simple question for the WTC collapse

[KissMy]

At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F)

How do you know how hot that fire was?

 

[eots]

At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F)

How do you know how hot that fire was?

because that is what the forensic fire investigators determined..there are variety of methods they use one is the paint on the steel beams

 

[eots]

Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation

 

[SAYIT]

If I remember right Eots mentioned that the beams near the base of the towers had to be about 4 inches thick.... That's an awful lot of thermite to burn through that much steel without anyone noticing....

It is an awful of steel to fail when the fire and Impact happened over a thousand feet away...actually

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka8muGhlciA]Explosions in the WTC basement before the Plane struck the tower. - YouTube[/ame]

Not William!

Is this the same guy who first said the explosion sounded like someone "moving furniture", and the as time went on, embellished his story to say "the floor heaved up and cracked the floor/ceilings? That William?

The guy who disproves your explosives when he says he sees a man with his skin hanging off his body, badly burned? Evidence of being burned by jet fuel. Since when do explosions remove skin and cause burns?

Jesus eots. Come on already.

He can't, of course. He's afraid to face the loss of everything he so foolishly clings to.

 

[Gamolon]

I would suggest the tower design tapers from top to bottom therefore requiring less destructive force and less explosives or incendiaries to cause collapse of the top section than the middle or the bottom..

Are you really THAT stupid? That I have to explain this to you yet again?

It makes no difference whether the lower section of the building was steel framed or made of wood. It doesn't matter if the building was weakened.

The bottom line is that, according to TakeAStepBack, the upper section either expends it's kinetic energy in ONE of TWO ways.

1. The upper section either used up it's energy to destroy itself.

or

2. The upper section used it's energy to destroy the lower section below.

So I will ask you again. The verinage video I keep referencing shows the upper three floors becoming debris. What destroys the lower section? Supposedly the kinetic energy was used to destroy itself. What was left for the lower section?

Why can't you answer this honestly?

I think we ALL know why...

I am not speaking for takeastepback so get over it you loon..and why are you talking such nonsense ? of course in a verinage the design and construction makes a difference and of course it makes a difference if the building is weakened

Do you agree or disagree with TakeAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of physics in this particular case?

It's real easy eots.

The fact that you are avoiding the actual content tells quite a bit.

 

[Gamolon]

It is an awful of steel to fail when the fire and Impact happened over a thousand feet away...actually

Explosions in the WTC basement before the Plane struck the tower. - YouTube

Not William!

Is this the same guy who first said the explosion sounded like someone "moving furniture", and the as time went on, embellished his story to say "the floor heaved up and cracked the floor/ceilings? That William?

The guy who disproves your explosives when he says he sees a man with his skin hanging off his body, badly burned? Evidence of being burned by jet fuel. Since when do explosions remove skin and cause burns?

Jesus eots. Come on already.

link to where he says it sounded like moving furniture and the are are other eyewittnesses that tell the same account

No problem.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQk3XXBot9c]William Rodriguez interview, CNN, 13:33, 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

Start at :27 of the interview.

 

[Gamolon]

Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

And yet he still thinks fire and plane damage was the cause of the collapse.

yet he implores his peers to be conspiracy theorist...

And he STILL thinks fire caused the collapse.

 

[daws101]

If I remember right Eots mentioned that the beams near the base of the towers had to be about 4 inches thick.... That's an awful lot of thermite to burn through that much steel without anyone noticing....

Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.

Thermite VS Car Cool Video

Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?


Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g

density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc


54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.

A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg

For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:

0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb

That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.

Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!


How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:


A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.

Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.


Example:

Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.

Density of metals

The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.

Thermite and Sulfur- Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q]THERMITE CUTTING STEEL - VALIDATED - EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED - YouTube[/ame]

ok shit head how'd they do that without being seen or questioned.?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.

Thermite VS Car Cool Video

Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?


Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g

density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc


54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.

A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg

For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:

0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb

That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.

Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!


How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:


A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.

Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.


Example:

Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.

Density of metals

The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.

Thermite and Sulfur- Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q]THERMITE CUTTING STEEL - VALIDATED - EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED - YouTube[/ame]

ok shit head how'd they do that without being seen or questioned.?

They were very, very quiet. In fact, they tip-toed.

 

[daws101]

Like the perimeter columns -- and like steel columns in all tall buildings -- the thickness of the steel in the core columns tapered from bottom to top. Near the bottoms of the towers the steel was four inches thick, whereas near the tops it may have been as little as 1/4th inch thick
9-11 Research: The Core Structures

Who We Are

.

The king of cut and paste ?

Who We Are

9-11 Research is a research consortium consisting of just a few individuals volunteering their time and resources to the effort. The principal contributors to the site are:

Jim Hoffman, Webmaster and Senior Editor
Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor
Jan Hoyer, Outreach Coordinator
Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website.

Gregg Roberts has been investigating the September 11 attack since December 2003 and has provided extensive editorial assistance to 911Research. He authored the essay Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?, and is working with Hoffman to produce a book based on the site. Roberts is a technical writer and business analyst with a bachelor's degree in psychology, master's-level study in social work, and earlier education in the "hard" sciences.

Jan Hoyer is a former founding board member and graphic designer for the National 9/11 Visibilty Project, 911Truth.org and the D.C Emergency Truth Convergence. Hoyer has a degree in graphic design and experience in online multimedia.


not one engineering degree between them or fire science or explosives ....etc..
a shocking lack of the basic skill sets to make informed speculation on the events of 911.
an extreme bias is evident...
= ZERO CREDIBILITY...

 

[KissMy]

Proof that open fire will burn 1600 degrees.
[YouTube]flj_RRaB8wo[/YouTube]

1230 degree controlled burn test section of steel framed office building.

 

[DaveB]

how'd they do that without being seen or questioned.?

More to the point, how many of these secret thermite contraptions would be needed and how come nobody found a single one after the event? Just a whole lot more people to keep quiet and be in on this mass murder. Yeah right

 

[daws101]

how'd they do that without being seen or questioned.?

More to the point, how many of these secret thermite contraptions would be needed and how come nobody found a single one after the event? Just a whole lot more people to keep quiet and be in on this mass murder. Yeah right

someone on another site (can't name it due to usmb rules) calculated it to be 6 per floor one for each corner and 2 for elevator shafts..
wonder why nobody thought of rigging the stairwells?
wasn't the whole idea a maximum body count.?

 

[SFC Ollie]

If it was body count they were after then why crash the first plane so high in the building....In fact why crash the planes at all, Blow both buildings at the same time and take out 60,000 or so at once....Show us that wild power they have over us......

 

[daws101]

If it was body count they were after then why crash the first plane so high in the building....In fact why crash the planes at all, Blow both buildings at the same time and take out 60,000 or so at once....Show us that wild power they have over us......

I've always wondered that myself..
imagine the death and destruction if "they" had toppled the towers.
the planes were a dead (no pun intended ) giveaway that it was religious extremists ..

 

[Derideo_Te]

Proof that open fire will burn 1600 degrees.
[YouTube]flj_RRaB8wo[/YouTube]

1230 degree controlled burn test section of steel framed office building.

Those images clearly show the steel deforming under load when heat is applied. This is not some state secret. Heat has always been used to change the shape of metals. Why do the conspiracy theorists believe that steel would be magically different in the WTC fires?

 

[daws101]

Proof that open fire will burn 1600 degrees.
[YouTube]flj_RRaB8wo[/YouTube]

1230 degree controlled burn test section of steel framed office building.

Those images clearly show the steel deforming under load when heat is applied. This is not some state secret. Heat has always been used to change the shape of metals. Why do the conspiracy theorists believe that steel would be magically different in the WTC fires?

they do.. TASB has posted some TT photos that show the exact same damage.
he claims it had to be mini nukes or the legendary dustification ray..

