this might be more along the lines of the evidence he was looking to ignore:Andyman_1970 said:
sandia labs rocket sled tests
More tin foil for Changleen's hat...
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
sandia labs rocket sled tests
Umm, a few things -Andyman_1970 said:
1) That's not a video, it's a series of stills.
2) Where's the plane? I don't see a plane. I certainly don't see it hit the lawn and then the pentagon as you claim
3) The date is wrong...
4) The colour of the explosion appears significantly different from the ones at the twin towers.
Take a look at this:
http://www.jar2.com/2/Theories/Pentagon.htm
If you remember correctly, you will recall that the fires were basically out and had been for a while before the buildings collapsed. Secondly, softening of the beams does not hold with your pancake collapse theory. Have you seen the designs of the building?MMike said:
The WTC buildings both collapsed at very very close to the acceleration due to gravity Being as the bottom 2/3's were undamaged, how did this happen? Each floor hit would have slowed the fall some, more at the beginning.
Secondly If the force of the falling building is strong enough to pulverize concrete (remember the huge clouds of fine concrete dust?) then the bolts and rivets would have to hold beyond that force and then give way. Yet the force to pulverize concrete into fine powder is greater than the force that sheers or stretches steel bolts and rivets. It cannot be both ways.
The stuff on that site is rubbish.
The point of impact on the Pentagon was small because the aircraft collided with the ground at a slight angle just before hitting the building. It hit at somewhere between 250-600nmph. The fuselage was flattened by the impact, the wing spars fractured and the wings were pulled back by the engines and followed the empenage into the hole.
The "where are the pieces" question is equally absurd. As I said above, there are aircraft crashes in which much of the plane remains intact, and others in which there is nothing left but a smoking hole. The fact that there are no large pieces is not unremarkable, particularly in light of the fact that the aircraft decelerated from as much as 600nmph to zero in a span of about 10' as it was passing through five foot thick reinforced concrete.
The sand and gravel were being laid down on the lawn to support the weight of the heavy equipment that was being used in cleanup/construction.
How do I know this? I have been trained by the USAF in aircraft crash investigation, and I spoke with a person who works at the pentagon and was in the parking lot when the plane crashed. She saw the whole thing, was aroung the pentagon during cleanup and still works there.
Again Chang, like I said above in the post that you have yet to respond to. Get your info from people who know what they are talking about rather than crackpot internet conspiracy theorists.
The point of impact on the Pentagon was small because the aircraft collided with the ground at a slight angle just before hitting the building. It hit at somewhere between 250-600nmph. The fuselage was flattened by the impact, the wing spars fractured and the wings were pulled back by the engines and followed the empenage into the hole.
The "where are the pieces" question is equally absurd. As I said above, there are aircraft crashes in which much of the plane remains intact, and others in which there is nothing left but a smoking hole. The fact that there are no large pieces is not unremarkable, particularly in light of the fact that the aircraft decelerated from as much as 600nmph to zero in a span of about 10' as it was passing through five foot thick reinforced concrete.
The sand and gravel were being laid down on the lawn to support the weight of the heavy equipment that was being used in cleanup/construction.
How do I know this? I have been trained by the USAF in aircraft crash investigation, and I spoke with a person who works at the pentagon and was in the parking lot when the plane crashed. She saw the whole thing, was aroung the pentagon during cleanup and still works there.
Again Chang, like I said above in the post that you have yet to respond to. Get your info from people who know what they are talking about rather than crackpot internet conspiracy theorists.
BTW, as to your question about missing aircraft parts at the pentagon
A gas genarator rotor
A portion of the fuselage
An interior structural support with AN tubing attached
landing gear
A portion of a flight control bellcrank and its mounting structure.
A gas genarator rotor
A portion of the fuselage
An interior structural support with AN tubing attached
landing gear
A portion of a flight control bellcrank and its mounting structure.
SweetDamn True said:
I've taken several graduate level courses on aircraft accident investigation and would concur with your analysis.
Haha, do you know what adiabatic means? You can't spell it. :dancing:Damn True said:
The temp you quote is the maximum theoretically possible, with zero heat loss to the surrounding environment (that's what abiabatic means) which also means there has to be a perfect supply of oxygen and, far more importantly, it has to be pressurised - The higher the pressure, the higher the MA. You've also neglected to quote the pressure at which that particular MA occurs. 2300°K would mean about 5 atmospheres I'd say off the top of my head. It can get considerably higher than that a higher pressures. Admit it, you just googled for that and have demonstrated you don't properly understand it.
