Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
DHR said:
one point most don't seem to realize is the temp of the flame has no relation to the final temp achieved.

You can melt steel with a match if it burns long enough and you have the right insulation.

all that matters is that you keep adding BTU's
Click to expand...
We went thru this before.
No. and yes
You cannot raise the temperature of something above its environment. You cannot bake a cake at 350 degrees in a 250 degree oven. You cannot melt ice in a 0 degree freezer.
 
The video quotes (and shows a pic of) a newsweek article 'confirming' that the hijackers trained at US military bases.
Click to expand...
HM, are the CTers suggesting we discriminate to prevent people from taking flight training just because they aren't native to USA? What if their parents weren't born here? How do you prevent people from taking flight lessons from anywhere if they have never committed a crime before?
 
Muckar-duva said:
For you, jon; I was a tad bored.
Click to expand...

Thank you. And who could want more confirmation than that :)

Credit where credit's due - at least the article says that this *may* have happened. Have seen others (Alex Jones, for example) showing articles that explicitly reject their position, as confirmation of said position...
 
jon said:
The video quotes (and shows a pic of) a newsweek article 'confirming' that the hijackers trained at US military bases. Great, so what's the title of this article which gives the video its solid confirmation? "Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases" :D
Click to expand...
Oddly they don't point out that one of these trainees, who's supposed to have registered a car in March 1997, would have been only 17 at the time (if it was the same guy at the alleged hijacker). And in fact other articles talk about this particular Saeed Alghamdi being in Florida since 1992, making him perhaps 12 or 13. Doesn't this suggest that maybe, just possibly, it's a different guy?
 
Jennie C. said:
Belz suggested to someone that they build a miniature of the tower and test their theory. Somewhere else, someone suggested firing a bullet into the ground to simulate what happened to UA93 in the field in PA.

Anyway, would either of those things work? A miniature of the tower doesn't have the mass. Ditto with the bullet.

So, CAN you simulate something that had such a huge mass (building and plane) relative to the miniature with which you're simulating?
Click to expand...
Not really, no. There are ways to build relevant models but it's nowhere near as simple as just scaling things down. Despite your admission of having a non-technical background, your intuition that it's not so easy is dead on -- that puts you leaps and bounds beyond the Loosers! :D

Material properties, fluid flow, and heating are alll things that really don't scale well. Let's say you were to build a perfect miniature of the WTC towers, all scaled down by a constant factor S. Then a steel column, for instance, would be S times shorter and S times narrower. If you made this mini-column out of the same structural steel, you have a problem. The strength of the column will decrease by a factor of S2, but the amount of gravitational potential in this column decreases by S4 -- the mini-column is S3 times lighter, being of the same density but S times smaller in each of three dimensions, and it's S times closer to the ground since the whole building is smaller.

So scaling the problem means you've created a mismatch between strain and gravitational energy. There is no reason to suspect the scaled model would behave the same as the original article. This should be obvious if you take it to an extreme, for example the milk-carton getting hit by a pencil igniting a thimble-full of kerosene argument I've seen in conspiracist discussions. Bizarrely, the conspiracists seem not to realize the absurdity is because it's a bad model, not that what really happened in WTC 1 and 2 is impossible.

Sometimes, if you're careful, you can compensate for these scaling errors by changing the model. If all we cared about was yield strength and gravity, we could compensate by changing materials. If we found a new material that had a different ratio of strength to weight -- say, replaced all of the columns in our model with lead -- then we could scale it some and have consistent results. For example, have you ever heard of a water tunnel? It's the same thing as a wind tunnel, but with water instead of air. Sometimes you can scale down an aircraft problem and get correct results by changing the operating fluid to water.

In our WTC example, though, there are so many things going on at once that trying to balance them all will be impossible. Our mini-tower made of lead will now behave incorrectly with respect to the initial airplane impact, and have improper heating characteristics. The air and fuel flows governing the fires will be wrong. Wind load on the building will be different, as will coupling to the bedrock underneath. And this assumes we've done a meticulous job recreating it. Something so crude as a solid-core bullet simulating Flight 93 is obviously not going to be close.

The only way to make decent models are to take pieces of the structures -- say recreate a single column of the WTC, and apply a load and heat -- or to use a computer model. These approaches can be accurate, if you're careful. Many such experiments have been done, notably in the NIST report. This is part of the reason why the scientific community is satisfied with the official explanation.
 
R.Mackey said:
Not really, no. There are ways to build relevant models but it's nowhere near as simple as just scaling things down. Despite your admission of having a non-technical background, your intuition that it's not so easy is dead on -- that puts you leaps and bounds beyond the Loosers! :D

[shortened for space...the post is only a little above here anyway]

In our WTC example, though, there are so many things going on at once that trying to balance them all will be impossible. Our mini-tower made of lead will now behave incorrectly with respect to the initial airplane impact, and have improper heating characteristics. The air and fuel flows governing the fires will be wrong. Wind load on the building will be different, as will coupling to the bedrock underneath. And this assumes we've done a meticulous job recreating it. Something so crude as a solid-core bullet simulating Flight 93 is obviously not going to be close.

The only way to make decent models are to take pieces of the structures -- say recreate a single column of the WTC, and apply a load and heat -- or to use a computer model. These approaches can be accurate, if you're careful. Many such experiments have been done, notably in the NIST report. This is part of the reason why the scientific community is satisfied with the official explanation.
Click to expand...

Tnx, Macky. You know, you can't always just take 1/2 of all the ingredients when you're downsizing a recipe either. The 1/2 egg is usually the hardest.

My main instinct in asking this question is that if you, for instance, even halve the height of the entire building (which would still leave it unmanageably big, I should think), you are reducing the whole volume of space by 8, not 2.

Not to mention it would be really hard to find the teeny little airplane to simulate flying in...

I tend to make random observations as I go through these old threads, so sometimes I think folks think I'm giving credence to the CTers. I'm not. I couldn't watch the events of 9/11 live, as I had no access to TV at work. But the local AM station gave continuous (no ads) coverage to the ABC coverage, so I got it as real-time as possible under the circumstances. But I've no doubt that it was the planes, flown by the fanatics, who perpetrated these monstrosities.
 
Jennie C. said:
Tnx, Macky. You know, you can't always just take 1/2 of all the ingredients when you're downsizing a recipe either. The 1/2 egg is usually the hardest.

My main instinct in asking this question is that if you, for instance, even halve the height of the entire building (which would still leave it unmanageably big, I should think), you are reducing the whole volume of space by 8, not 2.
Click to expand...
very true, this is somethign CTers always miss, they look at size and nothign else (anyone ever told them size doesnt matter? :D ) so they might buildd a model of the towers to scale as far as size is concerned, but they dont scale other factors, like weight and speed of the planes, and completely ignore factors liek density and strength/weight ratios
 
link?

rwguinn said:
We went thru this before.
No. and yes
You cannot raise the temperature of something above its environment. You cannot bake a cake at 350 degrees in a 250 degree oven. You cannot melt ice in a 0 degree freezer.
Click to expand...

maybe a link?

I said if you have perfect insulation and keep adding btu's the temp will increase.
 
rwguinn said:
You cannot bake a cake at 350 degrees in a 250 degree oven.
Click to expand...

A totally erroneous comparison. An oven has a thermostat that turns the heat on and off to maintain a costant temp. The fires in the WTC were continually pumping out heat which means that the temperature can climb dramatically.

Steve S.
 
insulation

steve s said:
A totally erroneous comparison. An oven has a thermostat that turns the heat on and off to maintain a costant temp. The fires in the WTC were continually pumping out heat which means that the temperature can climb dramatically.

Steve S.
Click to expand...

Thanks Steve S.

One of the worst assumptions about the collapse of the towers is that the final temp could not be more than the temp of JetA burning.
 
Jennie C. said:
Still reading part 2 of the thread.

Belz suggested to someone that they build a miniature of the tower and test their theory
Click to expand...

Actually, I jockingly suggested that the JREF ninjas build a full-scale tower and ram real jets into it to prove to "einsteen" that the towers fell the way we claim they did.
 
Belz... said:
Actually, I jockingly suggested that the JREF ninjas build a full-scale tower and ram real jets into it to prove to "einsteen" that the towers fell the way we claim they did.
Click to expand...

Wasn't trying to poke fun at you, of course, Belz. It was just that when I read your post and thought about the miniature, I remembered the bullet-in-the-ground thing. The first time I read that (the bullet thing), I thought, how could that possibly be the same.

And I do know a little (emphasis on little) bit about firing weapons, but zilch about plowing aircraft into the ground. Gotta admit, I never fired at the ground though. Never saw a target there.

(I'm pretty darn good with a 38-special in the Weaver stance, but not much good at rifles/shotguns :) )
 
Mancman said:
Jon Gold films Jason Bermas
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1049489263988152113&q=wtc

Bermas on Mark Roberts: "I just say hey, you're entitled to believe what you want but you're wrong, and I think you know you're wrong. I told him yesterday 'how does it feel to be betraying humanity yet again today' and he didn't have a response for that"


Pondlife.
Click to expand...

Betraying humanity. Hah. All Mark and the rest of us do is point out the honest facts for everyone to see. It is Bermas and his "near" primate group at LTW that are accusing hundreds of honest americans of covering up the mass murder of 3000 people...hmmm I wonder who is betraying humanity?

TAM
 
I was just watching that video the CTs put up where Bermas argues with Abby and then Jones and Foti argue with Gravy. Bermas had my brain melting with his claims that the firefighters are lying and covering up the conspiracy so that the conspirators don't kill them. Can someone tell that twit that (1) people who become firefighters aren't the type to put their own lives ahead of millions of other people's, and (2) with 300+ firefighters already dead on 9/11, there's no reason they'd trust the conspirators not to kill them too no matter whether they blab about the conspiracy or not.
 
with 300+ firefighters already dead on 9/11, there's no reason they'd trust the conspirators not to kill them too no matter whether they blab about the conspiracy or not.
Click to expand...

If their paranoid delusions were real, we would never have heard of them!
I call that irony!


Tribute:
" Fire Fighters run into buildings...not out" FDNY
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom