• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC Discussion: Core Column Temperature & Failure.

zep are you even thinking what you are posting?
yes two engines to help the injured
2 firelines to knock out the pockets of isolated fire

Yes at least one survival did make it from above the impact zone -------so you were wrong.
 
se7ensnakes said:
This is why it is used as an explosive.......
Click to expand...

But you only have 1500 pounds of Explosives.

The planes had 66,000 pounds of fuel!

Jet fuel heat from 66,000 pounds is equal in heat to 315 TONS of TNT.

Compared to your heat in 1500 pounds, just 0.75 TONS you loose!

Sorry, more than 400 times more heat in all the jet fuel times two.

The jet fuel was hundreds of times more heat than the 93 blast.
 
se7ensnakes said:
zep are you even thinking what you are posting?
yes two engines to help the injured
2 firelines to knock out the pockets of isolated fire

Yes at least one survival did make it from above the impact zone -------so you were wrong.
Click to expand...
se7ensnakes, I suggest that you watch the second part of my debate with Avery and Bermas, in which I put your idiotic claim to rest. Wait until the Hardfire show proper is on the net, because photos will be shown.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop this ignorant behavior.
 
zep so if one person made it thru the floor.....where was the inferno that caused the steel joist to topple?
Do you think that steel joist topple at 200 degrees, 400 degrees, 600 degrees.

The impact of the planes supposedly took out the fire retardent from the metal so heat transfer should have been phenomenal.


if you have 600 degree F fire room.......believe me you are not going to survive been seperated by a wall.
 
se7ensnakes, I'm going to say it again: you have no idea what you're talking about. Your aggressive ignorance is offensive. Please stop, think, and take the time to inform yourself.
 
I told you before beachnut

puddle jet fuel in a fire place, in whatever quantities and it wont even affect a 1/2 inch steel plate. I CANNOT EVEN MEASURE THE DIFFERENCE IN A CHEAP HYDRAULIC PRESS!

Yes the governmetn is preferential in hiring who their official spokes person is going to be.
 
Aggressive?

I am to the point and factual as to what i am posting........unless of course you are thinking that my sources are incorrect.
gravy if you have something to post .....do so here
 
se7ensnakes said:
beachnut give it a rest .........no one uses jet fuel for an bomb.....stop the fantasy
Click to expand...

But you are wrong all around, jet fuel is a bomb, and it is more energy than your bomb, pound for pound more energy!

you should look this stuff up first
 
se7ensnakes said:
I am to the point and factual as to what i am posting........unless of course you are thinking that my sources are incorrect.
gravy if you have something to post .....do so here
Click to expand...

Your explosive stuff is just plain out right wrong; incorrect, not right, wrong.

You missed the total energy my a factor of over 300 plus.

You can look up equal energy list of all types of things.
 
se7ensnakes said:
beachnut give it a rest .........no one uses jet fuel for an bomb.....stop the fantasy
Click to expand...

Jet Fuel and fertilizer will make a fine bomb. I blew up my back yard with a small version when I was 11.

You seem to be off on this also. Do you have some more snakeFacts to debunk?
 
Let’s be honest, it is a domino effect, energy is released stepwise, caused by the above collapsing mass, that is the official theory. There are not much choices one can make. Pancaking sound very stupid, backward and insulting, progressive collapse is a much more academic expression. Our praised friend Greening describes it literally as a ‘progressive pancake-type collapse’ and his paper is a paper in which he uses 100% strict pancaking. And one must use a model in which mass is collected to explain a fast collapse, there is no other way to explain it otherwise. And you have to assume that no mass is lost from the footprint even not from the initial collapsing mass.

Conclusion: The progressive collapse is pancaking
 
einsteen said:
Let’s be honest, it is a domino effect, energy is released stepwise, caused by the above collapsing mass, that is the official theory. There are not much choices one can make. Pancaking sound very stupid, backward and insulting, progressive collapse is a much more academic expression. Our praised friend Greening describes it literally as a ‘progressive pancake-type collapse’ and his paper is a paper in which he uses 100% strict pancaking. And one must use a model in which mass is collected to explain a fast collapse, there is no other way to explain it otherwise. And you have to assume that no mass is lost from the footprint even not from the initial collapsing mass.

Conclusion: The progressive collapse is pancaking
Click to expand...
Except that ignores all of the other forces involved in such complex collapses. This is not a one-dimensional exercise.

And again, einsteen, "pancaking" has nothing to do with NIST's explanation of the cause of the collapses, agreed?
 
se7ensnakes said:
zep are you even thinking what you are posting?
yes two engines to help the injured
2 firelines to knock out the pockets of isolated fire

Yes at least one survival did make it from above the impact zone -------so you were wrong.
Click to expand...



Snakie...

I recall some firemen here discussing the Palmer quote.

Apparantly a "line" can actually cover a significant area, and two lines (obviously) twice as much. "Two isolated pockets of fire" in firefighting jingo doesn't mean "small" or "little" or "insignificant". It just means they are isolated. Considering you're talking about a floor with an area of about 40,000 sq ft, a fairly large area can be "isolated".

Further more, it takes an entire engine crew to man a "line" hence the "two engines" remark.

In other words the small isolated fires located on the lowest floor, with the least severe fires, required two entire engine crews (or to put it another way, an entire typical firehouse) to deal with them.

-Gumboot
 
Of course Grav, the collapse initiation is a totally and totally different thing than the global collapse.
 
gumboot said:
Snakie...

I recall some firemen here discussing the Palmer quote.

Apparantly a "line" can actually cover a significant area, and two lines (obviously) twice as much. "Two isolated pockets of fire" in firefighting jingo doesn't mean "small" or "little" or "insignificant". It just means they are isolated. Considering you're talking about a floor with an area of about 40,000 sq ft, a fairly large area can be "isolated".

Further more, it takes an entire engine crew to man a "line" hence the "two engines" remark.

In other words the small isolated fires located on the lowest floor, with the least severe fires, required two entire engine crews (or to put it another way, an entire typical firehouse) to deal with them.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
Correct, Gumboot. And remember this was 7 minutes before collapse, when the fires were raging on upper floors.
 
Does someone know if the progressive collapse is also the mechanism that ejects all mass? Of course by definition the collapse should be a one that explains this, but I'm wondering if this is already part of the progressive collapse, are there any numbers of mass ejected away from the footprint ? Even wtc7 was hit by debris didn't it...? How much mass is ejected?
 
einsteen said:
Does someone know if the progressive collapse is also the mechanism that ejects all mass? Of course by definition the collapse should be a one that explains this, but I'm wondering if this is already part of the progressive collapse, are there any numbers of mass ejected away from the footprint ? Even wtc7 was hit by debris didn't it...? How much mass is ejected?
Click to expand...


One thing I don't understand...

CTers claim all of the building fell into its own footprint, and that only CDs do this. Presumably, in that case, debris from a non-CD collapse would NOT fall only into its own footprint.

And yet AT THE SAME TIME they also claim that debris falling outside the footprint is being "ejected", and that THIS could not happen in a non-CD collapse.

MAKE UP YOUR MINDS!

-Gumboot
 
einsteen said:
Does someone know if the progressive collapse is also the mechanism that ejects all mass? Of course by definition the collapse should be a one that explains this, but I'm wondering if this is already part of the progressive collapse, are there any numbers of mass ejected away from the footprint ? Even wtc7 was hit by debris didn't it...? How much mass is ejected?
Click to expand...
Welcome to the JREF forums, einsteen. Be sure to check out the other subforums. The conspiracy theories subforum can be a bit insular (if not incestuous!).

By using the forum search function you will find many discussions about the absurdity of what CTs claim is the "impossibility" of significant debris traveling beyond the footprints of the towers.

Again, welcome.










Wait...369 posts, almost all of them in the conspiracy theories subforum? :con2:


:hb:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom