911 Jet Fuel and the WTC
- Thread starter SBrown
- Start date
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Never claimed what? Whether you claimed something or didn't claim anything is beside the point.
XXX
Thinker
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Messages
- 151
Maybe slight misunderstanding here. I don't think they are claiming that you stole it and tried to pass it off as your own. They are saying that when you cut and paste an entire piece of work like that and don't include who it's attributed to that in effect becomes stealing it without giving them their due. Not stealing it as in direct theft. If I post an entire chapter of a book on here without attribution, I'm not trying to steal it of course, but my having done so in, in principal, is theft of that material.
You posted in an unclear manner someone else's work, and you seem to not understand the rules of the forum. The response is just as frenzied as if I had gone to the loose change forum and posted outside their rules (except we don't ban outright.)
Now, you should reread the forum rules and user agreement, and then ask your question and cite sources as asked in the agreements.
Citing references is the way things are done, and was also explained clearly in the rules of this Forum. Learn it, live it, love it.
Calling us all "looney," etc., is also not very polite.
Pidge
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2003
- Messages
- 223
Someone has published a paper in the Jornal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society dealing with temperature of the burning jet fuel, and failure methods of the support steel.
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation by Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso
(I think the quantity of jet fuel available they quote - 90,000L, is probably on the high side)
Points I was going to raise
It's naive to assume uniform heating of the materials on the floor.
It's naive to assume the floors are empty of fixtures, fixttings and furniture - there's say (3960m2*100kg/m2=) 396,000kg per floor of other materials, significant quantities of which would be combustible, unless the tenenat had managed to complete a fit out with non-combustibles.
An aside - office floor loading limit capacities are usually around the 300kg/m2. So 100kg/m2 is a reasonable average. How do I know this? because is really screws up a computer room planning when you put it into a floor in a building with office-rated floors - computer equipment racks are about 1.5m2 of floor area, weight around 120kg each, and you can get well over 330 kg of gear into them without too much effort, and without completely filling them.
Also see the Wikipedia article on the WTC for some details on the construction of the WTC.
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation by Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso
(I think the quantity of jet fuel available they quote - 90,000L, is probably on the high side)
Points I was going to raise
It's naive to assume uniform heating of the materials on the floor.
It's naive to assume the floors are empty of fixtures, fixttings and furniture - there's say (3960m2*100kg/m2=) 396,000kg per floor of other materials, significant quantities of which would be combustible, unless the tenenat had managed to complete a fit out with non-combustibles.
An aside - office floor loading limit capacities are usually around the 300kg/m2. So 100kg/m2 is a reasonable average. How do I know this? because is really screws up a computer room planning when you put it into a floor in a building with office-rated floors - computer equipment racks are about 1.5m2 of floor area, weight around 120kg each, and you can get well over 330 kg of gear into them without too much effort, and without completely filling them.
Also see the Wikipedia article on the WTC for some details on the construction of the WTC.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Of course NIST did extensive testing and modeling of the WTC fires, but since every single structural engineer in the world has been paid off and new grads are also being paid off we can discount their findings.
Great minds think alike. There are more thorough treatments out there, but I too find this paper to be an excellent overview. I learned several things from it.Hamradioguy
Pyrrhonist
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,297
Very important! And yes, the study IS flawed. I've mentioned this in other posts- Buildings using steel trussed construction similar to the WTC have often failed in fires. Ask a firefighter if you don't believe it. More firefighters than I care to think of have died or been injured when the steel trussed roofs they were on failed under fire conditions. And no jet fuel was involved, just "ordinary combustibles".
Not all the jet fuel burned, and what did burned fairly quickly. That heavy black smoke we all saw wasn't the jet fuel, it was the contents of the buildings- computer cases, desks, chairs, carpets and all the stuff found in an office. It burns hot, it burns for a long time and it produces lots of black smoke. For some reason the CTers seem to obsess on jet fuel and conveniently forget that there was "lots of stuff that burns" in the WTC.
The NIST report and appendices contain a number of detailed analyses related to this question:
1. Dispersal of fuel and debris in each collision
2. Tests of how much energy, heat, etc. a typical WTC workstation produces when set on fire.
3. Heat and temperature distribution on each floor.
The basic problem with the OP report ... far too simplistic modeling, and the lack of inclusion of the fuel *in* the towers which were a significant contributor.
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
- Timothy
1. Dispersal of fuel and debris in each collision
2. Tests of how much energy, heat, etc. a typical WTC workstation produces when set on fire.
3. Heat and temperature distribution on each floor.
The basic problem with the OP report ... far too simplistic modeling, and the lack of inclusion of the fuel *in* the towers which were a significant contributor.
