Windows Breaking From Heat

[defaultdotxbe]

Real Science: n Any remotely or seemingly scientific statement that agrees with my preconceived notions


/CT dictionary

 

[Belz...]

I'm not interested in tables. It's too easy to just make up stuff and type it in. The whole point is we don't believe the government reports. I'm looking for actual evidence, that is videos of windows falling and flames licking out.

Pictures, pictures and pictures. The Pixel-generation is upon us.

 

[Belz...]

debris being ejected from the collapsing towers. whats your explanation?

It fell down. You might notice that the portion of WTC1 above the impact area is smaller than WTC2's. Ergo less force to bring it down.

how do you explain the NIST table of how many windows were out? if you feel that NIST is wrong you have to prove that, collect pictures form that day and count how many windows were out, show that it is more/less than NISTs table

Windows out before collapse. Smoke pouring out.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

yeah, science, like expecting a table with 4 legs to behave like the wtc1/2, yeah, real science.

The same laws of nature apply to tables and buildings. Still waiting for anyone to offer even an attempted answer to

I'm still waiting for any evidence that windows broke from heat. Especially WTC2. WTC1 did have severe fires, no doubt. WTC2, not so much. Seemed like they were going out after about a half hour or so.

Yes, to repeat, we do not believe the government reports. If the numbers in the table are factual, then it is pretty good proof that heat broke the windows. Problem is, that table would have had to be based on observation, on evidence. I don't see the evidence.

I could write you all kinds of tables that "prove" all sorts of things. You guys would be demanding evidence.

 

[Bell]

The same laws of nature apply to tables and buildings. Still waiting for anyone to offer even an attempted answer to

I'm still waiting for any evidence that windows broke from heat. Especially WTC2. WTC1 did have severe fires, no doubt. WTC2, not so much. Seemed like they were going out after about a half hour or so.

Yes, to repeat, we do not believe the government reports. If the numbers in the table are factual, then it is pretty good proof that heat broke the windows. Problem is, that table would have had to be based on observation, on evidence. I don't see the evidence.

I could write you all kinds of tables that "prove" all sorts of things. You guys would be demanding evidence.

Absolutely. You are absolutely right.

 

[twinstead]

The same laws of nature apply to tables and buildings. Still waiting for anyone to offer even an attempted answer to

I'm still waiting for any evidence that windows broke from heat. Especially WTC2. WTC1 did have severe fires, no doubt. WTC2, not so much. Seemed like they were going out after about a half hour or so.

Yes, to repeat, we do not believe the government reports. If the numbers in the table are factual, then it is pretty good proof that heat broke the windows. Problem is, that table would have had to be based on observation, on evidence. I don't see the evidence.

I could write you all kinds of tables that "prove" all sorts of things. You guys would be demanding evidence.

Could you perhaps comment on the images Mancman was kind enough to show you?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The same laws of nature apply to tables and buildings.

true, however the effects those laws have do not always scale linearly, a table might not react the same way a building does

Yes, to repeat, we do not believe the government reports. If the numbers in the table are factual, then it is pretty good proof that heat broke the windows. Problem is, that table would have had to be based on observation, on evidence. I don't see the evidence.

if the tables are wrong it shoudl be easy enough fro you to look at pictures and show they are wrong, why have you not done so?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The same laws of nature apply to tables and buildings. Still waiting for anyone to offer even an attempted answer to

So, why do engineering firms spend tens of thousands of dollars on fancy building model software when they could just build tables?

I'm still waiting for any evidence that windows broke from heat.

I'm still waiting for you to provide one single example that the NIST table is in error.

Especially WTC2. WTC1 did have severe fires, no doubt. WTC2, not so much. Seemed like they were going out after about a half hour or so.

Seemed like? How about you provide your scientific model of the fires in WTC 2.

Yes, to repeat, we do not believe the government reports.

It doesn't matter what you "believe". If the facts presented in the reports are wrong, then provide objective, corroboratable evidence showing such.

If the numbers in the table are factual, then it is pretty good proof that heat broke the windows.

Then it would behoove you to provide evidence disproving the table, if you wish to support your assertions.

Problem is, that table would have had to be based on observation, on evidence. I don't see the evidence.

No, you are ignoring what is being presented, there's a difference.

I could write you all kinds of tables that "prove" all sorts of things. You guys would be demanding evidence.

Or, we would provide evidence showing your tables to be false.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I just started reading this thread. I haven't read the original post.
Would not the floor collapsing one by down upon each other compress the air below it and then force itself out the windows. thus producing the "squib" effect.

Seems simple, but not so fast. First, the squibbs appear far below the collapse front. This would imply that the floors inside are breaking away from the core and perimeter 20-30 floors lower than the observerd collapse front. Yet this pancaking effect is now specifically rejected by NIST, because it doesn't explain how the core would fail.

Even if it is true that the floors were collapsing 20-30 floors below the observed collapse front, then what is pulverizing all the concrete 20-30 floors above?

Next problem with the simplistic "pancake makes squibbs" theory is, how does a falling floor focus the smoke and debris into a jet shape? Even if the floor was pancaking, and compressing air between them, why would it always choose just the center window to exit? You have a whole floor slamming down on another floor with a bunch of dust and debris, but all of it shoots out one window? Every time? Why? What mechanism is present to focus this?

Try clapping a book together with flour in it. You can get it to shoot out, but not in a jet shape. We are back to the second law of thermodynamics. Lightwaves do not focus without a lens. Water does not "focus" unless it is forced through a hole.

Anyone care to comment on these delicate points? Or just back to the smack down?

 

[apathoid]

The same laws of nature apply to tables and buildings.

That much is true. Now you have to explain how 4 legged tables are similar in consruction to skyscrapers....

I'm still waiting for any evidence that windows broke from heat.

Further proof that you are not reading responses.

Yes, to repeat, we do not believe the government reports. If the numbers in the table are factual, then it is pretty good proof that heat broke the windows. Problem is, that table would have had to be based on observation, on evidence. I don't see the evidence.

Try actually reading posts, or you could find the pictures in the NIST report as Mancman said(do you have him on ignore or something??)

I could write you all kinds of tables that "prove" all sorts of things. You guys would be demanding evidence.

So NIST is just making stuff up? The conspiracy grows..

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Are you conceding the discussion on fires (since you are now talking about other topics in the thread designated to discuss the windows/fire)?

 

[Bell]

Seems simple, but not so fast. First, the squibbs appear far below the collapse front. This would imply that the floors inside are breaking away from the core and perimeter 20-30 floors lower than the observerd collapse front. Yet this pancaking effect is now specifically rejected by NIST, because it doesn't explain how the core would fail.

Even if it is true that the floors were collapsing 20-30 floors below the observed collapse front, then what is pulverizing all the concrete 20-30 floors above?

Next problem with the simplistic "pancake makes squibbs" theory is, how does a falling floor focus the smoke and debris into a jet shape? Even if the floor was pancaking, and compressing air between them, why would it always choose just the center window to exit? You have a whole floor slamming down on another floor with a bunch of dust and debris, but all of it shoots out one window? Every time? Why? What mechanism is present to focus this?

Try clapping a book together with flour in it. You can get it to shoot out, but not in a jet shape. We are back to the second law of thermodynamics. Lightwaves do not focus without a lens. Water does not "focus" unless it is forced through a hole.

Anyone care to comment on these delicate points? Or just back to the smack down?

Absolutely. You are absolutely right.

 

[Belz...]

The same laws of nature apply to tables and buildings.

Scale, seeker. SCALE.

I'm still waiting for any evidence that windows broke from heat. Especially WTC2. WTC1 did have severe fires, no doubt. WTC2, not so much. Seemed like they were going out after about a half hour or so.

Not so much ? You haven't seen the same WTC2 pictures I have.

Yes, to repeat, we do not believe the government reports. If the numbers in the table are factual, then it is pretty good proof that heat broke the windows. Problem is, that table would have had to be based on observation, on evidence. I don't see the evidence.

Look at the picture, dummy.

 

[Belz...]

Try clapping a book together with flour in it. You can get it to shoot out, but not in a jet shape. We are back to the second law of thermodynamics. Lightwaves do not focus without a lens. Water does not "focus" unless it is forced through a hole.

Exactly. If one window breaks, all the air and debris are going to vent through it.

 

[twinstead]

Next problem with the simplistic "pancake makes squibbs" theory is, how does a falling floor focus the smoke and debris into a jet shape? Even if the floor was pancaking, and compressing air between them, why would it always choose just the center window to exit? You have a whole floor slamming down on another floor with a bunch of dust and debris, but all of it shoots out one window? Every time? Why? What mechanism is present to focus this?

Why don't you ask people who actually UNDERSTAND how this stuff works? People study stuff like this all their lives. Ask an expert.

Try clapping a book together with flour in it. You can get it to shoot out, but not in a jet shape. We are back to the second law of thermodynamics. Lightwaves do not focus without a lens. Water does not "focus" unless it is forced through a hole.

Perhaps strongly glue the tips of all the pages together before you clap it. That air will find the path of least resistance and somewhere that glue will fail and the air will jet out. Hell, I don't know. I'm not an expert. Neither are you. Perhaps you should defer to one.

Regardless.

Are you are implying that expert structural engineers who would disagree with you are wrong? If it were so simple, if just some guy on an internet forum can figure this out, what the heck is up with all these experts, REAL experts world-wide who disagree?

What would you say to them face to face?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Are you conceding the discussion on fires (since you are now talking about other topics in the thread designated to discuss the windows/fire)?

No, Somebody else brought up squibbs.

Prior to 9/11, it was thought that dark smoke indicated an oxygen poor, fuel rich (thus relatively cool) fire.

No dobut WTC1 had some intense fire going on. They accelerated suddely at the time of the jet impact on WTC2, suggestive of explosions. WTC2, fires indeed seemed small and localized. One firefighter who reached the 78th floor reported two pockets of fire that he believed could be knocked down with two hand lines.

There are so many videos, and so many windows, I would like to see video of windows popping out.

 

[Bell]

No, Somebody else brought up squibbs.

Prior to 9/11, it was thought that dark smoke indicated an oxygen poor, fuel rich (thus relatively cool) fire.

No dobut WTC1 had some intense fire going on. They accelerated suddely at the time of the jet impact on WTC2, suggestive of explosions. WTC2, fires indeed seemed small and localized. One firefighter who reached the 78th floor reported two pockets of fire that he believed could be knocked down with two hand lines.

There are so many videos, and so many windows, I would like to see video of windows popping out.

You have been shown pictoorz, are those not good enough?

 

[Belz...]

There are so many videos, and so many windows, I would like to see video of windows popping out.

What's this, christophera1234 ?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Prior to 9/11, it was thought that dark smoke indicated an oxygen poor, fuel rich (thus relatively cool) fire.

black smoke implies a fuel rich fire, this doesnt automatically imply oxygen starved (and subsequently does not imply cool) it could just be an over excess of fuel (a 767full for example)

One firefighter who reached the 78th floor reported two pockets of fire that he believed could be knocked down with two hand lines.

read the NIST report, they show 2 isolated hotspots on the 78th floor, with more intense fires further up

according to gravy floor 78 was a skylounge, which would mean little combustible fuel (no office furniture/supplies) so its not at all surprising that it would much smaller fires than the office floors

There are so many videos, and so many windows, I would like to see video of windows popping out.

then find them, we arent here to do your research for you

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

This is a facinating photo. How on earth did that perfect row of perimeter columns get red hot, without flames, without any of the nearby ones getting that hot? I can't figure this out under anybody's theory.