Anyway, neither of those situations apply at all in the fires in the WTC towers. Kerosene burning in normal air can reach a maximum temperature of nearly 800°C. In the WTC fires, we see a lot of black smoke, that indicates it was not burning at maximum efficiency. Unsurprising as the fire was largely contained within the building. Several sources estimate the fire to be burning at 550°F - 600°F, which is considerably below the 1100°F forging temperature of steel and a whole ****load below the nearly 2700°F melting point (for a regular structural grade).
Bwahahaha - I have a degree in materials enginnering from Brunel university in London.
Edit - Please excuse, the temps are °F not °C. Corrupted by my time in the states.
Oh, by the way....in a follow up to my post on the last page in which I listed the maximum adibatic burn tempreture of JP-8 at 2300k (to which Chang has not responded) .......structural steel melts at about 1600k.
1) checkmate?Changleen said:
2) who can argue with this?
3) i'm pretty sure the september 11th attacks did happen on 9/11 (you're doing that silly euro switch-the-month-and-day thing again)
4) adjust your monitor
i read all over your amusingly purile link (i do hope you don't write webpages that shoddy -- right scrolling???), and would like to respond from the authority of a layperson to the seven Q's axed:
1) without providing any physical characterstics whatsoever, who can begin to assert - to say nothing of conclude - anything from 2 very distant overhead shots?
2) both photos obscure the ground prior to the building. additionally, a plane is not a cube; when it is "14.9 yrds high", that's the top of the tail for a width of a few feet (when looking straight on, as planes tend to fly)
3) this question implies there should be absolutely discernable flotsam from a photo taken intra-immolation at ~400 yds; but this gets snagged up in the assertion applied in Q 1: that the craft should be farther into the building. What's that you just posted: "you can't have it both ways"
4) the pentagon is next to a tidal basin, & essentially at sea-level. You go driving heavy equipment on grass just above sea-level, and you're not gonna be going anywhere after a few runs. It becomes a mud-bog. stop & look at a construction site sometime. while you're there, ask for an app.
5) as i stated yesterday, you cannot come to expect an object shaped hole from an object with non-uniform characteristics (density, hardness, failure rate, pliability, etc.). Watch much wile e. coyote?
6) credence is given to the fire chief's testimony, but at the cost of question 3. Moreover, please make the effort to understand that fuselages aren't infinitely hard stamped steel.
7) don't have x-ray filter loaded on mozilla yet (it's still in beta), so i can't tell you what's behind all the smoke in the picture. It may well be karl rove ripping up pieces of the koran and throwing it into the crash site, eh?
i must say, i did like the way it wrapped up nicely with this black-helo quote:
the author clearly does not know fact one about air-handling, airline logistics, payload, and most likely isn't yet potty-trained.
i see below (in prev mode) that the pig-piling has started in earnest.
ink: ink: ink:None of which are large enough to have come from the plane in question. Come on, look at the 'structural support' or the 'gas genarator rotor' (sic - I think you mean turbine hub) - both are WAY to small to come from a Boeing.Damn True said:
Changleen said:
Blah blah blah..... I know ex****ingzactly what I'm talking about and I am referancing a USAF aircraft fire control manual printed in 1997. Which is why I mentioned that even if the stuff was burning at only 1/2 of MA it would still be more than hot enough to destroy the heat treating of the structural steel if not melt it completely.
...and typical structural steel melts at about 1600-1700k
as for your several sources.....most likely the same wackjobs that you are getting the rest of your crap info from.
No, I mean gas genarator. The gas generator is at the rear of a turbofan engine, downstream of the combustion chamber which is downstream of the compressor assembly. The gas generator drives the fan at the front of the turbofan engine and the engine accesories.Changleen said:
You have no idea what you are talking about Chang. I spent eleven years in and around all manner of aircraft. I am a licensed aircraft mechanic, I can fly a helipoter, I have been to USAF aircraft crash investigation school and have taken part in the investigation of the crashes of ten different aircraft (shall I list them?)
No the crackpot theories spouted by the people who put that rubbish site together and nutjobs like you who have no freakin idea what they are talking about.Changleen said:What, actual photos of the actual incident straight after it happened?
Did that particular plane have the JT-8D engine, the CFM56-3 or CFM56-7?
Whats your point? Those are Boeing aircraft parts in the building and on the grounds surrounding it.
You clearly have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about here.
You are quoting sources that have no idea what they are talking about (wackjob internet conspiracy theorists).
I have attempted to educate you with actual fact concerning what really happens in aircraft accidents and you have refused to listen to any of it. Others have presented you with fact concerning structural failure and you have refused to listen to any of it. You continue to reply with one nonsense claim after another based on those same conspiracy theorists.
Done discussing this with you. If you wish to prattle on feel free to do so.
Whats your point? Those are Boeing aircraft parts in the building and on the grounds surrounding it.
You clearly have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about here.
You are quoting sources that have no idea what they are talking about (wackjob internet conspiracy theorists).
I have attempted to educate you with actual fact concerning what really happens in aircraft accidents and you have refused to listen to any of it. Others have presented you with fact concerning structural failure and you have refused to listen to any of it. You continue to reply with one nonsense claim after another based on those same conspiracy theorists.
Done discussing this with you. If you wish to prattle on feel free to do so.
Damn True said:
Yup, I heard a lot of facts come out of your mouth, DT. Here, lets' just do a count:
1) and typical structural steel melts at about 1600-1700k
Huh. That's it. Aside from that you simply dismiss anything you disagree with. You quote science you don't understand and clearly can't apply properly, and utterly ignore the main points of my argument. 10 out of 10 on the republican argument scale. Well done.
Sorry Sanjuro - Missed yours:
a) In air, 550°F - 600°F. b) 2700°Fsanjuro said:
Well, being as the towers were designed to survive hurricanes and actually the impact of the largest airliner in existance at the time of their manufacture, quite a lot. Secondly, do you really buy that the floor or floors in question failed completely uniformly, at the same fraction of a second, despite the fact that the planes didn't hit in the same fashion, or in the centre of the buildings in either case? How could this happen? Look at photos of the construction of WTC. It just doesn't add up. Thirdly, being as the bottom 2/3s were undamaged, why was the collapse speed so close to the acceleration due to gravity? The undamaged portion of the building would have at least slowed the collapse significantly, neither would have the concrete have been pulverised so completely.
Just some minor debris from the main impact. The building is a block away from the main towers. The buildings around it survived.
Steel doesn't 'burn' as such, at least not in this situation. It reaches it's forging temperature (when it can be deformed by impact) at 1100°F.Andyman_1970 said:
The same temperature must be reached in both cases. It would take a smaller amount of energy to heat up a smaller volume of steel. However, if the temperature of the fire is below the softening temperature, a beam of any size will no somehow get 'hotter' than another. The observed fire, burning orange with black smoke (550-600°F) would not be hot enough to get the steel into such a state.
Proof: Google for the Madrid skyscraper fire, or the Venzuala (sic) fire. Both recent fires in steel framed skyscrapers. The Madrid blaze utterly consumed the building and reached far higher temperatures than those in the WTC. You can see the effects of beam weakening throughout the structure. The fire burned for 14 hours as a pose to the 1 + 2 hour fires in the WTCs and still stood.
See my response.
Sanjuro, the above is utter rubbish. For an explaination of how and why the buildings came down from people who know what they are talking about rather than conjecture from crackpots read the info on the links below.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/world_trade.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
And contrary to what the tinfoil hat crowd would have you believe, the WTC collapse was not the first and only time that a large building collapsed due to fire.
In 1967, the largest convention center in the U.S., Chicago's McCormick Place, collapsed. The cause was a relatively small fire that started on the convention floor. The heat generated from the fire caused thermal distortions of the steel structure, which led to huge thermal stresses in the support and roof trusses. This was due to the non-uniform expansion of the beams and their rigid connections. The entire building was pulled down, internally, by these forces. As a result of a study of the collapse, many changes were made to the design and materials used in convention centers built since that time.
The collapse of WTC seven is attributed to fire reaching the three 10,000 gallon diesel tanks that were in the building to sustain the genarator system for the New York City Emergency Management Control Station housed therin. Huge lesson to be learned there on storing large amounts of fuel in a high rise.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/wonder/structure/world_trade.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
And contrary to what the tinfoil hat crowd would have you believe, the WTC collapse was not the first and only time that a large building collapsed due to fire.
In 1967, the largest convention center in the U.S., Chicago's McCormick Place, collapsed. The cause was a relatively small fire that started on the convention floor. The heat generated from the fire caused thermal distortions of the steel structure, which led to huge thermal stresses in the support and roof trusses. This was due to the non-uniform expansion of the beams and their rigid connections. The entire building was pulled down, internally, by these forces. As a result of a study of the collapse, many changes were made to the design and materials used in convention centers built since that time.
The collapse of WTC seven is attributed to fire reaching the three 10,000 gallon diesel tanks that were in the building to sustain the genarator system for the New York City Emergency Management Control Station housed therin. Huge lesson to be learned there on storing large amounts of fuel in a high rise.
Changleen it honestly hurts reading this after I just earned my degree in engineering. Granted, I didn't have a concentration in materials.
