Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gravy said:
Let there be light:
Click to expand...

An error occurred while processing your request.
Reference #99.15a002cc.1156032593.237f29a

Were you going to show me another story that someone from NIST has written to explain the sudden collapse of these superstructures?

I should have 15 post by tomorrow and maybe we can discuss some of the IMAGES ? It's hard when you can't believe your own eyes ain't it !
Maybe after I can post images you won't quit pulling these fictional stories out of the USG's smoke screen.

cest la'vie
 
submersible, why don't you try downloading and reading the NIST reports (the most relevant probably being NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers and NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers), which are available here.

If you're going to reject the "official story", you might first want to know what it is, instead of making up a load of ridiculous strawmen as a stand-in for it.

Mr. Skinny, IIRC Young's modulus (or modulus of elasticity or elastic modulus) applies to members which are strained within the limits in which they behave elastically- as long as they're within those limits the stress/strain relationship is linear- strain=stress/elastic modulus.

Once a piece of steel, or anything, is strained to the point that it deforms permanently (plastically), that relationship is out the window. I think the concept you're thinking of is yield strength or elastic limit, which varies with temperature (according to NIST NCSTAR 1-6, at 500 C the types of steel used in the WTC towers lose something like 50-60% of their room temperature yield strength and their elastic modulus is reduced by around 35%).

Of course, I'm an electronics, not mechanics guy, so YMMV.
 
Ya, likely related to the number of family members who actually even partially buy into the LC bullshaite...
 
It will be interesting to see what these Family members have to say, and the reaction of the "truthers".

I also read that the NY National Guard are marching to GZ 9/11/06 also. Interesting to see the interaction between D.A.'s posse and the boys in camoflague (spelling).
 
I never hate my job. I hate my responsibilities, for not allowing me to be there, on that day! Dang'it!
 
ktesibios said:
Mr. Skinny, IIRC Young's modulus (or modulus of elasticity or elastic modulus) applies to members which are strained within the limits in which they behave elastically- as long as they're within those limits the stress/strain relationship is linear- strain=stress/elastic modulus.

Once a piece of steel, or anything, is strained to the point that it deforms permanently (plastically), that relationship is out the window. I think the concept you're thinking of is yield strength or elastic limit, which varies with temperature (according to NIST NCSTAR 1-6, at 500 C the types of steel used in the WTC towers lose something like 50-60% of their room temperature yield strength and their elastic modulus is reduced by around 35%).

Of course, I'm an electronics, not mechanics guy, so YMMV.
Click to expand...
OK, doesn't sound like I'm too far off the mark. I admit I may be using the wrong terminology, but what you just posted does not disagree with what I was trying to say. Perhaps I was equating Youngs modulus to elastic limit improperly.
 
T.A.M. said:
I was wondering...do we have any good info on the whole "ASTM E119 Steel" argument.

Doing a net search, I can find little wrt the "6 hours" that the Steel should have remained unhindered if it were of the ASTM E119 Standard.

What I do find is information that describes the ASTM E119 as a series of tests created in 1918 to measure the ability of BUILDING STRUCTURES to withstand fire and subsequent temperature. I can't find anything about how this test was applied to the Steel Beams by themselves, rather than as part of the building structure as a whole, and I can find no Temp curve with anything close to 6h on it. Most of them list temps over a 1-2 hour period...

As this statement is used alot by the CTs, I would appreciate some clarification.

Oh, and submersible, if the "take it up the ^&*&" comment was directed at me, I do not take it up the "^&*&" for anyone, let alone govt, and I am far from programmed...
Click to expand...

Here are some links

Summary of NIST's 2004 fire test on floor assemblies
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_fire_resistance_data.htm

Results from above test: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/ULTestResults.pdf

NIST gallery of fire experiment images: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm

See page 18 of the FEMA report http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf

Interesting short article on structural fire protection & the WTC http://www.structuremag.org/archives/2006/June-2006/C-PI-Fire Protection-June-06.pdf

Lengthier artlcle about fire codes in structural steel buildings: http://www.aisc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Documents/Engineering_Journal4/262_EJ_gewaintroup.pdf

Festival o' fire & structural steel papers (technical) http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/steelinfire/previous_Frame-3.html

Design against progressive collapse in fires (Interesting!) http://www.fireox-international.com/fire/ProgressiveCollapsePaper.pdf

Good links re: WTC and structural fire engineering http://www.fireox-international.com/fire/structdesfire.htm
 
Report from Ground Zero: When the Gravy's away, RealityBites and Abbyas will drink beer.

Reality Bites and I went down to ground zero again today. Nothing new. The gentleman who told Gravy he could see into his soul again accused me of causing the next terrorist attack. If only I had so much power. I responded by telling him I wasn't the one coming up with alibis for Al Qaeda.

Reality Bites had a nice long chat with an iron worker/CT who decided that I was just lying.

I passed out my contradictory flyers for awhile with the general "She's being paid to cast doubt."

The best was the dog of "Bogglehead" from the SLC forum and his dad, Carl Pederson, who's trying to run for Attorney General of New York in the 9/11 truth party. The dog was outfitted with a lovely "9/11 was an inside job" doggie cape.
 
Submersible said:
Heated metal may bend, but it doesn't EXPLODE.
Click to expand...

Kay... following you until now...

And regardless how hot the iron on the "fire floors" reached, if by some miracle the top portion of the towers were allowed to literally FALL down on the lower portion of the structure...
Click to expand...

I don't think gravity could be called a miracle, except metaphorically.

I've seen the same video's and images as everybody else, but for some reason the contents of those images are rarely discussed. The amount of fire that was present in both towers when they first began to fall is NOT sufficient enough to melt each and every beam on 4 or 5 floors at the same exact time.
Click to expand...

No ?
 

Attachments

  • _38088322_wtc300ap.jpg
    _38088322_wtc300ap.jpg
    10.2 KB · Views: 129
  • WTC_on_fire9.jpg
    WTC_on_fire9.jpg
    76.8 KB · Views: 5
Reality Bites and I went down to ground zero again today. Nothing new. The gentleman who told Gravy he could see into his soul again accused me of causing the next terrorist attack. If only I had so much power. I responded by telling him I wasn't the one coming up with alibis for Al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

Not to be too cliche,but you guys are the wind beneath my wings! Hard for an old rocker to use that one! From the heart, however!
DT
 
Abbyas said:
Report from Ground Zero: When the Gravy's away, RealityBites and Abbyas will drink beer.

Reality Bites and I went down to ground zero again today. Nothing new. The gentleman who told Gravy he could see into his soul again accused me of causing the next terrorist attack. If only I had so much power. I responded by telling him I wasn't the one coming up with alibis for Al Qaeda.

Reality Bites had a nice long chat with an iron worker/CT who decided that I was just lying.

I passed out my contradictory flyers for awhile with the general "She's being paid to cast doubt."

The best was the dog of "Bogglehead" from the SLC forum and his dad, Carl Pederson, who's trying to run for Attorney General of New York in the 9/11 truth party. The dog was outfitted with a lovely "9/11 was an inside job" doggie cape.
Click to expand...
They finally recruited an honest member, and wearing a cape, to boot! I hope you gave our psychic friend the international cuckoo sign. Good job Abby & Reality.
 
on that flyer they are holding signs that say "Investigate 9/11"

Who is it they want to lead such an investigation?
 
Submersible said:
If you look at the images right before the towers fell or the video's, there is a sudden explosion all the way around the 'fire or entry floors' that blew debris in every direction, and the top portion of the structure came crumbling down.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't. You're imagining things. All I see is debree ejected by the collapse.
 
Submersible said:
I would like to discuss the images and the appearance of the towers as they stood and as they fell.
Click to expand...
If you like, though attempting to analyze static images of a dynamic process is likely to be somewhat problematic. However, will you stick to the one topic and not move on to others willy-nilly?

If there was a fire hot enough inside of either tower to weaken the iron beyond it's structural capabilities, it would have done it one at a time unless the fire was tremendous... which it wasn't according to the images, video or radio transmissions.
Click to expand...
Please provide your definition for the word "tremendous."

Also, what are your qualifications in regard to this topic?

If you look at the images right before the towers fell or the video's, there is a sudden explosion all the way around the 'fire or entry floors' that blew debris in every direction, and the top portion of the structure came crumbling down.
Click to expand...
If true (I don't know one way or the other, not having video of the collapse handy)... so?

Regardless how much fire or heat was inside each tower , unless it 'free fell' to the floors beneath it the building wouldn't have failed to hold the top portion up, seeing as it had the strength to do so for so many years.
Click to expand...
Do you know the difference between a "live load" and a "static load"?

Also (and I'm not trying to be difficult), your qualifications for determining what these buildings under these conditions "wouldn't have" done is important. Please provide them.

How do the 'professionals' explain that the top 1/4 of the tower had the strength or compression abilities to suddenly crush the remaining 3/4 of the tower including the foundation.
Click to expand...
Have you read/studied the pertinent reports? Are you interested in learning, or are you another contributor who primarily wants to "ask questions?"

The demolition WTC 1 & 2 was identical.
Click to expand...
Unless your defintion is different than mine, I don't concede that at all. But even if they were identical enough... so?

And there are no images of tower 7 that shows a 'gaping hole' or enough damage to weaken the structure... much less the foundation. right ?
Click to expand...
I'm not conversant in WTC7 enough to address this.

How would you describe the complete destruction of the towers, or the explosion that takes place as they initially begin to fall... or the material used to construct the buildings ? ?
Click to expand...
1) The towers did not suffer "complete destruction." Unless, once again, our definitions are out of sync.

2) What "explosion that takes place as they initially begin to fall?" In any event, are you suggesting that violent physical impacts do not produce violent sounds?

3) What does "material used to construct the buildings" mean?

like priannah
Click to expand...
Huh?

~

One note in regard to the entirety of your post (which I've broken down, obviously): Questions are not evidence. Here it is again:

Questions are not evidence.

That you or I do not understand something does not make it suspect in the least. If you wish to learn, there are plenty of people in this and other forums who can assist you. But argument from incredulity is not a satisfactory position.
 
Last edited:
Abbyas said:
Reality Bites and I went down to ground zero again today. Nothing new. The gentleman who told Gravy he could see into his soul again accused me of causing the next terrorist attack. If only I had so much power. I responded by telling him I wasn't the one coming up with alibis for Al Qaeda.

Reality Bites had a nice long chat with an iron worker/CT who decided that I was just lying.

I passed out my contradictory flyers for awhile with the general "She's being paid to cast doubt."
Click to expand...

Ever since I've registered here, I've been amazed at the mental gymnastics some people will make to stick to their beliefs. It gets downright silly. I just boggles the mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom