l of fuel. This has an energy content of about 35MJ/l, giving it a total energy content of 2,625,000,000,000J, or 2.625TJ. This is 730,000kWh. Almost all of this vast supply of energy was dumped inside the building; <br>In your quote you make the statement that 75000L was added to the energy budget... and that "almost all" was dumped into the building. First (as I earlier questioned) where do you get this figure from? I have seen no quantative analysis which allows for such a high number of gallons of fuel being added to the mix. I have provided FEMA's report on WTC 1 & 2 which contradicts your number (in the extreme)... http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf Here are some calculations based upon FEMA's estimate of fuel, regarding how much heat would be input to the equation... | QUOTE | 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.
"it is estimated that, at the time of impact based on information compiled from Government sources, that each aircraft contained about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel upon impact into the buildings"
and...
""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."
{Source: http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf Section 2.2. 1.2 (Fire Development) }
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. <br>This is a generous postulation, given that you wish to ignore all the heat which was expelled from the buildings in carrying the smoke away from the building. That heat is lost to the PE, yet you seem to want to negate this loss, and pretend that there was no loss here, and that the total energy input from fuel remained in the building. OK, for the sake of discussion, we will pretend that this is so. Carrying on then...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | 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.
"it is estimated that, at the time of impact based on information compiled from Government sources, that each aircraft contained about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel upon impact into the buildings"
and...
""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."
{Source: http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf Section 2.2. 1.2 (Fire Development) }
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. <br>This is a generous postulation, given that you wish to ignore all the heat which was expelled from the buildings in carrying the smoke away from the building. That heat is lost to the PE, yet you seem to want to negate this loss, and pretend that there was no loss here, and that the total energy input from fuel remained in the building. OK, for the sake of discussion, we will pretend that this is so. Carrying on then...
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:
{see the equation in the link provided below}
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 Vapour 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.
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. <br>Source : http://guardian.250free.com/wtc/how-hot.htm
It seems to me that your statement (based upon your calcs) of 2,625,000,000,000J of heat energy which you have added to the 'energy budget' is highly exagerrated.
Would you care to rework your calculations to reflect a realistic amount of heat to be added to the energy budget? I somehow think that Hoffmans energy budget is much more reasonable than that which you have proposed.
Schneibster
19th October 2005 - 07:27 PM
Foxx, Perhaps your source is better. Fine, we'll go with that, but you've miscalculated, two different ways. First, if you like FEMA's numbers, there were 10,000 gallons on the plane, and 3,000 were consumed in the initial fireball- leaving 7,000, not 3,500. Second, at least half of that heat (from the fireball) would have remained in the building, and that's a conservative estimate- this is a confined space, and heat radiates (there isn't time for conduction, and convection doesn't occur in solid materials), so the bulk of the radiated heat would have been absorbed by the building directly rather than radiated out into the surrounding air; 75% might be a more realistic figure- but we'll go with 50%, to be conservative. So we'll add 1,500 gallons worth of energy to our budget. So that's 8,500 gallons worth, all told. 8,500 gallons is 32,176l. At 35MJ/l, that's 1,126,160,000,000J, 1.126TJ, which is still 312,822kWh. And remember, this was expended on, at most, three floors. So one floor would have gotten 104,274kWh, from the jet fuel alone. And that assumes that it was evenly distributed; most likely, one floor got more than the other two, but we'll take this conservative estimate. Meanwhile, the contents of the floor would have added a further 346,000kWh, as previously calculated. This adds up to 450,274kWh per floor. In Joules, this is 1,620,986,666,667J, 1.62TJ. Remember also that the energy of the burnable materials per floor was quite conservative; we assumed that only 2/3 of the floor would be loaded at under half of its capacity of 100lbs/sqft, and that 2/3 of the loading would be unburnable metal. Anyone who has ever moved a file cabinet knows that more than 3/4 of the weight is the paper inside; but we've made very conservative estimates here. The specific heat of iron is 452J/kgK at room temperature. An inspection of the NIST material data webbook shows that the curve is relatively free from significant anomalies below 1,000K, but shows a large spike between 1,000K and 1,200K. This spike is due to the latent heat of fusion, that is, the heat required to bring the iron to its liquid phase, once the liquid temperature is achieved; this is discussed in Hoffman's paper as well, although his discussion is for water, and for latent heat of vaporization rather than latent heat of fusion. You can look up latent heat in Wikipedia if you need more help understanding it. The latent heat of fusion of iron is around 200,000J/kg. Now, note that this is only true if the temperature of the iron is high enough to begin to liquify it; and the melting temperature of iron is 2,785F, or 1,530C, or 1,805K. So unless we reach that temperature, we don't need to add in the latent heat of fusion. The mass of steel used in the construction of a single tower of the WTC was 90,000t; dividing by the number of floors, that's 818t/floor. I should point out that this is an extremely conservative number; the steel beams were MUCH thicker low down on the tower, growing progressively thinner on higher floors; this would be appropriate not only because the remaining weight above a floor would depend on how high that floor was, and therefore how many stories remained above it, but also because using less steel higher up would reduce the static loading on lower floors by decreasing the weight of higher floors on top of them, which would in turn reduce the amount of steel that must be used lower down, further decreasing the static load; there is a point of diminishing returns, and in addition, the thinnest and therefore weakest parts must still be strong enough to resist the strongest possible winds; in addition, the concrete was uniform; but even so, we can see that higher floors would be lighter than lower ones. So actually, far more than half the weight of steel of the WTC towers was below the 55th floor; but we'll go with this very high figure to show how ridiculous it is to suppose that there was not enough heat to cause failure of a single floor. That 818t is 818,182kg; at 460J/kgK, that means that 818182kg * 460J/kgK = 376,363,636J/K would be required to heat the mass by 1K. Dividing this figure into our 1.62TJ, we find that the temperature increase of the steel would be 4307K. WOW! That's well beyond the melting point; so we're going to have to add in the latent heat of fusion. What we do is figure out how much heat was necessary to raise the temperature to 1,805K from room temperature (300K), subtract that, and figure how much steel got liquified as a percentage based on how much latent heat could be supplied. We start with a temperature rise of 1,505K (subtract that 300K from the melting point) and multiply by our 376,363,636J to raise the mass of steel 1K; then we take that figure and subtract it from our 1.62TJ. Whatever remains is contributed to latent heat, and we'll see how much steel we manage to liquify. Thus, 1505K * 376,363,636J/K = 566,427,272,180J = 566GJ 1,620,986,666,667J - 566,427,272,180J = 1,054,559,394,487J = 1.05TJ Hmmm, we have most of our energy left- we only used a bit under a third of it bringing the steel to its melting temperature. OK, so how much of it could we have melted? 1,054,559,394,487J / 200,000J/kg = 5,272,796kg. But wait a minute- we only have 818,182kg! So this is enough energy to melt ALL of it, four or five times over!!! And plenty more to heat it up EVEN FURTHER! Obviously, the fire never came close to consuming all the burnable material in a story; steel softens long before it melts, and loses a great deal of its strength before it gets anywhere close to melting; a plot of the Young modulus (the measure of elasticity of a material) of steel against temperature shows that most of steel's strength is gone before it gets to 700C, or 900K. When the steel's strength is gone, it collapses- and that means the floor it's on collapses- and then we have the much-maligned "pancake" model. It's certain that collapse occurred long before all the material on a single floor was burned. In addition, we can see that the heat from the jet fuel was not enough to raise the temperature high enough to soften the steel; it took the paper, wood, cloth, and plastic to do that, and it took a while for enough of it to burn to heat the steel far enough to weaken it enough to cause collapse. This dovetails with the fact that it took a while for the building to collapse. Thus we see that there was more than sufficient energy, even without the jet fuel, to cause a floor to collapse; and once a floor collapsed, there was sufficient force to collapse the next, and that force could only increase as the mass accelerates and as the mass grows due to another floor and another and another being added to it. Meanwhile, the heat created by the burning contents (now greatly increased in rate due to the movement of air caused by the collapse (ever use a bellows on a wood fire?), and the addition of heat from the kinetic energy of the collapse) added to the heat of the friction of the collapse, accounts for the pyroclastic dust cloud and for the melted steel in the basement. All of the calculations are quite conservative; more realistic estimates could increase the available energy by a factor of more than 2. Got any more questions here?
Schneibster
19th October 2005 - 08:04 PM
Foxx, you have consistently ignored the source of the majority of the heat: the contents of the burning floors. One floor's worth of material, very conservatively estimated, is FOUR TIMES the energy of one third of the available jet fuel; so even if we TOTALLY IGNORE the jet fuel, four-fifths of the energy remains. That energy is FOUR TIMES what is needed to COMPLETELY LIQUIFY the ENTIRE STEEL CONTENT of a floor, and the estimate of the steel content of a floor is probably twice the actual content, because higher floors have less steel, and the floor involved was relatively high on the building.
Not only that, but you said, "That heat is lost to the PE..." indicating that you have made a bad assumption: that the PE of burning I am calculating is part of the gravitational PE of the building. Nothing could be further from the truth. The calculations I made of the gravitational PE of the building DO NOT INCLUDE any of the PE of the burning materials; thus the figures for gravitational PE and burning PE are COMPLETELY SEPARATE and must be added together to get the entire PE, and in addition, the burning jet fuel adds only a very small fraction to the entire PE involved. By far the largest source of energy is the burning contents of the building, in fact, by a factor of TEN OR MORE. You have consistently COMPLETELY IGNORED this energy source, as has every other analysis posted so far.
Even supposing that 75% of the energy of the burning contents of the building on the damaged floors escaped into the surrounding air, there is still MORE THAN ENOUGH TO COMPLETELY LIQUIFY ALL THE STEEL IN A SINGLE FLOOR. And because of the peculiarities of construction (can you say, "viscous dampening?") that means that even if 75% of the heat escaped during the fire, there is still MORE THAN TWICE AS MUCH AS IS NEEDED to compromise the joists and their trusses, and/or the connection plates either between the joists/trusses and the core or perimeter, or between the perimeter column sections. Not only that, but if the heat was escaping to the outside air, a fair bit of it had to pass by the perimeter columns, and if those fail, then there is nothing holding up the outsides of the floors; which then obviously collapse, leading straight back to the original discussion.
And once again, if we start talking about the heat being conducted away, we have the prior discussion of the bar of steel held in the bare hand of the smith, with the other end glowing white-hot. The index of thermal conductivity of steel just isn't that high. And then we discuss viscous damping again, and the fact that viscous dampening means that the floor joists and their trusses were not strongly thermally linked to either the core or the perimeter.
Really, the whole thing is ridiculous and always was; serious consideration of the factors convinced me LONG AGO that there was nothing wrong with the "pancake scenario." But everybody WANTS a conspiracy scenario, with demolition explosives and other stupid crap, so they all try to prove it by ignoring OBVIOUS factors.
This emotional need makes people extremely testy when it is denied, and that makes them quite difficult to get along with; I therefore have begun to approach these "discussions" filled with misconceptions, inaccuracies, misunderstandings, and lack of knowledge of BASIC PHYSICS quite aggressively, because I have already been through the mill and didn't like it the first five times. Challenge me on technical grounds, and you will get a civil and comprehensive answer; more posturing and accusing me of being a shill for this administration (which I absolutely DETEST, by the way- Shrub is without honor, lies at the drop of a hat, and can never be bothered to acknowledge previous lies, and his accomplices are, if anything, worse by far), on the other hand, will do nothing but arouse my fury, and I can be extremely impolite when I am angry. You have been civil so far, please remain that way despite your disappointment.
I suggest a careful, skeptical review of Crossing the Rubicon. You can't take everything Ruppert says at face value- he misses some pretty basic physics, and makes some real mistakes because of it- but you can't fault his research, he's one of the best researchers around. I remain convinced that there was collusion at the highest levels of this administration; I am merely arguing that that collusion did NOT include extremely complicated demolitions work in public places, which would have involved a very large number of people and could hardly have been missed by the firefighters who explored a great deal of the building after the impact and prior to the collapse.
Foxx
19th October 2005 - 09:26 PM
| QUOTE | Perhaps your source is better. Fine, we'll go with that, but you've miscalculated, two different ways.
First, if you like FEMA's numbers, there were 10,000 gallons on the plane, and 3,000 were consumed in the initial fireball- leaving 7,000, not 3,500. <br>Did you read the FEMA report? The 3500 gal figure comes from... approximately half of the 7000 gal 'flowing away' from the impact zone unburned. How do we arrive at that conclusion? Because as FEMA states in section... 2.2.1.2 Fire Development
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Perhaps your source is better. Fine, we'll go with that, but you've miscalculated, two different ways.
First, if you like FEMA's numbers, there were 10,000 gallons on the plane, and 3,000 were consumed in the initial fireball- leaving 7,000, not 3,500. <br>Did you read the FEMA report? The 3500 gal figure comes from... approximately half of the 7000 gal 'flowing away' from the impact zone unburned. How do we arrive at that conclusion? Because as FEMA states in section... 2.2.1.2 Fire Development
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 approximately 4,000 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed. The jet fuel in the aerosol would have burned out as fast as the flame could spread through it, igniting almost every combustible on the floors involved. Fuel that fell to the floor and did not flow out of the building would have burned as a pool or spill fire at the point where it came to rest. <br>Source: http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf
Note that I have corrected FEMA's typo regarding their subtraction. 10,000 - 3,000 = 7,000... 1/2X 7,000 = 4,000 ???
Surely they mean 3500. That is where we get the 3500 gal estimate to begin with.
FEMA seems notorious for "typos"...
I see FEMA has done a major renovation to their online library... took me a while to find the new location. Danged internet - someone's always changing their links.  http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibr...photo_search.do
While doing revisions to their site, they don't seem to have changed their opinion on the weight of the 'Amazing Flying Columns' that fell from the sky ...(blown by the winds of 9/11 into WFC 3)... http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/WFC3_sm.jpg
The caption reads, | QUOTE | "New York, NY, September 18, 2001 -- Ohio Task Force workers anchored this 600,000 pound beam from the World Trade Center lodged in a nearby building. Photo by Michael Reiger / FEMA News Photo" <br>Actually, I believe that the figure 600,000 lb should read 60,000 lbs... but that's still 30 tons!
Here is a closer look... http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/WFC3_close.jpg
I wonder how much energy it would take to propel a "600,000" (60,000) lb piece of steel debris over 400 feet laterally from it's point of origin?
Another example of these Amazing Flying Columns can be found at 130 Liberty Street (Bankers Trust Building).FEMA has a photo of it in their library at this page... http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibr...ails.do?id=3988
The caption here reads, QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | "New York, NY, September 18, 2001 -- Ohio Task Force workers anchored this 600,000 pound beam from the World Trade Center lodged in a nearby building. Photo by Michael Reiger / FEMA News Photo" <br>Actually, I believe that the figure 600,000 lb should read 60,000 lbs... but that's still 30 tons!
Here is a closer look... http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/WFC3_close.jpg
I wonder how much energy it would take to propel a "600,000" (60,000) lb piece of steel debris over 400 feet laterally from it's point of origin?
Another example of these Amazing Flying Columns can be found at 130 Liberty Street (Bankers Trust Building).FEMA has a photo of it in their library at this page... http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibr...ails.do?id=3988
The caption here reads, New York, NY, September 20, 2001 -- This building was damaged by the explosions caused by terrorist attacks near the World Trade Center site. Photo by Mike Rieger/ FEMA News Photo <br>I didn't know that terrorists had caused explosions at WTC !!???
Surely they don't mean these columns had been blown to this location in the "explosion" when the aircraft impacted the towers???
Sorry, I'll have to look at the rest of your figures later. I'm not ignoring the fuel load of the office contents, I just haven't addressed those so far, and will try to get to those later.
Cheers
Schneibster
19th October 2005 - 09:43 PM
QUOTE (Foxx+) The 3500 gal figure comes from... approximately half of the 7000 gal 'flowing away' from the impact zone unburned. |
Again, who cares? If we completely ignore the amount of energy contributed by the burning jet fuel, there is already four times more than enough to do the damage we saw. You are straining at a gnat (the jet fuel's contribution to the total energy) after swallowing a camel (the office contents' contribution). What's the point? To disagree just to be disagreeable? That's the only way I can interpret this. QUOTE (Foxx+) While doing revisions to their site, they don't seem to have changed their opinion on the weight of the 'Amazing Flying Columns' that fell from the sky ...(blown by the winds of 9/11 into WFC 3)... |
What part of "the building fell down and pieces of the outside of it scattered in all directions" do you not get? This is so obvious, I can't believe I'm even hearing it. What is your problem, anyway? Do you imagine that all of the hundreds of column sections are going to fall straight down, after being bent and flexed until their couplings snapped apart? Do you have NO IMAGINATION to see what must have happened? Or are you so EMOTIONALLY COMMITTED to your "demolition theory" that you can't help IGNORING OBVIOUS EVIDENCE? QUOTE (Foxx+) Sorry, I'll have to look at the rest of your figures later. I'm not ignoring the fuel load of the office contents, I just haven't addressed those so far, and will try to get to those later. |
You mean you haven't found any OTHER facts you can distort to try to answer the very straightforward and conservative estimates I have presented, or any other gnats you can strain at while ignoring the camels you have already eaten? Whatever, more wasted time. Go ahead; I can't WAIT to see the NEXT STEAMING PILE.
metamars
20th October 2005 - 12:44 AM
| QUOTE | Again, who cares? If we completely ignore the amount of energy contributed by the burning jet fuel, there is already four times more than enough to do the damage we saw. <br>Am very busy right now, but can somebody do an analysis of how man pounds of wood it would take to match the heat of combustion of 7K gallons kersosene (actually, my reference below compares to oil, but even that may be illuminating)
Let us know!
From the wizard at
http://engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-equiva...814qframed.html
we see that 7K gallon of #1 oil give heat = 121,562.899728751 kg wood
Roughly speaking, I will guess that if you made a person out of wood, then that person would weight 70 kg.
So we have the volume equivalent of 1736 people.
Seems reasonable that 1736 people would comfortably fit in 5 floors, and they would have about as much flammable material associated with them as their own weight (not from carpeting, but from books). So, it does seem reasonable to assume heat energy worth 1 jet planes did contribute to secondary fires. If you consider 10 floors as having burned, add the equivalent of 14 K gallons fuel.
Still way too little. Especially since, in the real world, I believe the overwhelming majority of the heat energy simply vented out the building
Schneibster
20th October 2005 - 01:28 AM
On the assumption that you missed it the first time, try this which states that the energy content of garbage is approximately 1/4 the energy content of coal; just your grade level, too.
Foxx
20th October 2005 - 03:07 AM
| QUOTE | Originally posted by Schneibster Again, who cares? If we completely ignore the amount of energy contributed by the burning jet fuel, there is already four times more than enough to do the damage we saw. <br>QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Originally posted by Schneibster Again, who cares? If we completely ignore the amount of energy contributed by the burning jet fuel, there is already four times more than enough to do the damage we saw. <br>Originally posted by metamars From the wizard at
http://engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-equiva...814qframed.html
we see that 7K gallon of #1 oil give heat = 121,562.899728751 kg wood
Roughly speaking, I will guess that if you made a person out of wood, then that person would weight 70 kg.
So we have the volume equivalent of 1736 people.
Seems reasonable that 1736 people would comfortably fit in 5 floors, and they would have about as much flammable material associated with them as their own weight (not from carpeting, but from books). So, it does seem reasonable to assume heat energy worth 1 jet planes did contribute to secondary fires. If you consider 10 floors as having burned, add the equivalent of 14 K gallons fuel.
Still way too little. Especially since, in the real world, I believe the overwhelming majority of the heat energy simply vented out the building <br>metamars To be quite honest, I don't understand what you are getting at... but I would agree that the majority of the heat energy would be vented out of the openings from the impacts (as can clearly be seen by the rapidly rising soot-filled dark smoke pouring out of both buildings).
Schneidster has added his .02 cents worth to the discussion of whether or not it was possible through physics that the buildings could have realistically fallen at near the rate of free-fall.
Much of his suppositions and postulations are based upon mathematical calculations of potential energy sources, however it is a little disconcerning to me that these 'inviolatable numbers' seem to change from post to post.
I recall some fantastic numbers (first proposed) that the jet fuel alone by far outweighed the energy budget to cause the buildings to collapse at near free-fall rates.
That was pretty quickly debunked, and now we are on to the massive potential energy stored in the burning of office contents.
Like you, I don't have unlimited play time to spend on responding to all posts with the thoroughness really required.
But, I must say that the energy input to be derived by adding the TOTAL available potential energy which could be derived by the complete combustion of all available fuel sources (which was never realized) is misleading, and I don't see how Schneidster justifies adding that into the "energy budget"... (at least not at this point).
Personally, I believe that Andrew Johnson is correct in his basic phsyics... that given 'resistance' to the upper falling mass by the uncompromised materials and structure below, the buildings could not have 'collapsed' at near the rate of free-fall. Simple physics denies that such an occurance can take place in the real world.
Leaving emotions aside ... (this IS an emotional issue, as well as a scientific question)...
...I think embellished emotional statements such as...
| QUOTE | " just your grade level, too. " <br>...could probably be left out, without affecting the quantitative or qualitative science of that under discussion.
The 'fires' (regardless of whether they were based upon kerosene or office-contents) were not really anywhere near the conflagration which we have been led to believe they were.
There were NO full-floor infernos at all. This is clearly evident from studying the latest "Drafts" from NIST.
These normal office fires (which followed the initial ignition by jet-fuel) were more like flash fires racing through various parts of the impact zones. There was no concentration / build-up of heat over extended periods of time, as can clearly be seen by NIST's own computer-generated graphics shown below...
Fires on south face of North Tower (WTC 1) between 8:47 am - 10:28 am
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled_Fire01.html
stallion4
20th October 2005 - 03:26 AM
QUOTE ("Schneibster"+) I am merely arguing that that collusion did NOT include extremely complicated demolitions work in public places, which would have involved a very large number of people and could hardly have been missed by the firefighters who explored a great deal of the building after the impact and prior to the collapse. Schneibster, no offence, but this is obviously not your area of expertise. The people that planted bombs in at least three of the WTC buildings would have had to have rigged it BEFORE 9-11 (contact any controlled demolition company and ask them how long it would take to rig two 110-story buildings and one 47-story building for demolition). And there WAS a window of opportunity for a group of individuals to plant explosives in those buildings undetected; There are reports of a power down condition in at least one of the towers during the weekend before 9-11, reports that bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the WTC complex the Thursday before 9/11, and reports that the buildings at the WTC complex were evacuated several times in the days leading up to 9-11. Larry Silverstein purchased the lease to the WTC complex only 6-7 weeks before 9-11. He's on tape saying that Building 7 was pulled which is an industry term for controlled demolition. If he was involved in 9-11 (knowingly or not), I think that the lease holder of the buildings would have been in a position to help make it possible for a group of individuals to enter those buildings and plant explosives undetected. Firefighters reported bombs planted in the building. And so did the FBI. So did the NYPD. As well as many mainstream news reporters. And people who worked in the building. And several people on the street also described hearing explosions just before the South Tower collapsed. Rescue workers at ground zero were told to move away from Building 7 because it was going to be brought down (here's a radio interview with rescue worker, Indira Singh. Forward approximately ten minutes into the interview to hear her story about being told to move away from WTC 7 because the building was going to be "brought down."). The FDNY's own audio tapes from 9-11 describe bombs going off in the South Tower just before it collapsed, resembling controlled demolition. The tapes reveal that Firefighters and police reported hearing explosions in the towers before they collapsed. Fire Officer, Paul Issac was seen and heard at ground zero last September 11 announcing to protesters and mourners of the 9-11 attacks that the FDNY AND NYPD know that 9-11 was an inside job. THEY KNOW! Bombs were planted in those buildings period (including Building 7 which was not hit by an airplane). If you don't think your government would plan to terrorize its own citizens, I suggest you read the Northwoods documents. It was an official government plan from the 60s to stage terror attacks in the United States to blame on Cuba so the American people would support going to war. Part of the plan was to load a US passenger jet with CIA personnel under carefully prepared aliases, land the plane at Elgin Air Force base in Florida to evacuate them, and to then replace the plane to its original airspace (by remote control) and then blow it up (by remote control). The plans also stated that the media would sell this to the world as an act of terrorism by Cuba giving the United States a pretext to go to war with them. This plan was one signature away from being approved, however, it was not. The Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted the plan to secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, but he refused to sign on to it. The US instead escalated the war in Vietnam and the rest is history (See the Gulf of Tonkin incident). I really wish none of this was true, but I'm fresh out of wishes right now, so I have to live with the reality that the September 11 attacks were staged for nefarious reasons by a rouge element within the United States government. But if you or anyone else wants to believe in the myth that it was 19 Arabs with box cutters that perpetrated it that's YOUR prerogative, not mine.
metamars
20th October 2005 - 03:32 AM
| QUOTE | On the assumption that you missed it the first time, try this which states that the energy content of garbage is approximately 1/4 the energy content of coal; just your grade level, too. <br>What's your point? This same article says that the average American throws away 4.4 lbs. of garbage every day. I have guessed 70 kg of (non-jet fuel) flammable material per person and 1736 people on 5 floors. Add in 2 kg per person, and the effect is negligible.
Schneibster
20th October 2005 - 05:23 AM
QUOTE (metamars+) What's your point? |
Well, I guess it's over your head anyway. Never mind.
manifespo
20th October 2005 - 05:27 AM
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htmWritings of a Finnish military expert detailing the mini-nuke used to vaporize steel and concrete.
Foxx
20th October 2005 - 06:43 AM
QUOTE (manifespo+Oct 20 2005, 05:27 AM) http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htmWritings of a Finnish military expert detailing the mini-nuke used to vaporize steel and concrete. Hi manifespo. Interesting link. I think Jim Hoffman has already pointed out that many of the observed physics related to the 'collapse' mechanisms involved with the WTC incident, can NOT BE readily explained by simple 'typical' demolition aspects of normal explosives. Even with regular explosives as such as RDX , etc... It would be difficult to reconcile the seemingly instant pulverization of non-metallic parts into micron-sized particulates. Questions... questions... questions... Welcome to the discussion Cheers
Schneibster
20th October 2005 - 06:51 AM
QUOTE (Poxx+) Schneidster has added his .02 cents worth to the discussion of whether or not it was possible through physics that the buildings could have realistically fallen at near the rate of free-fall. |
Ummm, no, actually, I relied on the video evidence that showed that the fall took 14 seconds, and on the calculations that said free-fall is just over 9, and that free-fall for 14 seconds would require twice the height of the WTC towers. This is called a "straw man" attack, in which you deliberately misrepresent what someone else said so that you can pretend you "disproved" it. Next time, read what I said and make sure you understand it, because if you misquote me, it WILL come back to haunt you. This is about what I expected of you; so far, not one person I have ever debated on this subject has proven capable of reading what was written and agreeing with it. EVERYTHING I SAY has to be wrong, because it makes you feel bad. You'll go on now to become insulting, and dismiss what I say because I was mean to you. Too bad you let your emotions get tangled up with your thinking machinery; my bet is the entire WTC demolition thing is a turd blossom troll. But you gotta do what you're gonna do. QUOTE (Poxx+) Much of his suppositions and postulations are based upon mathematical calculations of potential energy sources, however it is a little disconcerning to me that these 'inviolatable numbers' seem to change from post to post. |
Nice statement; let's see some examples. You know, like, "substantiate your argument or withdraw it?" Honesty, and all like that? Far as I'm concerned, you like to be insulting, and I already gave more than fair warning about that. So buckle your seat belt, 'cause here we go. This is your first lie. I have absolutely no question, not even having read your post, that it will not be your last. Let's see, shall we? And how about that "much of his suppositions and postulations?" I think you'll find if you actually read and understood the material (big assumption here, that you CAN read and understand it- so far an unsubstantiated one) that each assumption is grounded in a link to data that substantiates it. I research this stuff, I don't just make it up like you do. But of course, since that's all you know, that's what you assume everyone does, right? Make it up? I'll keep that in mind. QUOTE (Poxx+) I recall some fantastic numbers (first proposed) that the jet fuel alone by far outweighed the energy budget to cause the buildings to collapse at near free-fall rates. |
Lies number two and three and four. 1. Free fall rates is a lie. 2. That I said jet fuel had anything to do with the fall rate is a lie. 3. That the energy budget had anything to do with the rate of fall, or that I ever said it did, is a lie. In fact, I told you that the jet fuel had outweighed the energy of collapse- which, by the way, is kinetic energy, a quantity you are woefully unfamiliar with. That is the energy that is possessed by a moving object, nothing more. However, it is energy- and energy is energy, whether it be from burning something, or dropping something, or from a nuclear reaction- it's all energy. But of course, you wouldn't know that. As you've just demonstrated. QUOTE (Poxx+) That was pretty quickly debunked, and now we are on to the massive potential energy stored in the burning of office contents. |
"Debunked?" Bwahahaha, yeah, right, debunked by someone who doesn't know the difference between kinetic energy and jet fuel! I suppose the inevitable comparison between kinetic energy and a certain nether portion of your anatomy, and jet fuel and the proverbial hole in the ground, suggests itself here, because you don't seem to know the difference between them, either. And that makes this yet another lie, doesn't it? Problem is, I can't figure out whether you're lying or just to stone stupid to know you're wrong. I guess it doesn't really matter, though. Six of one and a half a dozen of the other. QUOTE (Poxx+) Like you, I don't have unlimited play time to spend on responding to all posts with the thoroughness really required. |
I think you'll find, to your chagrin, that I'm responding to this one pretty thoroughly, and in fact, this is yet another lie: I have responded to every inaccurate technical assertion made so far in this thread, and I do not propose to stop. Bomb me with horsepucky like this, and I will make a horse's *** of you, as I am now doing. Go ahead, lie some more so I can point it out some more. Nobody's missing any of it, sport. QUOTE (Poxx+) But, I must say that the energy input to be derived by adding the TOTAL available potential energy which could be derived by the complete combustion of all available fuel sources (which was never realized) is misleading, and I don't see how Schneidster justifies adding that into the "energy budget"... (at least not at this point). |
That's because of that little reading comprehension problem of yours that I mentioned above. But that's OK, I'll explain it to you again in real short words so you can try to figure it out, K? Energy is energy is energy. Energy does work. After doing work, it's still energy, but it's in a different form. The most common form for energy to be in after doing work is heat. Heat is energy too, and heat can also do work- but doing work with heat is always less efficient than doing it some other way. All energy eventually becomes heat. You might have heard of this- it's called the "Second Law of Thermodynamics." Or then again, perhaps not- it seems to be a bit over your head, considering you don't know either the differences or the similarities between jet fuel and kinetic energy. Oh, my, there's that nether regions and hole in the ground thing again, isn't it? Seems to be a recurring theme. Which is no surprise to me, having read what you've spewed forth so far. QUOTE (Poxx+) Personally, I believe that Andrew Johnson is correct in his basic phsyics... |
Oh, my, we can see YOU'RE qualified, can't we? Yeah, someone who doesn't know the difference between jet fuel and kinetic energy, you betcha, you're REAL qualified. Pull the other one, huh? QUOTE (Poxx+) that given 'resistance' to the upper falling mass by the uncompromised materials and structure below, the buildings could not have 'collapsed' at near the rate of free-fall. Simple physics denies that such an occurance can take place in the real world. |
Yeah, it does, doesn't it? Isn't it interesting, then, that there was enough time for something to fall more than twice the height of the WTC tower during its collapse? Now, you don't suppose there might be some link there, do you? Nawww, couldn't be. It must have been the jet fuel. Gimme a break, sport, you're a laugh a minute. QUOTE (Poxx+) Leaving emotions aside ... (this IS an emotional issue, as well as a scientific question)... ...I think embellished emotional statements such as... QUOTE " just your grade level, too. " <br>...could probably be left out, without affecting the quantitative or qualitative science of that under discussion. If we were actually discussing science, as opposed to your completely unscientific, totally ludicrous, and completely puerile blathering, then you might be right. As it is, since lying is being deployed against me, I have no hesitation in deploying scorn and ridicule in response. Stop lying, and start learning some actual physics before you post your idiotic maunderings on a physics web site, and perhaps you will receive a more polite response. QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | " just your grade level, too. " <br>...could probably be left out, without affecting the quantitative or qualitative science of that under discussion. |
If we were actually discussing science, as opposed to your completely unscientific, totally ludicrous, and completely puerile blathering, then you might be right. As it is, since lying is being deployed against me, I have no hesitation in deploying scorn and ridicule in response. Stop lying, and start learning some actual physics before you post your idiotic maunderings on a physics web site, and perhaps you will receive a more polite response.
The 'fires' (regardless of whether they were based upon kerosene or office-contents) were not really anywhere near the conflagration which we have been led to believe they were. |
Oh really? How nice. Here, I'll make an assertion, just like yours: yes, they were. And I've even provided just as much evidence as you have. QUOTE (Poxx+) There were NO full-floor infernos at all. This is clearly evident from studying the latest "Drafts" from NIST. |
Yeah, and it's evident from studying all the photos that have red windows all the way across the face of the building, too. I bet that was just kids stringing red bunting up there to celebrate the demolition, huh? Gimme a break, everybody's seen the shot I'm talking about. In addition, even supposing you're correct, who said there has to be an inferno of any kind? Don't you get it? Heat BUILDS UP UNDERNEATH THE FLOOR ABOVE. Temperature isn't heat. Heat is energy; temperature is not. Welcome to Basic physics, sport. Now go home. QUOTE (Poxx+) These normal office fires (which followed the initial ignition by jet-fuel) were more like flash fires racing through various parts of the impact zones. There was no concentration / build-up of heat over extended periods of time, as can clearly be seen by NIST's own computer-generated graphics shown below... |
You mean the ones where there's NO SMOKE COMING OUT? Oh, pardon me, those are from BEFORE THE PLANES HIT. Other than that, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and considering the quality of this post, almost no interest in ever finding out.
When will you stop lying? Will you ever? Only time will tell. But you can bet we'll be watching, and marking EVERY SINGLE LIE. What this is really about is, "how much of a fool ARE you, anyway?"
A note on the spelling of names: since you don't seem to know how to spell mine, I figured I might as well pick whatever spelling of yours I like to use in return. If you don't like it, my recommendation (already made more than once) is, don't dish it out.
Come back for some more after you've grown some of that skin back.
Foxx
20th October 2005 - 07:05 AM
QUOTE (Schneibster+Oct 20 2005, 06:51 AM) QUOTE (Poxx+) Schneidster has added his .02 cents worth to the discussion of whether or not it was possible through physics that the buildings could have realistically fallen at near the rate of free-fall. |
Ummm, no, actually, I relied on the video evidence that showed that the fall took 14 seconds, and on the calculations that said free-fall is just over 9, and that free-fall for 14 seconds would require twice the height of the WTC towers. This is called a "straw man" attack, in which you deliberately misrepresent what someone else said so that you can pretend you "disproved" it. Next time, read what I said and make sure you understand it, because if you misquote me, it WILL come back to haunt you. This is about what I expected of you; so far, not one person I have ever debated on this subject has proven capable of reading what was written and agreeing with it. EVERYTHING I SAY has to be wrong, because it makes you feel bad. You'll go on now to become insulting, and dismiss what I say because I was mean to you. Too bad you let your emotions get tangled up with your thinking machinery; my bet is the entire WTC demolition thing is a turd blossom troll. But you gotta do what you're gonna do. QUOTE (Poxx+) Much of his suppositions and postulations are based upon mathematical calculations of potential energy sources, however it is a little disconcerning to me that these 'inviolatable numbers' seem to change from post to post. |
Nice statement; let's see some examples. You know, like, "substantiate your argument or withdraw it?" Honesty, and all like that? Far as I'm concerned, you like to be insulting, and I already gave more than fair warning about that. So buckle your seat belt, 'cause here we go. This is your first lie. I have absolutely no question, not even having read your post, that it will not be your last. Let's see, shall we? And how about that "much of his suppositions and postulations?" I think you'll find if you actually read and understood the material (big assumption here, that you CAN read and understand it- so far an unsubstantiated one) that each assumption is grounded in a link to data that substantiates it. I research this stuff, I don't just make it up like you do. But of course, since that's all you know, that's what you assume everyone does, right? Make it up? I'll keep that in mind. QUOTE (Poxx+) I recall some fantastic numbers (first proposed) that the jet fuel alone by far outweighed the energy budget to cause the buildings to collapse at near free-fall rates. |
Lies number two and three and four. 1. Free fall rates is a lie. 2. That I said jet fuel had anything to do with the fall rate is a lie. 3. That the energy budget had anything to do with the rate of fall, or that I ever said it did, is a lie. In fact, I told you that the jet fuel had outweighed the energy of collapse- which, by the way, is kinetic energy, a quantity you are woefully unfamiliar with. That is the energy that is possessed by a moving object, nothing more. However, it is energy- and energy is energy, whether it be from burning something, or dropping something, or from a nuclear reaction- it's all energy. But of course, you wouldn't know that. As you've just demonstrated. QUOTE (Poxx+) That was pretty quickly debunked, and now we are on to the massive potential energy stored in the burning of office contents. |
"Debunked?" Bwahahaha, yeah, right, debunked by someone who doesn't know the difference between kinetic energy and jet fuel! I suppose the inevitable comparison between kinetic energy and a certain nether portion of your anatomy, and jet fuel and the proverbial hole in the ground, suggests itself here, because you don't seem to know the difference between them, either. And that makes this yet another lie, doesn't it? Problem is, I can't figure out whether you're lying or just to stone stupid to know you're wrong. I guess it doesn't really matter, though. Six of one and a half a dozen of the other. QUOTE (Poxx+) Like you, I don't have unlimited play time to spend on responding to all posts with the thoroughness really required. |