I'll try to make it simple
-Steel melts at about 2700F
-Jet fuel burns at around 1500F
-Steel loses around 50% strength at 1200F
-Extreme temp differential would have caused sagging and eventually breaking.
I'll try to make it simple
-Steel melts at about 2700F
-Jet fuel burns at around 1500F
-Steel loses around 50% strength at 1200F
-Extreme temp differential would have caused sagging and eventually breaking.
In which his analysis is refered to as a "back of an envelope' analysisDamn True said:
and is based on the weak truss model which has been disproved by actual photos of the construction of the tower and he says the fire wouldn't have been enough to bring down the towers. Try again. You still have the huge questions to deal with:How did the towers fall at just below the acceleration due to gravity without explosive assistance?
Where's your 30,000 gallon diesel fire in WTC7? In reality are there not just a few, small discrete fires on different floors?
What about the reports of explosions at the base of the towers shortly before they fell?
In the very first part of the collapse, before you can even notice the top of the tower start to move, fine concrete dust is generated as we see throughout the collapse. How did any pure collapse generate enough energy to utterly pulverise said concrete after fractions of a second or even before the main collapse was initiated without explosives?
No, you are mistaken. The first tennants moved in early in 1970, the buildings were fully opened in 1973.Changleen said:And the WTC towers were built in 1973
Video and photos of the building certainly don't tie up with a 30,000 gallon diesel fire in the building. You'd think someone might have noticed that...
Construction began in 1966. Id guess they were designed sometime before that.
Not if you just pour it on the ground and light it, it doesn't. Note the black sooty smoke and orange flame in the WTC fires. Not exactly a 1500°F fire eh?Inclag said:
What about after 57 minutes? The Madrid building stood for 14 hours in a far more intense and all consuming blaze. The fires were both largely out by the time the towers collasped.
I'll take a "back of an envelope" analysis from a professor of materials engineering at MIT over internet conspiracy theorists, including you, any day.
Thanks for answering all my questions, DT. Well played. Still not found a photo of WTC7 on fire from 30,000 Gallons of fuel? There are plenty out there...Damn True said:
Here's one taken at 3pm:
I guess the fire pretty much out by then and they'd managed to get in and reglaze all the lower floors.
Even when the major assumption it is based on is wrong?Damn True said:
Here are the Trusses as described by the FEMA report, as you will note placed in one direction only in order to support their expansion theory:
And here is a photo of the actual building during construction:
As you can clearly see top centre and bottom right, the trusses run in both directions. And just look at how much steel the core is constructed from! It's girder central. Can you seriously look at that and give much credance to the 'pancake' theory? I could believe it if maybe the core remained standing, but even supposing the FEMA drawing was correct, and the 'unsupported' floor areas did collapse, how did they pull down the centre?
According to another qualified engineer (DT - read: conspiricy nutjob) The "truss theory", if accepted, leads to a 33 percent underestimate of the amount of steel in the towers. That is, the truss theory does not account for the whereabouts of 32,000 tons of steel (of 96,000 tons) used in the construction of each of the towers.
Ok genius, what DID bring those towers down?
Most theories seem to assert that there was some sort of explosive catylyst for the buildings falling. Are you in agreement with that?
Keep in mind while you are thinking about this that the world record thus far for an explosive building demolition is a building of 2.7 million sq. feet which took 12,000lbs of explosives.
The WTC towers were roughly 10 million sq. feet each . How exactly would one move that amount of explosives into a building as public as the WTC, and do all of the prep work to drop the building completely undetected.
Most theories seem to assert that there was some sort of explosive catylyst for the buildings falling. Are you in agreement with that?
Keep in mind while you are thinking about this that the world record thus far for an explosive building demolition is a building of 2.7 million sq. feet which took 12,000lbs of explosives.
The WTC towers were roughly 10 million sq. feet each . How exactly would one move that amount of explosives into a building as public as the WTC, and do all of the prep work to drop the building completely undetected.
More stuff from people that make sense as opposed to wacky conspiracy theorists.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/collapse-of-the-world-trade-center
http://www.continuitycentral.com/news01832.htm
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0515/news_1-1.html
http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=040805021055
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7236
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/collapse-of-the-world-trade-center
http://www.continuitycentral.com/news01832.htm
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0515/news_1-1.html
http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=040805021055
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7236
Oh my god Chang.... I just can't even understand what it must be like dealing with you in real life.
I don't even remember what your original point was. You're saying that the planes hit, then the gov't secret agents ran in, rigged both towers with explosives, and blew them up?
I don't even remember what your original point was. You're saying that the planes hit, then the gov't secret agents ran in, rigged both towers with explosives, and blew them up?
