911 and the Demo Truth
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Intermediate Accounting 12th and 13th edition Kieso Weygandt
Next: JSH: Back to conic section parameterization result
From: knews4u2chew on 23 Sep 2009 15:42 On Sep 23, 8:45 am, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 22, 2:05 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: > > > Al Dykes wrote: > > > Henry Guthard, engineer and one of Yamasaki's [WTC designer] > > > original partners who also worked as the project manager at the > > > [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces > > > come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To > > > defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of > > > 1350 feet is just not possible. > > > Most of the fuel burned off in minutes. > > 5,000 gallons of jet fuel burned off in "minutes"? Cite? Try and slow down an open air petroleum fire. It spills spreads everywhere while vaporizing in the air while burning. In the south tower hit most of the fuel can be seen burning on impact as the plane goes through the corner section. Hardly any jet fuel was left to burn.
From: Henry on 23 Sep 2009 15:49 knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Sep 23, 8:45 am, Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Sep 22, 2:05 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> Most of the fuel burned off in minutes. >> 5,000 gallons of jet fuel burned off in "minutes"? Cite? > Try and slow down an open air petroleum fire. > It spills spreads everywhere while vaporizing in the air while > burning. > In the south tower hit most of the fuel can be seen burning on impact > as the plane goes through the corner section. > Hardly any jet fuel was left to burn. And even there had been, it couldn't have melted the steel, and it didn't affect the 80,000 tons of undamaged cold steel columns below. Sudden collapse initiation is quite literally impossible if the columns are gradually weakened by gradual heating. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible By Frank Legge, PhD (Chemistry) and Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer 23 Dec 2007 Numerous arguments have been presented that the Twin Towers at the World Trade Centre could not have collapsed in the observed manner due to the cause asserted in the NIST report, namely damage from plane impact and fire. 1 The bases of these arguments include the rapidity and symmetry of collapse, 2 the adequacy of the steel supports, 3 and the finding of incendiary residues in the dust. 4 It has also been argued that the initiating event in the official explanation, the sudden collapse of one storey, 1 could not have occurred because the steel was not hot enough. 5 This argument is based on data set out in the NIST report itself. There is another argument, as will be described here, that is based simply on the behaviour of hot steel under load. No calculations are involved and no knowledge of the temperature of the steel is required. In the official explanation the collapse occurs in two stages. In the first stage one storey, damaged by plane impact and fire, suddenly collapses. This allows the section of the tower above to fall freely down and hit the lower section. In the second stage the energy of this impact is said to be sufficient to cause the top of the lower section to disintegrate. This material adds to the falling mass and further impacts cause disintegration to continue in a rapid sequence all the way to the ground.6 Let us consider the situation just prior to the first stage. There are some damaged columns, some fire, and a claimed ack of fireproofing. Given the substantial safety factor in the building design, the number of damaged columns is far too few to put the buildings at risk without the fire. This is elaborated on in the NIST report and elsewhere.1, 7 We will ignore the fact that according to the physical evidence data within the body of the NIST report, and contrary to its conclusion, the steel did not get very hot. We will assume the strongest case for the official theory: the fire was uniform over the whole area and very hot. The fire has to heat the steel, which takes time. Eventually the steel gets hot enough that it cannot carry the load in the initiating storey. It starts to sag. At this point there has been no disruption of the columns, other than that caused by the plane impact, hence most of the columns are still attached to the floors above and below and are continuous, passing up and down into other storeys, giving the columns rigidity. The length of the columns between attachments is too short for buckling to occur. 8 Failure must therefore be by compression. As the steel sags two things will happen: the columns, as they shorten, will become wider, which is obvious; and the inherent strength of the steel will increase, which is not obvious. It is well established however that the yield strength of steel increases as the degree of distortion increases. This tendency increases with rising temperature and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse, as can be seen in the graph below. 9 For both of these reasons the initial sag cannot be catastrophic but will be very slow and the rate will depend on the rate of heat input. A rising temperature will be needed to offset both the significant increase in yield strength and the slight increase in cross-section area, if collapse is to progress. It is clear therefore that the upper section should only have moved down slowly and only continued to do so if additional heat was supplied. A slow, protracted, and sagging collapse was not observed however with either tower. As observed in videos of both tower collapses, the upper sections suddenly start to fall and disintegrate.10 In the case of the south tower, initially a lean of the upper section developed but within the first second this turned into a rapid collapse with upper section disintegration, just as was observed with the north tower. It appears therefore that the official concept of a free fall collapse of the upper portion through the initiation storey, due to heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature did become high enough for collapse to occur it could not have happened in the observed manner. 9 In particular it could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy, upon which the official story depends for the second stage of collapse. In contrast, all observations are in accord with the use of explosives in a timed sequence. The case that the NIST report must be corrected is confirmed. If this report is not corrected the suspicion will remain that its purpose was not so much to inform as to deceive. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.ae911truth.org http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
From: Michael Moroney on 23 Sep 2009 16:42 Daniel <sabot120mm(a)hotmail.com> writes: >On Sep 22, 1:43 pm, Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Daniel wrote: >> > There is not ONE BIT of evidence of explosives being used >> >> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html >> >> Quotes from witnesses to the demolition: >> >> It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see >> professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and >> then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because >> I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I >> saw the building coming down. >THIS is your "proof"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Controlled demolitions don't go "pop pop pop". They go BANG BANG BANG. After all, they're setting off explosives strong enough to sever building columns. (and, none of the many videos of the WTC tower collapses have any of those pops or BANGs in them) Once again, this is what a REAL controlled demolition sounds and looks like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
From: AllYou! on 23 Sep 2009 18:05 In news:h9dqea$qm1$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> In knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > >>> Listen to the designer. >>> http://www.metacafe.com/watch/338148/wtc_designer_speaks/ >>> But then he's not credible is he? > >> The WTC didn't fall from the 'hit' (i.e., impact) from the >> planes, > > Obviously. The towers didn't "fall" at all. They quite > literally exploded and disintegrated in a matter of > seconds. Why do you refuse to read, think, view the > evidence or study the expert research? Mindlessly parroting > government lies and propagandas makes you look extremely > foolish and gullible. Why do you continue to behave in a way which you have defined as that of a whacko? In fact, I have looked at all of the evidence, and very many of the interpretations of the evidence, and I've concluded that all of the evidence points to the conclusion that the crash of the planes had two primary effects: 1) that the imapct caused major devastation on the floors that they hit, including blowing much of the fireproofing off of the structural steel. (BTW, one of the questions which you and many of your friends have refused to answer is why virtually all major building codes require structural steel to be fireproofed.) 2) that the jet fuel whcih was supposed to be used to take those planes to the west coast was blown throughout those same floors, and ignited virtually all flamables on those floors. Those two factors then combined to heat the steel bar joists to the point where it could not be disappated as it would if the fires were isolated, or if the steel was insulated, and so as the steel heated, it weakened. When the remaining bar joists weakened to the point where they sagged significantly underf load, they pulled in on the remaining weakened columns thereby causing THEIR failue, and the entire structure above those areas came crashing down upon the unaffected structure, thereby causing IT to fail, and the whole of the towers to collapse. What do I have for actual "hard evidence"? I have the plane crashes, I have the unused fuel, I have the devastation the crashes caused, I have the expanse of the fires, and I have video of the walls buckling inward only at the point of the fires. What do you have for "hard evidence" for your theory? You have no "hard evidence" of any controlled demolition explosives being present, and only have an implausible theory that it could have been. You have no "hard evidence" of anyone ever participating is such a scheme, and only a wild claim that someone could've done it. You have no explanation for how the caving of the exterior walls could possibly have occurred only at the point of plane impact, and nowhere else. You have no "hard evidence" for the thousands upon thousands of explosions that would've been required to bring down the towers, and only some anecdotal evidence of how some people heard sounds which "sounded like" some explosions. Your problem is that you confuse evidence with claim, and claim with speculation. Ubtil you resolve that confusion, you will continue to be hopelessly lost. >> The WTC fell due to >> the effects of the fire which then ensued. > > That's an impossible fantasy. As always, here's hard > proof. There was no proof there. There is only vaild assertion there is that the jet fuel alone could not have produced enouh heat energy to weaken the steel. That much is true, but that's not the claim for how the towers really collapsed, and so it's a red herring. And a theory is not hard evidence. It's just a theory with no hard evidence to back it up.
From: AllYou! on 23 Sep 2009 18:06
In news:h9dqiq$qm1$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> mused: > >>> They are exploding and disintegrating. > >> By your own standard, you're proving that you're a whacko. > > So says the deluded nut job Q. E. D. |