Loose Change - Part III

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Good job Brainster.

Where do these people learn how to spell? Geez...



http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8356&st=30

Some other amusing comments:

It seems their main rebuttal to the radio show was "it's disinfo!".

 

[Stellafane]

...It saddens me to see people are too closed minded to accept the truth.

The main problem with CT'ers is that they mistake having an open mind with having an incontinent one.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Part of my thinking was that expansion had to go somewhere and it wasn't going to go through the outer walls or into the core, so it probably contributed to the buckling of the trusses.

-PopeTom

Appears we are in general agreement then, Tom.

 

[Apollyon]

In all the discussions I have seen on 9/11 CT I can not recall ever seeing anyone mention linear thermal expansion.

[latex]
\Delta L = \alpha L_i \Delta T
[/latex]

So, excuse me if this ground has been covered, and if not feel free to check my math, I'm just a guy w/ free time at work

Assuming:

Average NYC September temperature - [latex]20 c[/latex]
WTC Truss - [latex]10.7 m [/latex] long
Temperature on floors where fire burned - [latex]1000 c[/latex]
Linear Expansion Value of steel - [latex]1.24e10^-^5[/latex]

So:

[latex]
\Delta L = 1.24 e 10^-^5 * 10.7 * (1000 -20)
[/latex]

Which works out to:
[latex]
\Delta L = 13 cm (5.11 inches)
[/latex]

Now I am not an engineer by a long shot, and then a couple of short skips, but wouldn't structural supports expanding by 5 inches in the time between initial impact of the planes and the collapse of the towers be a bad thing?

The above is just for the trusses at the ends of the central core, the trusses to the sides of the core were 18.2m long which would have resulted in expansion of 22 cm (8.6 inches).

Does the above seem reasonable, or better correct?

-PopeTom

I've seen some of the WTC papers discuss the loading that would occur from thermal expansion. Your basic calculation looks correct, but the numbers may not be. A 1000c number would imply that the temperature would average 1000c across the entire truss to produce the expansion since it's highly unlikely an entire truss would uniformly be 1000c. It's also likely, since the fires were localized, that many structural members had some fairly significant variations in heat. What you'd really need to do is look at something like the NIST report to see the estimated heat ranges and apply that heat to specific structural members in each location. It would get hairy to do that with any confidence, particularly since the temperatures were basically a guesstimate.

As Mr. Skinny also noted, the deformation of the steel would have come into play, particularly with the floor trusses. The trusses sagging from the heat and loading the angle clips likely would have had more impact than the thermal expansion. That's not to say thermal expansion wouldn't have been an influencing factor in the dynamic structural loading. The question is how much of a factor it was.

 

[realitybites]

OK, I know it is cruel and pointless to make fun of these people, but this has to be the funniest Loose Change forum post out there. Someone count the number of different ways he spells "flouride". Not to mention, "pattern recognisation" and "that led to the epithany"


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8039

Update: OK, I guess dubfan was already on that thread. I am always a day late and a dollar short. But it is still funny...

I think it's one of the great tragedies of this world that being a CTer must go hand in hand with having poor dental hygiene.

A moment of silence for this poor man's molars....

 

[Mr. Skinny]

I've seen some of the WTC papers discuss the loading that would occur from thermal expansion. Your basic calculation looks correct, but the numbers may not be. A 1000c number would imply that the temperature would average 1000c across the entire truss to produce the expansion since it's highly unlikely an entire truss would uniformly be 1000c. It's also likely, since the fires were localized, that many structural members had some fairly significant variations in heat. What you'd really need to do is look at something like the NIST report to see the estimated heat ranges and apply that heat to specific structural members in each location. It would get hairy to do that with any confidence, particularly since the temperatures were basically a guesstimate.
(snip)

I don't think Pope Tom was trying to imply that 1000c was the temp. across the entire truss/beam. I took it that he was merely picking a reasonable average temperature. I'd like to believe he understood that ahead of time, Apollyon.

Anyhow, what do you mean by the phrase "since the fires were localized"? Seems to me the temps wouldn't be too localized when an airliner slams into a building (though admittedly, there would be hot spots). If you could explain a bit further, I'd appreciate it.

 

[Apollyon]

I don't think Pope Tom was trying to imply that 1000c was the temp. across the entire truss/beam. I took it that he was merely picking a reasonable average temperature. I'd like to believe he understood that ahead of time, Apollyon.

It's very likely he did, but my literalist, anal self could help addressing it anyway.

Anyhow, what do you mean by the phrase "since the fires were localized"? Seems to me the temps wouldn't be too localized when an airliner slams into a building (though admittedly, there would be hot spots). If you could explain a bit further, I'd appreciate it.

That what I meant by localized - localized hot spots.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

It's very likely he did, but my literalist, anal self could help addressing it anyway.


That what I meant by localized - localized hot spots.

OK, but even with a localized hot spot, an average temperature still exists.

And I appreciate the literalist, anal, you, but I wanna think Pope Tom was just doing "back of the envelope" kinda calcs.

Thanks for the response.

 

[PopeTom]

I don't think Pope Tom was trying to imply that 1000c was the temp. across the entire truss/beam. I took it that he was merely picking a reasonable average temperature. I'd like to believe he understood that ahead of time, Apollyon.

Basically yes.
From page 22 here:

The modeling suggests a peak total rate of fire energy output on the order of 3–5 trillion Btu/hr,
around 1–1.5 gigawatts (GW), for each of the two towers. From one third to one half of this energy flowed
out of the structures. This vented energy was the force that drove the external smoke plume. The vented
energy and accompanying smoke from both towers combined into a single plume. The energy output from
each of the two buildings is similar to the power output of a commercial power generating station. The
modeling also suggests ceiling gas temperatures of 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), with an estimated confidence of plus
or minus 100 °C (200 °F) or about 900–1,100 °C (1,600–2,000 °F). A major portion of the uncertainty in
these estimates is due to the scarcity of data regarding the initial conditions within the building and how the
aircraft impact changed the geometry and fuel loading. Temperatures may have been as high as 900–1,100
°C (1,700–2,000 °F) in some areas and 400–800 °C (800–1,500 °F) in others.

1000 c just seemed like a good number to work with though working out numbers for the lower temperatures would be easy too. But since the difference between NY's lowest temp. in 33 years (-18 c) and highest in 33 years (40 c) is quite small compared to the temperature shift that occurred during the attack (from 20 c to 400c at the low end) I would think it would have some effect on the events of that day.

-PopeTom

 

[PopeTom]

OK, but even with a localized hot spot, an average temperature still exists.

And I appreciate the literalist, anal, you, but I wanna think Pope Tom was just doing "back of the envelope" kinda calcs.

Thanks for the response.

More like Post It Notes strewn out all over my work area and several browser windows open calculations. Trying to work my way up to just needing the envelop.



-PopeTom

 

[Apollyon]

OK, but even with a localized hot spot, an average temperature still exists.

I don't question that.

However, with localized hot spots you will also have localized thermal expansion. Variances in thermal expansion would tend to create localized structural loading variances as well that would affect the entire building. As temperatures changed in local areas of the building, and heat conductance came into play in the structural steel, the loads would have to be fairly dynamic.

And I appreciate the literalist, anal, you, but I wanna think Pope Tom was just doing "back of the envelope" kinda calcs.

Thanks for the response.

The literalist, anal me comes out when discussing this subject since I've found that if one is not very explicit a CT will gladly take the comment and misinterpret or misrepresent it.

 

[Brainster]

Excellent, excellent job, Brainster. You were, like, you know man, very articulate.

I still need to work on my ums and uhs--unless I'm concentrating hard on that I say them way too frequently. The CIA should train me better!

 

[SRW]

I still need to work on my ums and uhs--unless I'm concentrating hard on that I say them way too frequently. The CIA should train me better!

Listening now, I understand why you did not get to many callers, the host told the CT'ers to get the pencils to take down the number-- what was he thinking, he should have said Crayons...

 

[delphi_ote]

Uhhh, couldn't they have waited just a few minutes, to evacuate the buildings?



Just asking questions.

Everyone is looking at me for the loud laughing this post caused.

 

[60hzxtl]

Everyone is looking at me for the loud laughing this post caused.

You?

I'm the sarcastic s-o-b that put that up!

Or, do you mean because you started this thread 3 stages ago?

Did I thank you for that lately?

Ohhhh, there I go, asking questions again.

 

[MarkyX]

Good news, the fellow who gave me the History Channel special on Muslim Brotherhood recently sent me one the 9/11 Hijackers Hamburg Cell (the one Atta was in).

Real eye opener, uploading it tomorrow on YouTube. Google Video will probably deny it though (despite other history channel videos they have).

 

[Pardalis]

Good news, the fellow who gave me the History Channel special on Muslim Brotherhood recently sent me one the 9/11 Hijackers Hamburg Cell (the one Atta was in).

Real eye opener, uploading it tomorrow on YouTube. Google Video will probably deny it though (despite other history channel videos they have).

Whenever I see the words "video" and "eye opener" in the same sentence, I get a rash.

 

[Brainster]

Truther McKinney in Surprise Run-Off

Cynthia McKinney, the first congressperson to voice 9-11 truthiness, looks like she may be getting a surprise retirement.

Democratic firebrand Rep. Cynthia McKinney started preparing Wednesday for a surprise runoff with former DeKalb County Commissioner Hank Johnson, who has deep roots in the heart of her core constitency.

With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, McKinney finished with 47 percent of the vote to Johnson's 45 percent.

"We've been here before, but you know what? It is impossible to keep a good woman down," McKinney told cheering supporters, shortly after dancing and playing a tambourine.

Dylan Avery claimed in Oakland that McKinney was the only member of congress who's see his film. As you probably recall, McKinney expressed some 9-11 truthiness in 2002, and was turned out of office in favor of Denise Majette. Unfortunately, Majette decided to try to run for the Senate in 2004, letting McKinney back into her old seat.

McKinney has had some controversy already this year, assaulting a Capitol Police officer who accosted her when she failed to wear her congressional pin while bypassing a security checkpoint. But there's no doubt that most political observers are stunned by her failure to avoid the runoff; nobody thought she was in danger.

The article does not fail to mention her CT qualities:

McKinney was largely criticized for questioning the Bush administration's advance knowledge of the Sept. 11 attacks, claiming the president allowed them to happen so his friends could profit from the bloodshed.

Not trying to draw politics or Republicans/Democrats into the discussion here. Whoever wins the Democratic primary will win the general election, so there's no potential for this district to matter in terms of control of the House. But it would be nice for there to be one less CT nutbar in Congress.

 

[Shrinker]

Some spectacular logic from Killtown on his blog, following up from his ordnance blast photos. His comparison did actually make me wonder why the mushroom cloud seemed cut off from the ground, and looked less like a burning fuel fire.

I don't have to worry about it now though, because now he's proved the photo is a fake! Why? Because it looks like the photo is looking out towards where the engine crased, not the plane. And also, it looks a bit photoshopped.

So that's two ways to take the heat off the official story, yet somehow it proves a govt conspiracy!

http://killtown.blogspot.com/

 

[Belz...]

It's not sagging--it's buckling. For a beam, that is a bad thing.
Actually, the uneven heating makes things worse--the beams/collumns bend.
And resistance to elongation causes the stress levels to go up rapidly--to failure. One classic engineering example (usually on a CE201 test) puts a steel I-beam between 2 immovable barriers and heats it up. At what temperature does it fail.
That is an amazingly low temperature....

Do you have an actual figure for that temperature ?