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
- Timothy
What did you find interesting about it?
Having actually watched oilfield firefighters use controlled explosions to snuff a wellhead fire, I can't help wondering if the explosives the Gummint concealed in the walls might not have actually extinguished some of the internal fires...
But they probably included incendiaries, right?
Those Gummint guys think of everything.
Which reminds me. George and Dick go into a restaurant.
Cheney orders a burger. Bush asks for a "Quickie". The waitress slaps his face and asks if he thinks he's Bill Clinton.
Dick leans over and whispers "Quiche, George. It's pronounced 'quiche' "
But they probably included incendiaries, right?
Those Gummint guys think of everything.
Which reminds me. George and Dick go into a restaurant.
Cheney orders a burger. Bush asks for a "Quickie". The waitress slaps his face and asks if he thinks he's Bill Clinton.
Dick leans over and whispers "Quiche, George. It's pronounced 'quiche' "
I was warned that there was some "elitists" attitudes here.
I posted this "article" because this was posted as a rebuttal on a thread that I started on a private forum. I could not link to the forum and I was waiting to get the source from the poster(who I had asked for earlier). So I posted it here to get some feedback and some information on something I really am not that up to speed on. Instead all I received was a bunch of attacks on how I was breaking the rules and such. Then I get a PM on how I need to change my name because it is against the rules??? Why was this not brought up when I registered a few weeks ago?
All I got here was hits and paranoia. Not by everyone of course, a few were very civil, but a majority that even came up with a good counter, they first started off with negativities directed at me.
I posted this "article" because this was posted as a rebuttal on a thread that I started on a private forum. I could not link to the forum and I was waiting to get the source from the poster(who I had asked for earlier). So I posted it here to get some feedback and some information on something I really am not that up to speed on. Instead all I received was a bunch of attacks on how I was breaking the rules and such. Then I get a PM on how I need to change my name because it is against the rules??? Why was this not brought up when I registered a few weeks ago?
All I got here was hits and paranoia. Not by everyone of course, a few were very civil, but a majority that even came up with a good counter, they first started off with negativities directed at me.
Besides all that bickering about rules of posting, what did you find interesting about the link you posted?
I once asked "Give me some tart" to a waitress. I really meant to say "pie". She didn't seem too pleased.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Dick, you said Dick.RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
The very first response was my response which was not at all negative. It was simply a statement of two facts. There was nothing personal in the statement.
Dude, stop with all of the drama. It is completely unnecessary. No one is attacking you.
Address the questions and involve yourself with your own thread and we will happily respond and help, discuss, debate, whatever.
You could just say "sorry, I'll properly reference materials next time and follow the rules."
You could refrain from labelling everyone here a "looney" or an "elitist." Not warranted.
You could actually discuss your own topic rather than spend the whole thread complaining about technicalities, of which you are entirely to blame.
Frankly, I don't understand your complaint. You wanted an opinion, I gave you one, as did many other people. No followup from you. Are you just not that interested, or what?
valis
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2004
- Messages
- 647
I personally got a kick out of the name considering the forum we are on but I am going to make a wild guess without even reading the rules.
I'll bet you can't use a real persons name here for the obvious reason that you are not that person. Even if you were that person the forum admins would have no way to know that or not unless they somehow verified it. So I can use the title of a novel but I can't use the name PhilipKDick. Makes sense to me.
I'll also bet the sign up and verification email is automated and humans only get involved later if a problem comes up. Like they notice 'holy crap that guy is using someones real name'. I would imagine that's why you were allowed to sign up but later warned about your name.
Although I don't see where you are being treated rudely or unfairly allow me to point something out. What the 911 'truth' crowd is claiming is that the President of the United States is a mass murderer. That a large number of people in the government are in on it. That the military, ATC personal etc. are going along with it. That the news media is covering it up etc. Basically that life as we know it is one big fat complete lie and that we are all being deluded and manipulated except for those in the aforementioned truth movement.
I for one would like a little better proof for this than what I have been presented. I have read everything people have put in front of me to expose me to the 'truth' and none of them stands up to scrutiny.
This thread is a perfect example:
1. Stunning 'fact' is presented, it sounds compelling to the laymen (which I am one of).
2.Some else reads the above evidence and says 'here is a flaw in your argument'.
3. Laymen says 'this is really getting interesting, I can't wait to see the original posters (OP) rebuttal'.
4.OP gets angry and wants to talk about something else.
Haven't you presented the counter argument here to the original author of that article? Don't you want to dig down to the real truth here so you can discard this 'evidence' if it turns out to be factually flawed?
Last edited: