Fire, steel, and 911.

[Dazed]

Go to CFLarsen for a moment, I am implying nothing. I am stating that the internal conditions can not be judged solely by the external visuals and that two snapshots in time may, or may not, be representative of the trend of conditions over that same time period. Example: I take a picture in London at 03:00 GMT on Jan. 1, 2006 and take another picture in London at 03:00 GMT on Jan. 2, 2006. I can not validly conclude that it is always dark in London based upon those to pics.

I totally understand what you're saying, but I don't know what CFLarsen is.

What I was saying is, let's play devil's advocate for a moment and assume these picture do indicate a fire of decreasing ferocity, would it make a difference in the grand scheme of 911?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I totally understand what you're saying, but I don't know what CFLarsen is.

What I was saying is, let's play devil's advocate for a moment and assume these picture do indicate a fire of decreasing ferocity, would it make a difference in the grand scheme of 911?

Sorry, I edited my previous post to address your question as you were replying.

 

[beachnut]

God Bless you...that's all I can ask. Just be open-minded and OBJECTIVE. The type of logic you used on those pics...is definitely the way people need to start looking at this.

Please, don't blind yourself from simple common sense and logic...coupled with CLEAR as day visual and audio evidence that not only contradicts NIST's report but corroborates the PET (Planted Explosive Theory)

we are hopeful you have some facts, you have not read NIST, you have not tried to read NIST, nor I suspect ever.

Cute PET theory has no evidence in fact.

Do you have any?

 

[Horatius]

I really think that 28K didn't actually know the rest of the quote, and just apes stuff that he finds on conspiracy web sites. It's those web sites that are dishonest, and 28K is simply ignorant.

Except that in his post, he linked to the full text of the article. If he's ignorant of the full quote, it's because he's being willfully ignorant.

And it's interesting to note that the theory of the collapse mentioned in that article:

Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

is remarkably similar to that being promoted by NIST. So, far from countering the analysis of NIST, this article actually supports it.

So, again, To Sock-Boy: thanks for debunking yourself, it really helps out the team!

 

[28th Kingdom]

As the steel cools it distorts and bends.

"When working with steels, a blacksmith will heat the metal and then quench it in various liquids such as water or oil. The purpose of quenching is to produce rapid cooling to generate specific microstructures in the metal. A quench from a bright red or orange heat generally results in steel that is hard and brittle, so a second process, called tempering, is usually done to increase the toughness of the piece and reduce its hardness. Tempering involves heating the material to a specific temperature (lower than red heat) usually called "critical temperature" and judged for common steel by the temperature at which the metal looses its magnetic attraction. Sometimes it is quenched again after this heat."



And, exactly how do these cool, "microstructures," play into the collapses? And we all know...that a blacksmith likes to wait for the REDNESS to die down before he bends the steel. Because it's much easier that way.




...I read the news today...oh boy...

 

[Dazed]

God Bless you...that's all I can ask. Just be open-minded and OBJECTIVE. The type of logic you used on those pics...is definitely the way people need to start looking at this.

Please, don't blind yourself from simple common sense and logic...coupled with CLEAR as day visual and audio evidence that not only contradicts NIST's report but corroborates the PET (Planted Explosive Theory)

If there was evidence for planted explosives I would entertain it objectively, however nothing I've seen stands up to scrutiny.

This for example:

This has been touted as the smoking gun evidence of thermite being used. I read later that this beam was actually cut by clean-up workers during removal of the debris.

 

[beachnut]

"

...I read the news today...oh boy...

why not just tell us?

did you read your news from Alex Jones?

And what do you think your post tells us, your theory on your post micro stuff?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

why not just tell us?

did you read your news from Alex Jones?

And what do you think your post tells us, your theory on your post micro stuff?

I think he was quoting the Beatles.

 

[beachnut]

"When working with steels, a blacksmith will heat the metal and then quench it in various liquids such as water or oil. The purpose of quenching is to produce rapid cooling to generate specific microstructures in the metal. A quench from a bright red or orange heat generally results in steel that is hard and brittle, so a second process, called tempering, is usually done to increase the toughness of the piece and reduce its hardness. Tempering involves heating the material to a specific temperature (lower than red heat) usually called "critical temperature" and judged for common steel by the temperature at which the metal looses its magnetic attraction. Sometimes it is quenched again after this heat."



And, exactly how do these cool, "microstructures," play into the collapses? And we all know...that a blacksmith likes to wait for the REDNESS to die down before he bends the steel. Because it's much easier that way.




...I read the news today...oh boy...

http://www.metallurgy.nist.gov/techactv2004/TechnicalHighlights.html

maybe you should start a metal thread, you can read up on the metal stuff here.

 

[28th Kingdom]

And it's interesting to note that the theory of the collapse mentioned in that article:
is remarkably similar to that being promoted by NIST. So, far from countering the analysis of NIST, this article actually supports it

Unbelievable. Wow...the way you people twist and interrupt stuff is just beyond me.

"However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers."

"Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory."

Would it help if he added the word official? Like - Rather, official theory has it...

This guy is saying that the respected members of the fire protection engineering community...share a theory...that is in opposition to a theory that is being purported by the government and/or media. So yes...that's why the THEORY HAS IT...sounds like NIST's report, because that's what the government and media is selling.

 

[beachnut]

Unbelievable. Wow...the way you people twist and interrupt stuff is just beyond me.

"However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers."

"Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory."

Would it help if he added the word official? Like - Rather, official theory has it...

This guy is saying that the respected members of the fire protection engineering community...share a theory...that is in opposition to a theory that is being purported by the government and/or media. So yes...that's why the THEORY HAS IT...sounds like NIST's report, because that's what the government and media is selling.

No you are twisting it, they explained; you fail to learn.

They told you what the article is about you are not reading it, you have failed to read and understand what you are posting.

Understand what you post and what it means before you post it.

You should read all of nist - http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Then read some post here on your favorite subjects before you just blindly make up stuff.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Unbelievable. Wow...the way you people twist and interrupt stuff is just beyond me.

"However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers."

"Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory."

Would it help if he added the word official? Like - Rather, official theory has it...

This guy is saying that the respected members of the fire protection engineering community...share a theory...that is in opposition to a theory that is being purported by the government and/or media. So yes...that's why the THEORY HAS IT...sounds like NIST's report, because that's what the government and media is selling.

umm, no, try reading

hes saying that their theory is that fires heating the lightweight trusses led to the collapse

he wouldnt use the word "official theory" as the NIST report had not been released, so in a sense there was no "official theory" at the time

he says it was an unexplored theory because, as has been pointed out to you, this article predates the release of the NIST report

however, their theory is almsot exactly what NIST concluded, guess thats why these guys are experts

 

[Porkpie Hat]

"When working with steels, a blacksmith will heat the metal and then quench it in various liquids such as water or oil. The purpose of quenching is to produce rapid cooling to generate specific microstructures in the metal. A quench from a bright red or orange heat generally results in steel that is hard and brittle, so a second process, called tempering, is usually done to increase the toughness of the piece and reduce its hardness. Tempering involves heating the material to a specific temperature (lower than red heat) usually called "critical temperature" and judged for common steel by the temperature at which the metal looses its magnetic attraction. Sometimes it is quenched again after this heat."



And, exactly how do these cool, "microstructures," play into the collapses? And we all know...that a blacksmith likes to wait for the REDNESS to die down before he bends the steel. Because it's much easier that way.




...I read the news today...oh boy...

The microstructure of steel which is heated then cooled is ulimately affected by heating and cooling rates. Simply put, the faster steel cools the more coarse its grain structure is, the inverse is also true. The more coarse the grain structure the more brittle the metal becomes.

BTW, it's spelled m-e-t-a-l-l-u-r-g-y. Buy a book on it, read it, learn from it...

...countin' flowers on the wall don't mean anythin' at all

Smokin'...cigarettes and watching Captin....Kangaroo,

don't tell me I've nothin' to do..............

 

[28th Kingdom]

Default,

Hey cowboy...so according to you, WHO believes this theory according to the person who wrote the article;

"However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers."

Who is he saying believes this RESONATING THEORY.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Default,

Hey cowboy...so according to you, WHO believes this theory according to the person who wrote the article;

"However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers."

Who is he saying believes this RESONATING THEORY.

the writer does, then read the next paragraph:

"Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory."

so the writer is stating that the heating of lightweight trusses is what brought down the towers

 

[Horatius]

"When working with steels, a blacksmith will heat the metal and then quench it in various liquids such as water or oil. The purpose of quenching is to produce rapid cooling to generate specific microstructures in the metal. A quench from a bright red or orange heat generally results in steel that is hard and brittle, so a second process, called tempering, is usually done to increase the toughness of the piece and reduce its hardness. Tempering involves heating the material to a specific temperature (lower than red heat) usually called "critical temperature" and judged for common steel by the temperature at which the metal looses its magnetic attraction. Sometimes it is quenched again after this heat."



And, exactly how do these cool, "microstructures," play into the collapses? And we all know...that a blacksmith likes to wait for the REDNESS to die down before he bends the steel. Because it's much easier that way.




...I read the news today...oh boy...

Too bad you didn't read anything else:

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Katana

One of the core philosophies of the Japanese sword is that it has a single edge. This means that the rear of the sword can be used to reinforce the edge, and the Japanese took full advantage of this. When finished, the steel is not quenched or tempered in the conventional European fashion. Steel’s exact flex and strength vary dramatically with heat variation. If steel cools quickly, from a hot temperature, it becomes martensite, which is very hard but brittle. Slower, from a lower temperature, and it becomes pearlite, which has significantly more flex but does not hold an edge. To control the cooling, the sword is heated and painted with layers of sticky clay. A thin layer on the edge of the sword ensures quick cooling for a hard edge, with a thicker layer of mud on the rest of the blade causing slower cooling and softer, more flexible steel to give the blade the required flex. When the application is finished, the sword is quenched and hardens correctly. This process also makes the edge of the blade contract less than the back when cooling down, something that aids the smith in establishing the curvature of the blade.

So, differential heating and cooling of the steel causes it to bend. Very careful application of the insulation allows the smith to control this heating and cooling to produce the desired result.

Now imagine for a moment what the steel would look like if the heating and cooling took place in a completely random fashion.

Pretzels, anyone?

 

[28th Kingdom]

The microstructure of steel which is heated then cooled is ulimately affected by heating and cooling rates. Simply put, the faster steel cools the more coarse its grain structure is, the inverse is also true. The more coarse the grain structure the more brittle the metal becomes.

Bad news for you...I'm not gonna let you get away with your comments...I'm gonna haunt you with this. Firstly, it just sounds like you are giving a generic lecture on the properties of steel...PLEASE, let's keep it relevant to this one event. Firstly, what supernatural force caused the fires to cool so quickly? A blacksmith actually uses an agent like you know...water or oil - all we have here is a simple impact with fireball...than some small remaining fires that burn for a few minutes...you know, watch the video of the second impact and you'll notice that fires in the first building...can't even be seen from the outside, without a zooom shot, and this was at the time of the 2nd impact....not to mention that another hour passed before the first impacted building decided to collapse....so basically the first building to get struck...had virtually extinguished fires an hour before the building decided to magically eat itself into the ground.

 

[28th Kingdom]

the writer does

Main Entry: res·o·nate
Pronunciation: 're-z&-"nAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -nat·ed; -nat·ing
intransitive verbhttp://m-w.com/dictionary/resonance
3 : to relate harmoniously : strike a chord <a message that resonates with voters>

So the writer believes this theory, yes?

"The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers."

And he refers to this theory as a RESONATING THEORY!!! Who is it resonating with? Let's see - maybe with - respected members of the fire protection engineering community who are beginning to raise red flags

 

[Horatius]

This guy is saying that the respected members of the fire protection engineering community...share a theory...that is in opposition to a theory that is being purported by the government and/or media. So yes...that's why the THEORY HAS IT...sounds like NIST's report, because that's what the government and media is selling.

So you claim they don't support the theory that fire attacking the light weight trusses caused the collapse? Then why did they go on about it so much?

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise.

And in all your anti-government CT BS, you ignore the real questions of government cover-up:

The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.

So go back to your basement and let the engineers get on with answering the real questions of why the towers collapsed.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Main Entry: res·o·nate [URL]http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/URL]
Pronunciation: 're-z&-"nAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -nat·ed; -nat·ing
intransitive verb
3 : to relate harmoniously : strike a chord <a message that resonates with voters>

So the writer believes this theory, yes?

"The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers."

And he refers to this theory as a RESONATING THEORY!!! Who is it resonating with? Let's see - maybe with - respected members of the fire protection engineering community who are beginning to raise red flags

Equivocation
The fallacy of equivocation occurs when an important term in an argument is used in two (or sometimes more) senses. An example might be:

Why is it okay to kill time but not to kill people?​

Here the word "kill" is being used in two different ways: the first time it is employed as a figure of speech, where "killing time" means to use up some spare moments in one way or another; in the second it takes on a more specific meaning, the kind we normally associate with it. The person asking the question has confused these, so that something else we could ask with the word would mean different things depending on which sense we adopted. For instance, we could inquire, "how did you kill time?" and "how did you kill the person?" The first would give us a reply that describes an action and could be all manner of things; the second, though, would have to specifically be about the way in which someone was murdered. Asking the question, then, shows a misunderstanding in the use of the word.
In general, we can tell if someone has equivocated by finding a term used in two or more contexts, such that its meaning in one is different than in the other(s). Take another instance:

My school is supposed to provide free tuition but I've seen restrictions in the lessons I've attended.​

This time the word "free" has been implicitly equivocated, with it meaning "free of charge" in the first instance but "free of restrictions" in the second, resulting in a confused argument. If we set it out again, this time removing the problematic term and replacing it with synonyms, we might get the following:

P1: Tuition at my school does not cost students any money;
P2: There are restrictions on course content, etc;
C: Therefore, the tuition does cost money after all.​

The conclusion does not follow and the error is plain to see. Rewriting an argument in this way is sometimes the best way to note (or to demonstrate) that an equivocation has occurred.

http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#equivocation