 

[KissMy]

Watch the camera shutter as this Boeing 757 does a high speed pass 40 feet of the ground. Then it goes completely vertical like a rocket-ship up into the clouds.

[YouTube]Uiv6UvYnf3s[/YouTube]

lol are you claiming its going 500 mph..are you claiming Boeing is wrong on its flight specs ?...its a video of a plane flying big deal

Vapor is forming above the wings when that Boeing 757 turns up after it's high speed pass. That means it is hauling ass. The transonic sound wave shook the camera as the plane flew by. Below are pictures of planes breaking the 761/mph mach 1 sound barrier at ground level & a video of planes doing just that on high speed low passes.

[youtube]ia2OE2Amvj0[/youtube]
[youtube]-8gpQSgaG6c[/youtube]

 

[KissMy]

based on analysis of radar data, the national transportation and safety board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots.

operating velocity. Obviously you couldn't fly a plane faster than the maximum operating velocity for a minute or two because.......well......it's easier to wire tons of explosives or thermite into a building without detection.

Egyptair 990 broke the sound barrier for a brief time before it crashed and still lasted a few more minutes.

it was not in a straight down uncontrolled dive it was making near impossible flight maneuvers...

I don't see how it would be uncontrollable until it approached mach-1. Egypt Air Flight 990 was a B-767 that exceeded 740/mph before it made hard turn into a climb with no engines & then stalled & crashed. COPA Air flight 201 which was a B-737 that has a weaker older slower 544/mph max airframe speed broke up well under 10k-ft going well over 560/mph for 75 seconds. So my estimate is 590/mph at 800-ft in a B-767 might break it up. 510 knots / 586/mph was what they said Flight 175 hit when it crashed into WTC2.

[YouTube]AzB7Gg9BhSA[/YouTube]

Additional facts:

At Boeing testing, (see video below) the Boeing 767 structural design test failed at 154% of max airframe VMO or G-force exceeding their 150% goal. If you take the B-767 max low altitude airframe VMO speed of 360 knots times 150% of max airframe design goal it will fail above 540 knots or 622 mph in low altitude.

COPA Air flight 201 which was a B-737 that has a weaker older slower low altitude 340 knot VMO max airframe speed rating. So that low altitude max airframe 340kt/VMO times 150% is 510kt or 587mph. It was inverted & out of control & broke up in low altitude well under 10k-ft going well over 560/mph for 75 seconds. In that condition it flew at 143% of it's max low altitude 340kt/VMO airframe speed. If it's horizon attitude was properly functioning allowing the pilots to properly properly fly that plane it could have made that 150% of max low altitude speed mark of 587mph.

Even if you assume that COPA Air flight 201's 143% is the max speed before failure, take The B-767 low altitude max 360kt/VMO times 143% = 515 knot / 593mph breakup speed at low altitude. So the United Airline flight 175 speed of 586mph is still below COPA Air flight 201's 143% low altitude airframe breakup speed.

Boeing 767 test at 154% design limit load.
[youtube]WRf395ioJRY[/youtube]

Others have pointed out before that Egypt Air flight 990 exceed .99 Mach & recovered to climb thousands of feet from a negative 2G dive to a plus 3G climb. The only reason it went back out of control & broke-up at forces that we don't know was because of sabotage by pilot. The reason EA-990 Flight data recorders lost power before it pulled out of the negative G dive & recovered was not because it was breaking up before that, it was because the suicidal pilot pulled the RAT circuit breaker & shut the fuel to both engines prior to the dive. So as they recovered from the .99 mach dive, the engines finished their fuel & the RAT failed to deploy causing a total power loss to the flight recorders & flight controls. This made them lose control of the aircraft & gave us no record of the forces that eventually destroyed the aircraft.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

15 "count them 15" farts in a row from the agent trolls.

thats got to be some kind of world record.

Their handlers are really getting desperate now sending them here in droves at one time.